August 9, 2003 at 10:05 pm #15473Larry GibbonsParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 14
To T8 and GJG:
First, T8, I can only find record of one birth of Jesus in all of scripture. If he pre-existed it’s fair to ask how. If he was the Word, what was he? Perhaps you have some insight I have missed.
Regarding what I understand to be true, I am copying an exerpt from an article on my web page for you to examine:
In Ephesians 1:11, we see that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Here and in other scriptures, it becomes apparent that God had a plan and a purpose for His creation by which He would show forth His glory. I believe that in eternity past, before creation, God determined exactly how He would express Himself by condescending to our level so that we might be able to know and enjoy Him. The invisible, unchanging God would reveal Himself through a visible man. Standing outside of time, God pointed to this man throughout the Old Testament by means of many instances, types, prophecies, and even narratives between Himself and the man. God not only wrote the script; he played the parts and spoke the lines. From the time Christ was born at Bethlehem, all these prophetic scriptures would bear witness that Jesus was THE man. A close reading of the gospel of John will bear out this relationship of Christ to God His Father. Because His will was to do that of His Father, he is the perfect image of God. He, as the second Adam, is also the perfect example of man, what God intends for us to be. Here is what we choose to call the Dual Nature of Christ— the nature of God and the nature of man, each retaining its own opposite attributes, existing in one person, in a union of perfect harmony. First touched upon in 451 A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon, this truth that was termed the “hypostatic union,” even then it was not fully appreciated and remains so yet today. In essence it declared:
“In the person of Christ there are two natures (deity and humanity) united in such a way as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, each nature retaining its own absolutes.”
Though such a statement was a great milestone in the Church’s quest to understand Christ as both man and God, its full significance was missed because of the presumption that both natures belonged to Christ. No, the two natures were not united in terms of a common “substance” (as regarded in that day) but by a common will and purpose.
Consider what has been said, that the Father took up residence in the physical body of Jesus. Are not the two natures evident? One is God and the other is Christ. One is the Father and the other is the Son. Two natures, each with attributes completely opposite to the other. There it is, the Dual Nature. Chalcedon had the right formula, though it reached the wrong conclusion. Influenced by the Creeds that credited Christ with both deity and humanity, the two natures were thought to be exclusively those of Christ. The Deity nature was assumed to be that of Christ–wrong! No, in Christ the Deity nature dwelled in him who was fully man—right! Scripture is always right. How wise of God that He should speak to us in terms we can all understand. Just as we all have a natural father, so as many as choose to believe have a spiritual Father. Yes, we are children born of God! Never are we said to be children of Christ; he is our big brother, we his brethren. No need to be a great theologian to understand that.
T8, I hope the above is helpful in explaining where I stand.
GJG, regarding your post of my post to T8 that you posted with the remark, "I agree with all that," with exactly what part do you agree? Your other post seems to disagree, at least in part. Let me address your remarks about Jesus being "more than a mere mortal babe."
I certainly agree. Apart from the first Adam, he was the only man ever born without a sin nature. But though he was fathered by God’s spirit, he was nevertheless born fully human. Like everyone of us, he required the care and nurture of his parents. He had to grow up like the rest of us, to learn how to crawl, to walk, to talk, etc. As Luke 2:52 says, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man." Perhaps Mary didn’t share Gabriel’s message to her with him; admittedly that is speculation, but she would not have needed to have understood the message fully to have shared it. God surely had to have given her some insight in view of her words recorded about Jesus’ first miracle at Cana. We do know for sure that Jesus acquired great insight about scripture, I think in much the same way as we born again believers who are hungry to know God feast upon His words and come into understanding by His spirit in us.
I think the scriptures you quoted are in accord with this and are given to show that he was really special yet representative of how God enables us to gradually grow in both physical stature and in spiritual wisdom.
I think we are basically in agreement. Surely the spirit of God was with Jesus from his birth. If we differ it may be in how we view the concept of the "dual nature" of Christ. Words can often get us in trouble (for instance, you question whether Deity should be referred to as a person, and I think possible phrases like "dual nature" may sometimes do more to hinder than to help. That being so, let me give you my understanding from the Gospel accounts. I think there is a marked difference in Jesus’ life before and after his baptism by John. It is after his baptism that his ministry begins and people marveled at his words and miracles. Prior to that time, he was undoubtedly regarded as a good man, but his friends were ready to throw him over a cliff when he identified himself as the Messiah at Nazareth.
You say, "Just like the man Jesus, he affected others around him." Who are you referring to? I don’t understand. You say that through puberty, no ordinary young man would be able to remain totally sinless. I disagree. I think the lifestyle of many young people today is to refrain from fornication. True, we are all tempted, and surely Jesus was, yet without sin, desiring to please God rather than his own passions.
How do we a born again believers walk with God? Is it not in the same way the Jesus did, as least so far as when we focus on his love for us and life in us? Whether we fall short in mind or deed, agreement with God brings instant forgiveness and cleansing according to I John I:9. We are not saved by keeping all the fine points of the law, but by faith in Christ. My own personal view is that his life was characterized in the same manner, even if to a greater degree. I see no halo around Jesus’ head but instead a real flesh and blood man with a heart for God, where his actions were governed by love for God and man.
I hope I haven’t misinterpreted what you state and that my response is helpful.August 10, 2003 at 8:39 am #15492
Thanks Larry. I will reply to both you an GJG soon.August 10, 2003 at 8:43 am #15520
To global ,
My first response to Part I on page 20
Your quotes are in gray.
Also, I am not sure how you want to structure this, but if you reply to this Post with a rebuttal, then perhaps we should work on that, until I move to the next part. Otherwise I can reply to each of your points and you can take notes as I post, then you could post it all in one go. I leave it up to you, but either structure is fine by me. I am also open to suggestions from you with regards to structure.
I don’t find these scriptures confusing, no-one has seen God in all his splendour as he truly is in Heaven, but does this mean that God cannot appear as a human (or even as several humans) and we see him in that form?
Lets look at Genesis 18:1-2
Yahweh appeared to him, He looked up, and there he saw three men.
Abraham addresses the 3 men as Yahweh, and they are described interchangeably as they replied or Yahweh replied.
When two of the men depart to visit Lot in Sodom, Abraham continues to address the remaining man as Yahweh, but Lot addresses the other two as Yahweh as well (Gen 19:18).
The word 'LORD' the one who appeared to Abraham in these verses is the Hebrew word 'Yahweh'. In Gen 19:18 the word is 'adown' which means lord, Lord (note: not Yahweh), master, owner, sir. The word is used in the following contexts:
reference to men
- proprietor of hill of Samaria
reference to God
- Lord of lords
- the Lord God
- Lord of the whole earth
So when this word is used to describe God, it is accompanied with a description as to what kind of lord/master we are talking about.
e.g Lord of the whole earth means = Master of the whole earth etc. The word lord on it's own can denote any kind of authority. So we can address Yahweh as master, but it appears that when this word is used to talk about God, it is accompanied with other words in order to describe that God is being referred to.
Moving on, we see in chapter 19:1-2 the following:
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
So we can see that they were angels and we can also see that they were referred to as lords. Although the hebrew word for lord and lords is actually the same word in the Masoretic text. I am not sure if this is because Hebrew doesn't have a plural version like English or whether the translators used lord in plural to make it sound sensible to them.
Also we see in chapter 19:13
For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
So here we can see the following:
- these 2 persons are Angels
- they speak on their own accord
- they are referring to the LORD as another person.
So we end up with the word 'Yahweh' being used only when the other visitor is present.
So why are three angels/men referred to as LORD in chapter 18 and in chapter 19 two angels are referred to as lords or angels only?
As far as Abraham addressing all 3 men and them replying, I would like to first point out that it would be hard to believe that all 3 spoke at the same time and I would also like to point out something that was shown to me about 10 days ago by a member of this Forum:
It is entirely possible that Abraham was addressing one of the three as he could have appeared as a being of higher rank. A Lord and his servants. The one in charge accepted the invitation and the other two would naturally agree because he was in charge. But did all 3 men really answer. Well we are given that impression because the word THEY is used.
Now this person pointed out to me that the word THEY doesn't have a number beside it in the Strongs. So this word must have been added in order to make gramatical sense in English. So the word THEY could possibly be an error. Anyway I checked it out first in the Strongs and yes it is true that there is no word number for THEY. I then checked it out in the Masoretic Text and again a Hebrew word for the English word THEY is not in the text. English translators have added in that word to obviously make the verse readable, but in doing so they just assumed that all 3 answered, when there is nothing in this verse in the Hebrew to say that all 3 answered Abraham.
The 3 words AND THEY SAID is the translation of the Hebrew word 'dabar'. This word has the following meanings:
So there doesn't appear to be anything in the text to say that all 3 men answered.
Anyway, let's imagine that all 3 did answer Abraham, which is still possible. We could assume that they answered at different times and this surely doesn't rule out that the first visitor was of higher rank and that Abraham was addressing the first visitor.
Now even if Abraham was addressing all three as Yahweh and all 3 answered, then does that actually prove that Abraham was referring to all of them as Yahweh, it is also possible that Abraham was addressing Yahweh as the invisible eternal Spirit that was in these beings.
Whatever way we look at these verses, we do need to read them in the light of other scripture and other encounters of men seeing God show us that the Angel of the Lord was present. So it is very possible that the first visitor is the Angel of the Lord.
Anyway, I think that it is safe to say that God did not appear as 3 men, rather he appeared in 3 men/angels. He was not actually those men/angels he was in them, (same as a human who has the Spirit of God dwelling in them) and as we see in chapter 19, 2 of these men/angels were able to talk and do other things that people can do and then refer to the LORD as another person.
Now if we look at Moses's encounter when he saw God, we know that the Angel of the Lord appeared to him. But if that detail were not recorded, then I am sure that many would use this occurance to prove that a person can see the invisible God. But would that make it correct? No it wouldn't. Omission of detail doesn't some how change the meaning and this is why I think we need to read scripture in the light of scripture.
We can learn in at least 3 ways from scripture. By teaching and doctrine, events and patterns. I look at these verses as events and also in light of the pattern of other occurances of men seeing God.
So my opinion is that the first visitor was the Angel of the Lord and the 2nd and 3rd visitors were Angels. Again I repeat that this is my opinion. I certainly do not think that God appeared as 3 Men, like he created 3 bodies for the occassion and indwelt and spoke through them at the same time. We never see this kind of thing in other scriptures.August 10, 2003 at 12:01 pm #15538
To global ,
My 2nd response to your Biblical Arguments Part I back on page 20
Your quotes are in gray.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
This scripture plainly points out that for us (believers) there is only one God the Father and Jesus is our only Lord.
So, the argument seems to be that there is only one God, the Father, therefore Jesus is not God.
But lets apply that logic to the whole verse, there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ therefore God is not Lord.
This conclusion is absurd as we know that God is Lord, so the fallacy in this logic as applied to this verse is evident.
Ok let's apply your own logic to the following verse:
1 Corinthians 6
14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.
Your logic is the one that is absurd because if the Father is God and so is Jesus, then God also raised himself from the dead and if the Father is God and the Lord, then Jesus also raised his Father from the dead. So the fallacy in this logic as applied to this verse is evident.
Now let's look at your logic and it's conation to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, the scripture in question. I believe that your logic completely renders what Paul was saying as invalid. If for example Paul is saying that there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, and your interpretation is the correct one, then what was Paul actually talking about? Sounds to me that he was talking through a hole in his hat or to put it another way, he is rambling. Why say that there is only one God, the Father if he didn't mean it, or if it is not true? Also why would Paul mention God and Lord as different? (There are many gods and many lords). You seem to interchange them whenever you feel like it, or to fit your belief.
Now if you think about it, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 would have been the perfect place for Paul to teach the trinity. He was defining what we should believe and it is the closest thing to a creed that I have seen in scripture. Except that todays creeds are completely contradictory.
As a Trinity believer, surely you would have to ask why Paul just didn't say that there is one God made up of 3 personalities, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, as you believe. If this were so, then we wouldn't even be debating this subject would we. But he didn't, he taught us a different structure to that of the Trinity doctrine. Simple and clear, even a child can understand Paul's teachings here.
Now to read 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 in the light of other scripture, I would like to quote the following:
3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called,
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
So these verses condemn your logic and conclusion in that it stresses 1 faith, not 2 faiths, 1 body, not 2 bodies of Christ, 1 God not 2 Gods and 1 Lord not 2 Lords. It also says that the Father is God and Jesus is Lord. Not the Father is Lord and Jesus is God.
Instead of trying to fit scripture into man-made creeds, why don't you just read the scriptures the way they are written and draw your conclusion from there? Even if it contradicts your current belief, just continue to learn. If you did this you would have the truth and it would all make perfect sense in time.
I personally believe that Paul would have rebuked you and warned the flock about your leaven, (had you lived in his day) because you are actually attacking what Paul is teaching here. Remember Paul warned us in Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe that you are denying the only Lord God, by having other Lord God's and this verse does differentiate between the Lord Jesus and the only Lord God who we know is the Father.
God became a Father, when he begat a Son. It's so simple, yet men have to complicate the faith because of pride and in doing so, they are led away from this simple truth.August 10, 2003 at 2:21 pm #15550globalParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 86
Hi T8, yes that’s fine, I’ll just post my answers to your replies as you post them.
I think I partly answered some of your points about the phrase Angel of the Lord in my post on page 21, but I’ll copy it again here so people don’t have to turn back –
There is no doubt that these passages talking about angels or the angel of the Lord are very difficult due to the lack of clarity in the original texts, which at times seem to use the terms Lord and angel of the Lord interchangeably, and also that some texts have the Lord and others the angel of the Lord.
For example in Exodus 13.21 it says the Lord went before the Israelites in a cloud, but in 14.19 it calls their guide the angel of God. However by ch. 33 when God is angry with them it seems clear that it was indeed God himself who accompanied them because he says he will not go with them anymore and offers an angel instead.
This situation is further confused by different texts. The Massoretic text aswell as the vulgate both clearly identify God as appearing to Moses in the bush while the Septuagint says it was the angel of the Lord. The Septuagint itself seems to be inconsistent on this point because in Judges 6 it renders the Hebrew “Lord” as “the angel of the Lord”, but in the story of the cloud in Exodus it makes no changes.
That the same person who speaks to Moses should be called both the Lord and the Angel of the Lord is very hard to understand. Many, e.g. Tertullian, have seen in it a prelude of the revelation of the Incarnation.
St Augustine in Sermo vii, de Scripturis, P. G. V held the same view, saying "he is called both the Lord and the angel of the Lord because he was Christ, indeed the prophet (Is., ix, 6, Septuagint Ver.) clearly styles Christ the ‘Angel of great Counsel."
Now, I said when I raised this point that I accept it doesn’t prove the Trinity, but only that God can appear in the form of a man.
Even if I accept your point that 2 of the men were not addressed as Yahweh, (and were therefore angels) this still leaves us with one man being addressed as Yahweh.
You say that you think the third man was an angel aswell, but I prefer to simply accept what the Bible says –
Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre
Your version requires an interpretation, mine doesn’t.
Now all this was raised because the summary began by saying that no man has ever seen God.
I posted the above arguments to show that I believed that no man has seen God in all his heavenly glory, but this doesn’t mean that God cannot appear in the form of a man.
In fact we know that Moses did in fact see God, although only from behind,
Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!"
And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."
But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock;
and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by.
"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."
This seems to confirm my position that when other verses in the Bible say no one has seen God it just means in all his all heavenly glory.
Moses saw God, but not his whole glory. So God could appear as a man and it wouldn’t contradict the verses that say no man has seen God either.
Be Well.August 10, 2003 at 10:49 pm #15565SunshineParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 1
To those saying the Jesus is not God:
Isaiah 44:6 and 45:5 and 45:6 and 45:11 on and on it says it, Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, I am the first, and the last, and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 22:16,13 "I, Jesus…I am the first and the last"
Then calls Him the Almighty Rev.4:8
How in John 1:1-4 could Jesus be "a god"? He Couldn’t. He is THE LORD. (Almighty)
Isaiah 12:12 I have made the earth and sreated man upon it I even my hands have stretched out the heavens…
Not just ‘through’ His word, but with His hands, therefore for Jesus not to be THE God, they would be both liars saying they ‘both’ created everything. I know my God is NOT a liar.
Isaiah 45:21 and also 43:11 I even I am the LORD, and beside me there is no savior. I have declared, and have saved, and I have showed, when there was no strange god AMONG you, therefore you are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. 2 Samuel 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock. And I can’t find it at this second, but it also says He’s the again ONLY Rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4 talking about with Moses: ‘and the Rock was the Christ.’
Duet. 32:20 The LORD: He is the rock…
Deut 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he and there is no god with me.
Isaiah 46:5,9 To whom will you liken me, and make me equal,and compare me, that we may be like? Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none like else, I am God, and there is none like me.
Jesus is Him.
To those who say Jesus is NOT God, not to be rude, but read your bible because it clearly states that He is. Otherwise they are both liars! I can go on further, I don’t think I need to, because if you disagree with what I already wrote, your calling God a liar which would condemn your whole faith. It clearly sates that He is.August 11, 2003 at 12:06 am #15594
You are parrotting of all the usual trinitarian stuff. We have debated these things before and the verses you quote are a mixture of scriptures that talk about the Father and his Son. If you took your own advice and read the bible, you would see that the word ' God' is always referring to the Father. Read following in Rev 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
So who gave the Revelation to Jesus?
In Rev 22 the verse you quoted, you will find the following:
The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.
So if Jesus is God, then who is the Lamb?
You then take some attributes that are given to Jesus from God and you make that your proof that he is God. Now we know that Jesus is the Holy One of God right, and we who are called are also called to be holy ones. So your reasoning means that we are Christ. This is exactly what you are doing and again I would please ask you to take your own advice and read your bible or more of this discussion before posting something that proves nothing.
But more importantly, I would ask that you humble yourself to be teachable and open to what God may show you. If not, then there is no point for you to be here.
In light of your Post Sunshine, I can only hope that this Discussion doesn't end up in a thoughtless trintarian fest because if we get meaningless Posts that just rattle of the same old stuff with no indepth thought or study, it will only water down the discussion and turn into some kind of silly argument with no true substance or consideration.
At least Global (a trinitarian believer) is challenging each scripture and providing some substance as to his point of view. This is what this discussion needs right now. Not a “five minute quote some scriptures and this proves it attitude”, and then go and watch TV or whatever.August 11, 2003 at 1:11 am #15164
The fact that Jesus is God is not as important as discovering ‘how’ He is God, and yet perfect man. Please read Larry Gibbons recent post on the ‘dual-nature’ of Jesus and see what you think.
If you read up on the last few pages of this topic, I am sure you will find the information/views quite interesting.
If any of us here called God a liar, we would indeed be wasting our time by using scripture to discover deeper truths.
Appreciate your participation:)
(Edited by GJG at 8:31 pm on Aug. 10, 2003)August 11, 2003 at 3:43 am #15151Larry GibbonsParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 14
Regarding the discussion involving the use of the name Lord, below is a segment of one article on my website that may help clear up things:
The significance of the name Lord God
Here is an overview of the two Hebrew phrases translated Lord God, as well as LORD when used alone. Each will be examined individually regarding their capitalization and distinctions in Hebrew.
Both words emphasize the Deity of the Father
Used only of the Father
Pointing to the union of the Father and Son
Used only of the Son
Refers to the Father exclusively
or to the Father in His Son
when the context of a passage denotes humanity
Different capitalization is used for the words Lord God in the Old Testament. In a King James or other literal version, it is always used although it’s missing in some modern translations. We are at a disadvantage by having to settle for an English translation since our language sometimes fails to capture distinctions in words. Us dummies have to depend on Strong’s or Thayer’s for definitions if we’re trying to fine-tune God’s word.
Have you ever asked just why the difference in capitalization is used? You might ask what’s the big deal, anyway? We admit it may seem like a little thing. But ask yourself, were the scriptures given by the inspiration of God? If they are accurate to the last jot and tittle, then this capitalization must be there for a reason. To understand that is to gain a new appreciation for scripture’s accuracy.
To begin with, in our English versions the word “GOD,” when all letters are capitalized, has been translated from the Hebrew word Jehovah. The same is true for the word “LORD” when all letters are capitalized; it, too, is from the Hebrew Jehovah. Both are the names of God (Jehovah). It may seem to be a out of order and senseless, but not so. Just mark it now in your mind that when either GOD or LORD is in all capitals, the words mean the same thing, Jehovah. It‘s somewhat like a brand name that identifies Himself as Deity, avoiding any confusion or mixup (Remember, both words god and lord many times do not refer to God. This knowledge alone can clear up all kinds of questions related to the doctrine of the Trinity and supposed deity of Christ. These names identify God and the role He plays in the redemption of man.
THE HEBREW WORDS FOR THE NAME OF GOD THE FATHER:
“Lord GOD” identifies the Father as Jehovah, the Supreme One, the one from whom all things emanate. The Father’s name Lord GOD, pointing to His Deity, is to be distinguished from the name LORD God that refers to Christ. As explained above, the Hebrew word Jehovah is common to both in the capitalized words GOD and LORD. God, acknowledging His Son of humanity, shares His name with His Son to indicate the union between them. Certainly this is indicative of His dual nature. Further, the coupling of the name for Christ not only confirms the union but conveys both Deity (Jehovah) and humanity (Elohim) in His person. (Remember, the word elohim is used not only in reference to God but to mankind, angels, etc.).
To identify God the Father, a coupling of two different Hebrew words is translated in English “Lord GOD.” In Hebrew it is Adonai (Lord) Jehovah (GOD). Every time you see the coupling of these names, it is always the Father. It is also a double emphasis of His deity. Two is the number of witness, and it speaks of God’s Deity that He has repeatedly emphasized in the Old Testament and stated so succinctly in Isaiah 43:10, 11, “I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
Problems arise in translation because two Hebrew words, Adonai and Adon, both translate as Lord in English. The Hebrew word Adonai is used exclusively of the Father. This cannot be over emphasized. “Adonai” is used only of God, and never of man, and contrary to Trinitarian dogma, it is never used of Christ. At times the word “Lord” (Adonai) will be found by itself and purposely so. It unmistakably identifies God the Father. The other Hebrew word Adon is never used of the Father. It is used of men, angels, and of the Lord Jesus Christ. The difficulty of discerning the difference in English is apparent. At the risk of being repetitive, looking at them separately may help show the distinction between them.
Adonai (The Father): This word translated Lord belongs exclusively to the Father. It is used only of God. Never of man or the Lord Jesus Christ. Repeat “Never of man.” You may be sure it is speaking of God the Father.
Adon (The Son): This word Lord, used of the Son, unlike Adonai, is not exclusive. It is found 305 times in the KJV. It is used 268 times of men, 9 times of angels, and 28 times of the Lord Jesus. The definition of this word perfectly describes the calling and ministry of the Lord Jesus,. It means to rule, to be sovereign, a controller, a lord, master, or owner. Used of men, it has no connotation of Deity. Its references to Christ portray him as a king, a ruler. Does this remind you of His role during the millennium? The word not only lets us identify Jesus but also sets apart his humanity from any deity in himself. It is regrettable that the word Lord fails to distinguish between the Hebrew words in our English Bibles, but it helps explain one reason why the dual nature has been overlooked by so many.
THE COUPLING OF THE SON’S NAME
“LORD God” (Jehovah Elohim). These coupled Hebrew words point to the union of deity and humanity of Christ. As the coupling capitalized Lord GOD pointed to God the Father, so the coupling of the names capitalized LORD God always refer to Christ. Again we emphasize that the capitalization style of the words Lord and God is the key to distinguishing between the Father and the Son. Lord GOD always refers to God the Father, while LORD God speaks of His Son. What’s more, there is a message in the Son’s name (Jehovah Elohim) itself. The word Jehovah surely speaks of God’s deity that indwells Christ. Just as surely the word Elohim points to His humanity. Certainly it is not difficult to see that the name “LORD God” represents two natures–deity and humanity in Christ. Remember, truth must be in accord with monotheism, and that God cannot change, and is invisible. Does He have any other option than to create a perfect man whom He can indwell as a means of revealing Himself?
Giving some thought and study to the use of these Hebrew words can pay big dividends in accurately understanding the context of many passages, as well as better appreciating the dual nature of Christ.August 11, 2003 at 3:58 am #15143
I was actually going to ask you for that. I think this may prove very helpful.
In the meantime I have a Post that shows you how I see things and I think that we may find a lot of common ground here.
I await your comments.
To GJG and Larry,
Ok I think that we all agree that the Father is God and we differ with the identity of Jesus in some ways. Although I think that my beliefs are certainly very close to that of Larry, maybe even the same. But I disagree with Jesus being the almighty God as GJG pointed out. Here is why.
The scripture says that Jesus is the Word (not God), who became flesh and we know that Jesus pre-existed as the Word. But was the Word/Logos just a thought in the mind of God or was he a person with a will of his own?
Well if we look in Genesis, we see that God said “Let us make man in our image” and as mentioned earlier, this must have been God talking to Christ/Word. We also know from a number of New Testament scriptures that God created all things, through Christ. And in addition we know that the Father is the source of all things that are good as the following scriptures show:
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
14 For this reason I kneel before the Father,
15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.
Moving on we know that the Word pre existed, but in what form?
Well I am not so sure that this really matters in as much as talking about foundational doctrines, (e.g Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God). I think that it is probably ok to have opinions here without serious consequences or differences with regards to true faith.
Anyway my take on this is that the Word certainly did have a will of his own because God talks to him and created the universe through him and for him. The word HIM is surely depicting a person and this person pre existed because he existed before the world began and God created the worlds through him and for him. This was all prior to Jesus birth as a man into this world.
So as GJG pointed out, the boy Jesus was no ordinary boy even before his baptism where the Spirit descended like a dove upon him. Now before Jesus baptism, he was still the Word in Flesh made possible by the Spirit of God. But after the baptism he himself had something he didn't have before, namely the anointing of God's Spirit and power from on high. Hence the beginning of his ministry. Note: It is now possible for us to have the annointing of the Spirit and power too.
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
1 Corinthians 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
We also know that Jesus is Wisdom of God
1 Corinthians 1:24 (English-NIV)
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
We also see wisdom being spoken in a conceptual sense then a personal sense in Proverbs 8:22-30, and this does seem to be very similar to the New Testament scriptures regarding Christ.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
“The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works” and “I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began”.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”
“When there were no oceans, I was given birth“.
Note: Here is a possible reference to Christ being born, even before being born as a man, followed by him being the first born from the dead.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
“Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,”.
The next scripture shows us that God created all through his Son, so does this mean that he was a Son when God created all things?
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
John 1:3 (English-NIV)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
So it says that God made all things through HIM. Therefore I think he existed as a person because he is called HIM. More importantly though, if all things that were created were made through Jesus/Yeshua, then that means that the Son whom God made all things through could not be a created being.
Now we are left with the following dilema. Either Christ existed for all eternity with God or was he born from God at some point before all the created things came into existence.
Now I personally think that the Son was the first born of all creation, so he was the actual first person to exist after God and it is certainly clear from scripture that God has given Christ first place in everything.
Now if we look at John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So in the beginning there was the Word and the Word was once God. So there was a time when only God existed. Then God decided to begat (not create) a Son from himself (where else?) and when his son was brought forth, God created all things through his son and for his son because it was God's good pleasure to do so.
I would like to finish with the following scripture which to seems to also point to the idea that Jesus had a source, namely God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
The word HEAD means source/master and this is consistent with the Man being the source of the Woman (Eve from Adam) and with Christ being our source because God made all things including us, through him. That just leaves the bit where God is the source or/and master of Christ.
I also want to point out that Paul wanted us to realise this truth.August 11, 2003 at 7:52 am #15121
The pre-existence of Jesus Christ:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Heb 7:3 “…having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.”
We must note well that it was His Deity, not His humanity that pre-existed. Before Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, the Son existed only in the mind and plan of God. Also, there must be a mother in order for there to be a begotten son, so that Mary was either, within eternity, or Jesus was born in the fulness of time (not eternity), Heb1:5-6…today I have become your Father.
John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh (human incarnate) and tabernacled among us.” ANT
In the incarnation the Word became flesh. The dictionary meaning of ‘to incarnate’ is given as ‘to embody in flesh’. In the incarnation, the Logos became flesh (John 1:14) and God was manifest in the flesh (1Tim 3:16). This is correct scriptural terminology. God could not be born of Mary, but He did manifest Himself in that flesh that was born of Mary. The flesh that was born was the Logos incarnate. This does not make two persons, for the Logos was God.
Where God refers to ‘us’, is the eternal Deity commnicating with His very own express image: Word, Jesus, Logos. Is this possible? Of course it is, if we find evidence in the Bible where the eternal God is communicating with the man-Christ Jesus. Being an eternal being outside of time makes this possible, but more to the point, completely in line and fully harmonizing all other relevant scripture.
Of course Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. Is there any other created substance that came into existence by Divine conception?
Also Larry, your description of the dual-nature of Jesus seems to be very much the same as what I believe. I suppose I am attempting to discover at what point did this ‘Deity clothed in humanity’ or ‘dual-nature’ come into existence. I believe you say that it happened at Jesus baptism, while I tend to believe it happened while He was still in His mother’s womb; perhaps immediately after conception, as there is Biblical evidence to support this view:
The angel Gabriel informed Mary, that the child within her womb was Holy,
Luke1:35-And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
How did this unborn child become Holy without being anointed? This could only have occurred at, or immediately after, the point of conception, as the very seed was indeed Holy. This fact is confirmed when Mary, soon after receiving the Holy seed, is given the revelation that she is now the mother of the Lord,
Luke1:43-But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
This is again confirmed when the angels reveal to the shepherds that the babe is indeed Christ the Lord,
Luke2:11-Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.
It is clear that the indwelling of God’s Spirit is already evident, as the dual-nature of Jesus has now been declared by the angels themselves.:)
As always: I am open to reproval and correction.
Look 4ward 2 replies.
BTW t8: I do not simply say that Jesus is Almighty God!August 11, 2003 at 8:04 am #15227
Everytime there is Divine attributes/prerogatives pointing towards Jesus, it is refering to the Spirit inside Him. Everytime there is human attributes/prerogatives pointing towards Jesus, it is refering to His flesh.
Keeping this in mind makes it much easier to line up scripture.
(Edited by GJG at 3:17 am on Aug. 11, 2003)August 11, 2003 at 8:59 am #15215
To t8 & Larry Gibbons,
I apologize if I fail to put across my meaning in a way that can be properly understood. I am new to this typing/posting thing so I am struggling with just taking in all this new information, especially with some of the lengthy, well studied explanations.
I am obviously not as well educated as the two of you, so I ask that you both be patient with me.
I take it things are going well within this thread as I am actually enjoying reading the different views.
Thanks dudes:)August 11, 2003 at 11:37 am #15195Adam PastorParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 326
Greetings Larry Gibbons
I thoroughly enjoyed your post concerning ‘Lord God’, Adonai & Adon.
However, I thought I should point out some inconsistencies, only in the hope to edify.
You see, the word ‘Adon’ <B>is sometimes</b> used in ref. to Almighty GOD, about 30 times i.e. in the
sense that He is Lord/Owner of the earth
e.g. Josh 3:13, Psa 97:5, Micah 4:13, Zec 4:14, etc.
However the word <b>adoni</b> is NEVER used in ref. to Almighty GOD. It appears 195 times in the Heb. Bible and is NEVER once used in ref. to Almighty GOD. It is solely used in ref. to men (and occasionally angels).
As you so rightly pointed out, Adonai is solely used to when saying ‘My Lord’ in ref. to Almighty GOD. It appears 449 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Sadly, Strong’s concordance does NOT show or number the distinction between adon & adoni. Both are assigned the number 113. (BTW Adonai is 136)
Psalms 110:1 is the most quoted OT verse in the NT! It is Jesus’ and the Apostles’ prooftext in defining ‘who Jesus is’! Sadly, the KJV translators capitalised the ‘L’ in Psalms 110:1 i.e. ‘My Lord’ (this is corrected in RSV, NRSV, etc); giving the reader the <B>false impression</b> that Adonai is being used.
The fact is, the Messiah is prophetically referred to as <b>’adoni’ … he is David’s lord, David’s adon(i); since adoni is <u>NEVER</u> used in ref. to ALMIGHTY GOD but solely used in ref. to men & angelic beings; and since we know that Jesus is NOT an angel being</b> [Heb 1:4-7,13-14,2:5-11];<b>then Jesus must be A MAN!</b>
When the early church proclaimed that <b>Jesus is the Lord</b>, they were proclaiming that Jesus was <b>that MAN</b> whom GOD ordained and decreed in Psalms 110, to be the one who would be both Lord & Messiah (Christ) (Acts 2:36), be ‘Lord of all’ (Acts 10:36)and to be seated at His right hand UNTIL the times of restitution begin (Acts 3:21). The early church were not trinitarians nor were they binitarians. Neither did they believe that an angelic being was currently seated at GOD’s right hand. No!
They believe that <b>the man Jesus of Nazareth, whom GOD raised from the dead & immortalized, whom GOD made both Lord & Messiah, was/is currently at the right hand of GOD. This man is the Lord (Adon) Messiah!</b>(Col 3:24 Luke 2:11)
For more info of the usage of ‘Adonai & Adoni’, have a look at http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/adonai.htm
Hope this helps
(Edited by Adam Pastor at 6:41 am on Aug. 11, 2003)August 11, 2003 at 2:17 pm #15189
Thx Adam Pastor for your input.
I need to learn more about these differences and others with words that are translated as LORD, Lord, lord, God, god, LORD GOD etc. I know that most trinitarians use Lord and God interchangeably and I know this is not right because there wouldn't be a distinction such as we find many verses. e.g God raised the Lord from the dead etc.
Anymore insight into the Hebrew or Greek would be mucho appreciated.
BTW, do you believe that Jesus pre existed as the Word and if so, was the Word a person?
My belief is that he existed because of at least 3 verses.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
I am = I existed.
I look forward to your possible reply and I will check out those sites too.August 12, 2003 at 4:06 am #15287Adam PastorParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 326
NO! I do not believe that Jesus pre-existed his birth.
He came into being just like every other human being (except Adam & Eve) at his conception.
The angel said that which is begotten/conceived of thee shall be called the Son of GOD [Luke 1:35] No man pre-exists his own conception, and that includes the man Christ Jesus.
In John 1:1-4, John is simply alluding to Gen Chap. 1; he is talking about GOD’s word. All things came into being via GOD’s spoken word.
John 1:14 then informs us that in the fulness of time (Gal 4:4), GOD’s [spoken] word became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
In the plan of GOD, Jesus indeed is before all things including Abraham, because GOD created all things with His Son in mind. Hence when GOD preached/announced the Gospel beforehand to Abraham [Gal 3:8], GOD was making promises to ‘the promised seed’, that is, the Messiah [Gal 3:16], even though he did not literally exist. [Rom 4:17]
Abraham understood that the Messiah was to come through him and through this ‘seed’ all the nations of the world would be blessed.
Hence Abraham rejoiced by faith to see the day of the Messiah [John 8:56]
Note: Jesus never said that he saw Abraham, neither did he say Abraham saw him! No! Abraham saw his day by faith.
So before Abraham, I am he! He who? The ‘I am he’ of John 8:24. Who that? The same that Jesus had been saying from the beginning [v25]; that he was the Messiah.
Therefore before Abraham came into existence, GOD foreordained that Jesus of Nazareth was to be the Messiah (cp. 1 Pet 1:20). In that sense, i.e. in the mind of GOD, Jesus was before Abraham.
Hence before Abraham, I am he? He who? The Messiah.
For GOD foreordained it so before the foundation of the world. By stating this, Jesus was actually asnwering his audience that he was indeed greater than Abraham and the prophets [John 8:53]; because he was the Messiah.
This, the audience could not stomach, and hence attempted to stone him!
Hope this helps
Adam PastorAugust 12, 2003 at 5:42 am #15281
Thx Adam Pastor,
First of all I want to say that I think it is great that we being 2 different people have so much in common with our beliefs.
I use to believe in the Trinity doctrine once, only because I thought I had to in order to be called a Christian which meant salvation. As I grew older in the faith God led me by my hand and showed me many great and wonderful truths about himself and Heaven. It was from this leading that I started to see through the religion that I thought I had to belong, and I started to question many doctrines including the Trinity. As time went by, God showed me nearly everytime I read the scriptures, the difference between the creeds of men and the truth of scripture. I then progressed on a journey that has led me to this point of understanding.
I think it is great that we both believe that there is One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and the Messiah. He is the Word who became flesh and God created all through him and for him. He is truly the only way to reach God our Father.
However I do disagree on the point of Jesus Christ's pre existance, but as I said before, we both seem to be in agreement with the foundational doctrines of Christ, namely that He is the Christ and the Son of God, (The truth that Jesus built his church upon).
Maybe I am missing something here, but to my eye when I look at John 8:58
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
and then I look up the words 'I am' in the Strongs (which I know is fallible), I get the following interpretation.
I = I, me (Strongs # 1473='ego')
am = am, have been, it is, was (Strongs # 1510='eimi')
I don't see that this is saying anything except “he existed”.
In addition to that if I read the following scriptures it seems to back up this view.
I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Would not this verse say who created me. Because I understand to be sent means that you have to exist. Otherwise I too could say that I was sent into the World by God, but I think it is correct to say that I was created because I didn't pre exist.
Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.
Jesus claims that he had glory with the Father before the world began.
In the Strongs, the word glory is as follows:
glory = dignity, honour, praise, worship, magnificence (Strongs # 1391 = 'doxa' and Strongs # 1392 for glorify).
Anyway a literal translation of that verse goes something like this:
“glory Me You, Father, with yourself with the glory that I had before the of the world being with you.”
I look forward to your possible reply.August 12, 2003 at 5:57 am #15605e manParticipant
- Topics started 0
- Total replies 9
Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was. They answered that he was the son of God. It seems Jesus was not here claiming to be God, nor claiming that God revealed to his disciples that he was God, but simply that he was the Son of God.
There is a common sense view that there was a popular rumor during Jesus’ life (especially during his ministry) that Jesus was concieved by fornication (an illegitimate son). Anyone today would think this of a man the identity of whose father was in doubt. Thus, I assume that this was the implicit context of Jesus’ question here. As I see it, the answer his disciples gave had nothing whatever to do with the question of whether Jesus was God-incarnate, but simply with who was Jesus, in terms of who his father was (they were, after all, quite under the impression that Jesus was a man, like them: they were in his presence and saw a man in front of them, and would thus be in rights to assume he is a man). I doubt that Joseph would have claimed to be Jesus’ biological father if Joseph was asked about the fact that Mary was ‘found with child’ before they were married; so, there would be the question in the minds of all as to who was Jesus’ father and thus who was Jesus. Like political figures of today who are reported to have been involved in some scandal, any strong rumor of Jesus’ supposed illegitimacy would have become well-known once Jesus became a very popular figure.
If he were thought to be a mere prophet, then he could still be considered of illegitimate conception. This is what some thought. But, was there not another rumor going around, one that recounted the angel’s visitation to Mary, and the dream of Joseph? Who would believe that rumor, it was difficult? Difficulty aside, all the evidence pointed to its truth. Yet, the idea that Jesus was the son of God was an idea not taught among the Pharisees, and thus was not a ‘plain teaching’ in those days. Yet, some believed that Jesus was telling the truth when he said that God was his father, for how can a prophet of Jehovah lie? The Pharisees decided he must have a demon, for they were already dead-set in the idea that he was illegitimate. They could convict him of no sin but blaspheme, and this they had to do in order to keep from having to admit their guilt before him as their judge and their Messiah. He had told them, almost from the first, that they planned to kill him, yet they need not have had any such plan at the time he told them this, because they were already guilty of self-righteousness and thus refused to give his claim of who his father was a fair hearing. They would die in their sins because they would not exchange their self-righteousness for his claim.
I note that those who are hot against heresy on both sides of the Is-Jesus-God question tend to wrench more out of a passage than the common sense would indicate. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of those who were there, just like would be required to deduce what God meant Abraham to reason out of the incredible request to sacrifice Isaac. You have to see it from Abraham’s point of view, by looking at everything that God said and did in relation to Abraham up to that point. Abraham was looking at all of it. He couldn’t help it. But, the account does not tell us in words what Abraham reasoned (Hebrews 11:17-19 ‘spells it out for dumbies’). The same applies to the question of who Jesus is in the ultimate sense of the God-incarate question. Those passages that do not address the question, but that one or both sides like to assume address the question, cannot rightly be used to support the view of either side.August 12, 2003 at 10:07 am #15626
The ‘I AM’ refers to the eternal Spirit God. Jesus in turn was refering to the indwelling Spirit within Himself, not His humanity.
Again, I feel I must make this most vital point clear:
With regards to scripture related to Jesus having the Divine attributes and prerogatives eg: creator, pre-existence, etc; THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD INDWELLING HIM, NOT HIS HUMANITY!
Do not forget that there is an inexplicable ‘Dual-Nature’ to Jesus.
Always keep this in mind, and you will find that all scripture, regarding Jesus, will harmonize totally, whether OT or NT.
(Edited by GJG at 5:23 am on Aug. 12, 2003)August 12, 2003 at 10:13 am #15566
So if Jesus was referring to God's Spirit and not his humanity, then who or what is Jesus in your opinion? He is obviously not that Eternal Spirit and the flesh is his humanity.
What is the his part?
The topic ‘Trinity (Part 1)’ is closed to new replies.