Search Members

[Elidad]

Quote (Irene @ July 02 2008,19:07)

Eli If you had the truth then, it should be same as you have now. So what would be different. No sense to go over old posts. Show us what you believe now is what is important. Is it truth and have you proved all things. 1 Thes. 5:21 ” Prove all things.” That is what is imprtant. IMO Peace and Love Irene

Hi Irene, What you say is true, but there are occasions, when it is good to retrace ones steps. Memory is not always what it should be and it never hurts to see if what has been said in the past still holds good today. The journey of life is a learning process and sometimes progress can only be appreciated when we can look back and see where we have come from. Do you follow?
Best regards
Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (gollamudi @ July 02 2008,00:55)

Hi Elidad, Why do you want to see your old posts, you better share afresh what is there with you. peace to you. Adam

Hi Adam, Thank you for your comment. You were wondering why I wished to look up past posts. Simply as a refresher, to recall what was discussed and the general drift of the conversation at the time. Thought it might be relevant to what I have recently been discussing with a friend via email. It was to some extent, as I vaguely recalled that similar issues as now being raised via email had been previously aired and addressed. So it is always helpful sometimes to check what has been said on related matters in the past, without trying to re-invent the wheel, so to speak. If you were interested is such posts I think you will find them in the Trinity section somewhere near page 343, or thereabouts from memory.
Cheers and happy days.
Elidad

[Elidad]

Thank you Irene and Not3in1. Just for the record, I did find some of my previous posts after digging in the Trinity section for awhile.

As for being able to offer some more thoughts on the Trinity subject, I tend to think that there is not a lot more to say, that hasn't already been said on this Forum somewhere. The discussion recorded in the Trinity section has been running for ages, and pretty much going around in circles to some extent and without it being firmly resolved or closed.

The contributor going under the name Isa 1:18 has such sophisticated arguments that it is difficult to get a handle on some of his viewpoints. They read a bit like those put forward by learned religious Jews, who argue that the Messiah has not yet come, and who dismiss the case made from Isaiah 53 and elsewhere in the Old Testament in this regard. When that starts happening, it is best to just walk away, and leave such people, in their intellectual heaven. I am a pretty ordinary sort of guy who rank with the “common people” and don't go much for dazzling arguments/speeches. The Apostle Paul wasn't impressed by such either, going by what is recorded in Romans 16:18. Enough from me. May peace, joy and the love of God be with you at all times. Elidad.

[Elidad]

Hi, Thank you to all who have responded to my enquiry and also for the welcome back. I would like to be able to stick around a little if possible, but that is going to depend on time and circumstances. I actually did enjoy this Forum previously. As for topics involved in before, from memory, I think they were related to the question of the Trinity and the Pre-existence of Christ. Neither of which, based on my reading of Scripture, measure up to the conventional or mainline viewpoint; even though I attend a Baptist Church. Such has put me at variance with their Statement of Faith which I have refrained from endorsing – hence I am not a recognised member, but termed rather as a Visitor?
Regards to all,
Elidad.

[Elidad]

Quote (Elidad @ June 28 2008,09:32)

Hello, I haven't posted here for quite some time. Circumstances not permitting/preventing. Hence I came back looking for old posts but don't seem to be able to locate them. It was probably about 4 years ago since last posting, maybe more or maybe less. Hence, was wondering how far the Forum history goes back. Secondly, is there any way that one can search for comments on particular subjects or by a particular Username. For example is there some way I could pull a a list of all past posts submitted as “Elidad” ? Thank you for responding to this enquiry. Cheers

Correction. Sorry, I just noticed that I first joined this Forum back in July 2006, so that rules out the thought that previous posts may have been as old as 4 years ago. They are since that time. Thus the question of history is limited to the time period since.

It certainly seems like 4 years ago, but I am glad to find that it could not have been that long.

Regards

[Elidad]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 10 2006,08:34)

Quote (Elidad @ Sep. 10 2006,09:49) Hi Is 1:18. I think your response is avoiding the issue. It was your previous comments that gave rise to the points I raised. I have read back through your thoughts that are suppose to address them, and have come away with the same questions. Hi Elidad, I wasn't being evasive, but as I was pressed for time and honestly thought you were asking me to address issues that were clearly explained in my previous post, I was unwilling (at the time) to re-iterate it all. But since you honestly can't see the answers I will give them to you. Quote 1: Jesus existed as God (I take that to mean within the trinity) before He took it upon Himself to become a man. Is this right? As I understand it Yahshua was with God, and was God: Is 1:18, I ask you, does that statement make any sense? You say Jesus was “with: what He “was”. This sounds a bit like saying, “Elidad was “with” himself and “was” himself”. Seems to me if Jesus wasn’t with himself, He would be beside himself. I find it very difficult to take a statement like that serious. How about “Elidad was “with” the President and “was” the President. If I made a statement like that to a group of students, they would certainly conclude that I was beside myself, and probably roll their eyes and doubt my sanity. I have no difficulty understanding John 1:1 when “word” is not a being, but rather God's creative thought as viewed and foreseen in the person of His Son. God's thoughts are with Him and are Him in every sense. The same as yours and my thoughts are with each of us and in effect are us. “As we think in our hearts. so are we” (Proverbs 23:7). John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Greek word for “with” ( pros) means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship) when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated “to” or “toward” (NKJV) or “unto” (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to “something said”, or an abstract concept such as a plan/purpose/wisdom/power coming from God. Moreover, the verb “was” (Gr: eimi) in John 1:1b is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning. So I assert that the Logos was “pros” theos and “eimi” theos, and that the Logos became flesh – as described in John 14 and Phil 2:7-8. Speaking of John 1:14, the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word (John 1:1a) and His incarnation is (vs 14), I think, very provocative. As I previuosly mentioned the Greek word for “was” in John 1:1a is the imperfect verb “eimi” (continuous action, perpetuity), BUT John used the aorist verb “egeneto” to designate the incarnation in v 14 which, in contrast, happened at a fixed point in time). By using this contradistinction in terminology John delineated the eternal logos from the temporal nature of the “things” He created. So the Greek in John 1:1 tells us that the pre-incarnate Yahshua was both towards God (in relationship), and always was God, and that at a fixed point in time he became flesh. Deity put on humanity. Understand? Sorry Is 1:18 I don’t understand. No matter how you might like to twist and dance with the statement made by the Apostle John in John 1:1 a “word” is a “word”. It is no an actual being or a person, but rather a being/person in “word”, in “thought”. There have been rheems written on the meaning of this verse, as you evidently well know, and the vast majority of them do violence to the fact, that a word is understood in the Hebrew sense, as God’s creative activity and it is consistently used in that sense throughout the Old Testament. If the “word” is the Son in a pre-human existence, then both the Father and the Son are equally entitled to be thought of as the Supreme Deity. To do such, in effect makes absolute nonsense of the term “Son” as applied to Christ. Quote 2: Upon becoming a man He “emptied” himself of what it was He was before. Can we say, divested Himself of everything that made Him God (part of the Trinity) before, so that he could be “truly” a man in every sense of the term. Is this right? No, that is not my understanding of the kenosis as was unambiguously explained in my post: Is 1:18. You say it was unambiguously explained, but I have looked back through your posts and can’t find where this has occurred. The trouble is Is 1:18 you try to cover too much ground in your posts and end up getting your readers totally befuddled. “The Logos who existed in the from of God, emptied Himself and took on the form of a bond servant. He was made for a little while lower than the angels (positionally/functionally – not ontologically). So according to my viewpoint the man Yahshua was annointed by His Father. I surmise that the independant usage of his divine attributes, privileges, prerogatives were restored. What He emptied Himself of to become a man were returned.” Hold on a minute Is 1:18. I am lead to understand that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man but you are now saying that he let go of some of the factors that contributed to Him being 100% God. You say they were attributes, privileges and prerogatives. Call them what you may, it is quite clear that without them, He was no longer equal with God. How could He be, if to be a man He had to ‘give up’ some of the things He had when He was 100% God. It seems like we end up with Jesus being less than 100% God, shall we say 95% and 100% man. If this is the case then the ground under trinitarian thinking is shifting once again, to accommodate this juxtaposition. Whatever it was he “gave up”, it evidently prevented Him from being ‘God’ in the fullest/truest sense. Right? His ability to be “all knowing” must have been one of the attributes He “gave up”, if this is what He really did in your viewpoint, as He is recorded as saying that He didn’t know the day nor the hour when He would be returning to the earth (Matthew 24:26 & Mark 13:32) This limitation of His knowledge must have been a continuing factor as we read in the opening of the Book of Revelation that Christ, after He ascended to Heaven, was still dependant upon receiving the Revelation, that He made known to John, from God (His Father) Revelation 1:1 “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him …….” May I ask , who gave what to whom here, if the trinity is comprised of three co-equals? If one party had something that the other didn’t, doesn’t that destroy co-equality? Quote 3.Therefore when He “emptied” Himself, He was no longer God (no longer part of the trinity), He was now man. Is this right? No it's not accurate. Deity divested himself of the independant usage of the divine attributes, privileges, prerogative and put on humanity. The pre-incarnate Logos did not relinquish deity….how in reality could that be possible anyway? You can't extinguish divinity if you have it intrinsically. Paul affirmed in the strongest language possible that Yahshua was walking deity: If God dwells in us (1 John 4:12) and the Holy Spirit dwells in us (2 Timothy 1:14) are we not walking as Christ walked? In other words, in the same way that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (2 Corinthains 5:19) God is in us. Does that also make us Deity? On the basis of your reasoning, it must? Anyway, what do you think Deity means? If you contend that it means Supreme Being, then you are asking me to understand that the Supreme Being, relinquished part of His office or functionality so that He could turn into a man. Is that right? Sounds like a line out of Greek mythology to me. Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. “For in Him dwells (katoikei) all the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity (theotes) bodily (somatikos).” katoikeo – meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling.” The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action pleroma – indicating that which “is filled up.” somatikos – meaning “corporeally” or “physically” theotes – used as an abstract noun for ‘theos’. Theotes is the key word in this verse. Joseph H. Thayer, the Unitarian scholar, defines theotes in his lexicon as follows: “Theotes…(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words, in exegeting Col 2:9, records this: ”…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties. A.T Robertson who is widely recognized as the worlds most authoritative grammarian said in his scholarly book Word Pictures In The New Testament: Is 1:18 If you would stop listening to the voices of all these other people you keep referring to and quoting from, and listen to what the Holy Spirit has to say, then I believe you would be able to see that trinitarian theology is another case of “the Emperor has no clothes”. “There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from ‘Theos,’ deity) and not to be confused with ‘Theiotes’ in Romans 1:20 (from ‘Theios,’ the quality of God, divinity), here only in N.T. as ‘Theiote’ only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. ‘Theiotes’ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions.” Yahshua clearly did not relinquish His deity, not in Paul's mind anyway. Quote 4. Trinitarian theology informs me that Christ was 100% man and 100% God, in spite of the fact that no other man has ever been 100% God and 100% man. Therefore He wasn't made like unto His brethren in all respects (Heb 2:17). Contrary to what Scripture says in this regard, He was actually not fully man, if trinitarian theology is correct. Is this right? This is a non sequitur Elidad. How can I address an illogically-framed question? Maybe I need to reword this so you can understand what I am driving at. Lets’ put it this way. Scripture informs us that Christ was made like unto His brethren in all things (Hebrews 2:17) How can this statement be true, if Jesus was 100% God and 100 man? Such must surely make Him, something that none of His brethren ever were. Also it says that He was “tempted in all points as we are” (Hebrews 4:15) How could this be true, if in effect He was really something other than what we are. If He was 100% God and 100% man, then His temptations would bear no resemblance to our own, and it could not be truly said of Him that “He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities”. The Scriptures inform me that Christ was 100% man and that God dwelt in Him in the fullest sense, in exactly the same way that God desires to dwell in us. That did not make Him the Supreme being any more than such happening makes us. Quote 5. When Jesus “emptied” himself, He was no longer God, but now man. Therefore He must have shed or “emptied” His 100% God aspect, so that He could be 100% man. Is this right? Deity put on humanity (John 1:1-14, Phil 2:5-8, 1 Cr 8:9). I tend to think that Scripture puts it the other way around. Humanity putting on Deity. “In Him the fullness of God, dwelt bodily” (Colossians 2:9) Does not God want us to take on His nature to the full, so that we can be like him, as to character and nature? Are we not to “put on Christ”? (Galatians 3:27) In so doing, we take on the character of God in the same way that he has shown to us. Quote 6. Thus if Jesus was Yahweh, before He was man, what was left of Yahweh whilst He stepped into His new role? Evidently from your theology, Jesus could not be both God and Man, whilst He was a man, because He had “emptied” Himself of what He was before? he he…evidently from your interpretation of my theology, “Jesus could not be both God and Man”. You say He emptied Himself of his Deity to become a man – I categorically dispute that and offer Col 2:9 as my substantive evidence. Quote 7. Thus Jesus, whilst He was on earth as a man, had to depend on the other two characters who made up the tri-unity, which had now become a bi-unity to carry on the God role and give Jesus His instructions. Is this right? Yes – IMHO Yahshua divested Himself of the “independant usage of his divine attributes, privileges, prerogatives” that were intrinsically His before His incarnation. And operated by the Holy Spirit while on Earth and before His death. Are not we suppose to operate the same way? Quote 8. Whilst Jesus, was on earth, as a man, He prayed to the other remaining parties in the trinity, because He was no longer there as part of the God team. He had left and came to earth, to plead for the souls of men, and pay the price for sin. Is this right? I believe I have answered this question already. Quote 9. Thus in Hebrews 1:8, according to you, we have God (Yahweh) still in heaven, overseeing the affairs of heaven and earth, making or “appointing” Jesus as God whilst He was on earth, because He was no longer God, in the sense that He was before He came to earth. Now, if this appointing of Jesus to be God didn't apply whilst He was on earth, but only applied after, He ascended back to heaven, as some say, then He wasn't in any sense God, whilst He was on earth. Is this right? No, incorrect. Yahshua was never appointed “God” if by God you mean divine being. No where in scripture are we told this. The word was (Gr. eimi; imperfect tense verb = continuous action, perpetuity) God. He did not become 'theos' at a fixed point in time, that's unscriptural and patently ludicrous…. Quote So this leaves us with one of two conclusions, either you are not making yourself very clear, or I am just plain stupid, which has to be the bottom line of your last post. I am quite happy to be considered plain stupid, if that's where wrestling with your viewpoints places me. I did not intimate that you were stupid. Im sorry if you formed this conclusion from my post. Quote When some one has to resort to words that the Holy Spirit didn't use within Scripture, to explain what we need to know about issues relevant to salvation, then you have lost me. I don't think in reality anyone absolutely restricts themselves to biblical language when discussing soteriology or any other theological topic. Salvation can be explained in both simple or more complex language. I don't need to use “ontological”, but its a good word in that it captures the essense of a concept that would otherwise require more than one word to properly convey…. Quote A factor in arguments advanced by trinitarians always seems to be the use of terminology that doesn't readily compute with the man on the street, like ontological. Tell me how many Christians really know what this word means? I have just asked two Christians who are immediately available to me, who have been Christians for some considerable time, if they could tell me what ontological means. Guess what, they said they had never heard of the word. he he…try here I don't think that sophisticated language is exclusively used by trinitarians. Unitarians, like yourself, have been known to use it. Quote So perhaps, if you like to pitch your understandings at a lower level, I might be able to properly understand them and respond in a more meaningful manner. Hopefully I have made myself clearer in this post. I don't try to deliberately use words in an obfuscatory manner, quite the opposite actually. People explain themselves in different ways I suppose Quote You ask me to comment on other points that you have raised, but I see no good reason to do this, if we can't get some basic understandings sorted out about what words used by the Holy Spirit mean, and what we are to understand from them. Well gee Elidad, you were quite insistent that I answer you questions (which I have), so let's be fair about this…. Quote Hebrews 1:8-9 states quite clearly to me that Father (Yahweh) said to His Son, “Your throne O God (Yashua) is forever, and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore, God, (the Father-yahweh) Your God (the Father-Yahweh) has annointed You with the oil gladness more than your companions” This tells us why the Father (Yahweh) has annointed Yashua and given Him a name above every name (Philippians 2:9) rather than Moses or anyone else. Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Quote For His absolute obedience, He was highly exhalted. Was Moses absolutely obedient to all things that the Father required and expected? No! That's is why all the questions you raise in respect to Moses, are quite irrelevant. Okay Elidad, let's assume for your sake that Phil 2:9 & 10 are purely a function of Yahshua's obedience and i'll take them off the list. That still leaves these eight legitimate questions: 1. Was Moses said to be with God in the beginning (John 1:1)? No! Why? Because Moses was not God’s son. Also which “beginning” are you referring to? I thought John clarified this in his other letter 1 John 1:1 2. Was Moses credited for making “all things” (Col 1:16)? No! Why? Because Moses was not the person God had purposed to work with and through, to effect His plan and purpose on planet earth. His Son had been foreseen for this role. 3. Is Moses credited for “upholding all things” (Heb 1:3)? No! Why? Because Moses as you know, did not “uphold all things” In what way do you think Jesus “upholds all things”? Whilst you are reading that particular verse, you might like to explain to me why Jesus sits on the right hand of the Majesty on High, if He is in effect, the Majesty on High. Surely this denotes position of authority, and it is evidently not a position of equal authority. Seems to indicate to me that He has been placed as second in command. In other words, He does not sit in the top seat, because that is occupied by His Father. 4. Did Moses claim he could raise himself from the dead, like Yahshua did (John 2:19-21)? No! Why? Because Moses was not obedient unto death. The fact that Christ didn’t sin was the factor that prevented the grave from holding Him. It was His sinless life that gave Him the power to rise from the dead. The power came from His obedient life. We read in Acts 2:24 that it was God, His Father who raised Him up from death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it (death that is) It was such that enabled the Father to raise Him from death? If you like to look up all the instances of the word ‘raised’ in the New Testament, you will find that it was His Father who raised Him from the dead. Raised Him because the power to do so, came from His Son’s obedient life. Thus Jesus could rightfully say that He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. And all who walk as He walk, can make the same claim. 5. Do NT authors apply OT references of YHWH directly to Moses (Heb 1:10)? No! Why? Because Moses, was not the promised Messiah, the Seed of the Women, the Seed of Abraham, the Son of David who is the Saviour of the world. 6. Was Moses said to have fulfilled prophecies that YHWH made OF HIMSELF (John 19:37)? No! Why? Because Moses was not the promised Messiah and the promised Messiah never made prophesies of Himself. His Father (YHWH) made prophecies about the Messiah, who was to be His Son. (2 Samuel 7:14 and 1 Chronicles 17:13) 7. Will it be that everyone that all who call on the name of Moses be saved (Rom 1:13)? No! Why? Because Moses was not given a name which is above every name. Philippians 2:9-10 inform us that God, the Father highly exalted His Son an placed Him in a position that will call for every knee to bow to Him. 8. Are titles that are exclusively YHWH's applied to Moses (e.g. Alpha and Omega, Rev 22:13)?[/color] No! Why? Because Moses is not the Alpha and Omega of God’s plan and purpose with planet earth, His Son Jesus is.Titles of YHWH are applied to Jesus in the sense of Agency, the same way the title of a large organisation was applied to me when I was about the organisation's business. Angels in the Old Testament, acting for YHWH, were spoken about/referred to as though they were in effect YHWH. The same is very much true for His son. You have no solid basis for refusing to answer these questions, nor for refusing to offer comments on Hebrews 3:1-6. As for Hebrews 3:1-6 it speaks clearly for itself. Verse 1 spells it out very clearly. Rather than it saying that Jesus is God, it says, “He (Jesus) is the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” I confess likewise. Quote Christ achieved where Adam and all his prodgeny failed; Moses included. Christ showed us, that what His Father expected of Adam was possible and He, in effect, showed us how to live in total harmony with His Fathers precepts. Amen. It is reassuring that we are in common agreement on this ALL IMPORTANT aspect of the work of the Father through His son Christ Jesus; “for God (the Father) was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19) Quote If this is not true, then the Father has no basis for judgement of our failures. He looks at us but sees Christ's righteousness, is how I would put it. Then on this basis we don't have to be too careful about how we walk or conduct ourselves, as God can't really see what we are doing, if we are hiding behind Christ? Quote Thus Is 1:18, you can continue with your intellectually confounding comments, or we can get back to basics. If you wish to continue to talk over my head, then there is not much else I can say. Do you read me? He he, hopefully I have demystified them a little for you. I have answered all your questions Elidad, now will you return the favour? Do hope Is 1:18 that my above thoughts go some way toward returning “the favour” Blessings

Hi Is 1:18. Sorry for the long delay in responding, but circumstances have not allowed earlier attention. Trust that you will understand. Have inserted my comments above; highlighted green.

Perhaps I will conclude with a question. In Matthew 28:18 we read of Jesus stating, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.“

Who may I ask “gave” such authority to the resurrected Christ? Did He give it to Himself or did he obtain it from His Father? If He obtained it from His Father, how can it be said that they are co-equal and co-eternal? If such were the case, what would one have to give to the other, that the other did not already have?

Peace be with you and may truth as it is in Christ Jesus abound to us in everyway.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Oops sorry t8, I meant, “In My Honest Opinion” not “In My Honesy Opinion” Slips.

Regards,

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 14 2006,01:59)

Excuse my ignorance, but I have always wondered what 'IMHO' means.

Hi t8 I think it means.

IMHO = In My Honesy Opinion

It is a bit like LOL, I am never sure when it is used by some, as to whether or not it means:

Lots Of Love

or

Lots Of Laughs.

Cheers

Elidad

[Elidad]

Hi Is 1:18. I have great admiration for your tenacity, perserverance and evident scholarship. I thank you for making considerbale effort to respond to my comments, endeavouring to clarify your point of view. You have covered much ground, too much for me to give a “knee jerk” or “shoot from the hip” reply.

The day is almost spent for me here, as there is need to retire soon, in order to rise early tomorrow to journey across country some 400 kms or more. Thus, there is no way I can hope to do justice to the issues you invite comment on, for a day or so. Please bear with me, and I will try and get back to you later in the week. Keep checking your 'mail' box.

There are so many issues tied up in your understanding, that prayer is necessary to help me make further response. This will form my deliberations, as I journey tomorrow.

Be of good cheer.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 10 2006,05:30)

Hi Elidad, You posted a statement from H..in the clouds. “I have seen no proof that Nick believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God. Yet, he is not God Almighty, he is the Word made God. The Word is the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning, and the end, the first and the last.” There are no scriptures that state Jesus was made God so the point is irrelevant. I am still awaiting his presentation of such evidence if it exists. The real point is who is Jesus to us who are in him. Paul gave us this answer in 1 Cor 8 ” 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. “ Blessings

Thanks Nick for responding to my query in this regard. But I am still not clear on where you are coming from. Sorry for being so stupid, but you have to make allowance for the intellectually handicapped.

Lets' put it this way, I understand that the Scriptures indicate that Jesus is God in a certain sense, but certainly not Almighty God. He is not Yahweh, He is Yashua, the Son of God.

Can we like Thomas address Jesus as, “My Lord and my God”? (John 20:28)

Did God, the Father (Yahweh) refer to His Son Jesus, as God? (Hebrews 1:8)

If God (the Father-Yahweh) can refer to Moses as God, can we not deduce from this that God (the Father- Yahweh) and ourselves, can refer to Jesus in the same way? (Exodus 7:1 compare with Exodus 4:16)

If the Judges of Israel were looked upon as being God's or as God when spoken of in a singular sense, does it not follow that Christ, the Son of God, can be spoken about and referred to in the same sense? Thus like Thomas we can say, “My Lord and my God”?

Where does your understanding differ in this matter?

May we be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

Regards,

Elidad

[Elidad]

Hi Is 1:18. I think your response is avoiding the issue. It was your previous comments that gave rise to the points I raised. I have read back through your thoughts that are suppose to address them, and have come away with the same questions.

So this leaves us with one of two conclusions, either you are not making yourself very clear, or I am just plain stupid, which has to be the bottom line of your last post. I am quite happy to be considered plain stupid, if that's where wrestling with your viewpoints places me.

When some one has to resort to words that the Holy Spirit didn't use within Scripture, to explain what we need to know about issues relevant to salvation, then you have lost me.

A factor in arguments advanced by trinitarians always seems to be the use of terminology that doesn't readily compute with the man on the street, like ontological. Tell me how many Christians really know what this word means? I have just asked two Christians who are immediately available to me, who have been Christians for some considerable time, if they could tell me what ontological means. Guess what, they said they had never heard of the word.

So perhaps, if you like to pitch your understandings at a lower level, I might be able to properly understand them and respond in a more meaningful manner.

You ask me to comment on other points that you have raised, but I see no good reason to do this, if we can't get some basic understandings sorted out about what words used by the Holy Spirit mean, and what we are to understand from them.

Hebrews 1:8-9 states quite clearly to me that Father (Yahweh) said to His Son, “Your throne O God (Yashua) is forever, and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore, God, (the Father-yahweh) Your God (the Father-Yahweh) has annointed You with the oil gladness more than your companions”

This tells us why the Father (Yahweh) has annointed Yashua and given Him a name above every name (Philippians 2:9) rather than Moses or anyone else.

For His absolute obedience, He was highly exhalted. Was Moses absolutely obedient to all things that the Father required and expected? No! That's is why all the questions you raise in respect to Moses, are quite irrelevant.

Christ achieved where Adam and all his prodgeny failed; Moses included. Christ showed us, that what His Father expected of Adam was possible and He, in effect, showed us how to live in total harmony with His Fathers precepts.

If this is not true, then the Father has no basis for judgement of our failures.

Thus Is 1:18, you can continue with your intellectually confounding comments, or we can get back to basics. If you wish to continue to talk over my head, then there is not much else I can say. Do you read me?

Peace be with you.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Sep. 08 2006,21:37)

Dear Elidad, I agree with t8 that your post was well written. Thank you for sharing it brother, but I don't agree with all of it. The part where you said that t8 and Nick believe that Jesus is God, but not Father God I am not sure is correct. I believe t8 believes this, but Nick I do not. Nick has led me to believe that he does not believe Jesus is God. And I believe this is his stand. This is denying Christ. For to deny the Son is to deny the Father. None, no, not one will be able to come unto the Father, but through the Son. For the Father and the Son are one. The Father begat the Son in the beginning, giving him all the authority of the Godhead, making the Son God of all creation. All things were made by the Son and through the Son by the will of the Father through the untion of the Holy Spirit. I have seen no proof that Nick believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God. Yet, he is not God Almighty, he is the Word made God. The Word is the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning, and the end, the first and the last.

Hi Heiscomingintheclouds, Appreciate your comments.

Nick would you please clarify the point that H.I.C.I.T.C. has raised regarding what you believe on the matter in question. I to have wondered exactly where you sit in this regard, because your comments at times are too cryptic for me, and I am never quite sure what you are driving at?

Rejoice always (Philippians 4:4)

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 09 2006,19:04)

Quote (Elidad @ Sep. 09 2006,13:43) Hi Is 1:18, Are you not getting hung up on pedantics? Please answer a question for me. Did God (Yahweh) make Moses God to Pharoah? Exodus 7:1 Hi Elidad, In answer to your question – no, He made him “as” God. Obviously God did not give Moses the ultimate ontological upgrade!! Quote My comment, derived from this, was, that in the same way that God (Yahweh) made Moses God to Pharoah, he has made Jesus God to us. The problem here is that nowhere in scripture are we told that the Father MADE the Son God. That's your assumption, but it's unsubstantiated by scripture. Here is how NT scripture delineates these two figures: HEBREWS 3 1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; 2Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. 3For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house [Jesus Christ] hath more honour than the house [Moses]. 4For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. 5And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Here the glory of Moses and the Jesus are contrasted using the analogy of the builder and the building. In one breath the writer of Hebrews writes that the builder of the house (i.e. Moses in a narrow context and humankind [v6] in a broader one) is Jesus Christ – and in the very next states that He that built all things is God” The clear inference is that the logos is the God who created us. This supports the VERY high Christology evident in the first chapter of Hebrews. Moses = building Yahshua = builder Moses is a created “thing”, the Pre-incarnate Yahshua was His Creator. Quote The fact that I said “a God”, picking up the way it is expressed in the KJV, is beside the point. Some translations read “as God” or “thee God”. The issue is, the Scriptures state that the LORD (Yahweh) made Moses God to Pharoah. No, He made His “as” God. There is a difference Elidad. Here's some questions for you to ponder: Was Moses said to be with God in the beginning (John 1:1)? Was Moses credited for making “all things” (Col 1:16)? Is Moses credited for “upholding all things” (Heb 1:3)? Did Moses claim he could raise himself from the dead, like Yahshua did (John 2:19-21)? Do NT authors apply OT references of YHWH directly to Moses (Heb 1:10)? Was Moses said to have fulfilled prophecies that YHWH made OF HIMSELF (John 19:37)? Will it be that everyone that all who call on the name of Moses be saved (Rom 1:13)? Will every knee bow at the name of Moses (Phil 2:9)? Will every tongue confess that Moses is Lord? (Phil 2:10)? Are titles that are exclusively YHWH's applied to Moses (e.g. Alpha and Omega, Rev 22:13)? Quote Based on this, why do you see a problem with the LORD (Yahweh) making Jesus God to us, as conveyed in Hebrews 1:8? If you can show me conclusively that The Father made the Son God the groundwork will have been laid for further discussion. Quote According to your viewpoint, it seems that in verse 9, you have Yahweh, annointing Yahweh. Please tell me who annointed who and what did the annointing signify? The Logos who existed in the frorm of God, emptied Himself and took on the form of a bond servant. He was made for a little while lower than the angels (positionally/functionally – not ontologically). So according to my viewpoint the man Yahshua was annointed by His Father. I surmise that the independant usage of his divine attributes, privileges, prerogatives were restored. What He emptied Himself of to become a man were returned. Quote Whilst we are here in Hebrews, would you also please let me know how Christ can be “appointed heir of all things”[/size], if He is the Supreme God, who owns all things. How can he inherit that which your view alleges He already owns? How can He be both the benefactor and the heir? Here is something I wrote in a post to Seminarian, I hope it goes some way to explaining my position: Quote Hmmm….my thoughts: ‘kurios’ has a multiplicity of meanings. There are instances in NT scripture where it clearly does not indicate deity, but rather expresses the authority and lordship arising from and pertaining to ownership: Matthew 18:27 “And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. (cf. Ch 18: 31, 32, 34) Luke 10:2 And He was saying to them, ” The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. And instances where is clearly does: Luke 4:8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ' YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'” Luke 20:37 “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB This of course is true of Yahshua as well. He Lord in more than one sense. He is THE Lord, an unmistakable reference to deity, and He is also “Lord of” something, a reference to His authority. Not always does it directly reference his deity. In this instance it does: Romans 10:9-13 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” Romans 9:13 is a direct quotation of Joel 2:32, where the “Lord” is YHWH. Paul applies this to Jesus. But not in these verses: Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. (cf. Rev 1:18) Luke 6:5 And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Acts 10:36 36″The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) Lord in these passages is qualified, and are therefore are not a direct reference to his deity per se, but allude to the authority and prerogatives bestowed on Him by the Father as a result of His incarnation, death and resurrection: Daniel 7:13-14 13″I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14″And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. Matthew 11:27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Ephesians 1:20-22 20which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church. Philippians 2:8-11 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father Hebrews 2:10 9But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Here is another example of what I mean: Romans 10:12 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; “Lord” is used twice in this verse. The first instance is a reference to the person of Christ – His title of deity. The second “Lord” alludes to His ownership by inheritance. He has inherited all – all that the Father has is His. So the verse you gave me, Acts 2:36, which is manifestly post-resurrection in context, is not a direct allusion to His deity, but to that which He inherited – the authority given to Him by the Father. That is how He was “made Lord” Seminarian. And we KNOW that Yahshua is Lord in more than one sense because He is called “Lord” in scripture countless times before He was madeLord (post-resurrection). Understand? So again, you have failed to produce valid testimony against the doctrine of the trinity. In anticipation of this objection which you will likely raise with me “Gee Is 1:18, if Yahshua really is YHWH why would he have to be given anything??”. This is my reply: Philippians 2:6-9 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name. Key points: Existed in the morphe of God (vs 6) Did not regard the equality He had with God a thing to be grasped (Gr. Harpagamos = retained, prized) (vs 7) EMPTIED Himself and took on the form (Gr. Morphe) of a bondservant, and was made in the likeness of men. (vs 8) Was obedient unto death. FOR THIS REASON, God exalted Him. In 2 Corinthians 8:9, Paul puts it this way “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.” In what sense was He rich? He existed in the form of God, had equality with the God, and in fact WAS God (Joh 1:1), then surrendered it to become a bondservant. All the divine prerogatives, the independent divine attributes associated with His pre-terrestrial existence were relinquished at the incarnation. At the resurrection they were rightly returned to Him by the Father, in glory. Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Quote Also whilst thinking about this, please let me know how Christ, if He is the Supreme God; the Almighty God, can have a head who is God? 1 Corinthains 11:3 says “the head of Christ is God”

Okay, let me see if I have this right…….
The fact that the Son subjects Himself to His Father proves He must be a lower class of being. Hmmm….

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

If you want to use verses like 1 Corinthians 11:3 or 15:28 to disprove Christ’s deity then, using the same logic, you must also accept that these verses disprove a woman’s humanity, since the head of a woman is man. But this is not so, the woman is still 100% human, she is not any LESS human than her husband. Headship is solely a function of position/authority – NOT ontology. Its a clearly taught biblical principle, but has no bearing on ontology.

Quote

If God, according to your concept is three persons in one, then this text should be read as: “the head of Christ is the trinity” or “the head of Christ is Father, Son and Holy Spirit” or “the head of Christ is three persons in one person”

I'm sorry but I have to be honest and say this argument, that is used with increasing frequency here, is utterly rediculous. The Greek word 'theos' is used predominantly by NT authors to designate the person of the Father of Yahshua. Sometimes it is used of Yahshua. The Greek word 'kurios' is used predominantly by NT authors to des
ignate the person of the Yahshua. Sometimes it is used of His Father. 'Theos' is not a stronger appelative than 'kurios', actally they are used interchangably throughout the NT. Clearly every NT usage of 'theos' is not a reference to the triune God, no trinitarian has ever asserted this in this forum, so it's a straw man argument.

Quote

Just one last question. In John 20:17 we read: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.“

Jesus has a God because He is also a man, born of woman and born under the law (Gal. 4:4). As a man, if He does not have His Father as His God He would be a transgressor of that law. The fact that His Father is His God is a natural consequence of His incarnation. Verses like this just affirm Christ’s humanity – something that trinitarians do not dispute. If you want to set about disproving the doctrine it might be more productive to try disproving His deity.

Quote

Who was Jesus referring to here when He said, “My God”? Was He saying, “My three in one God”? Who was the God that Jesus was going to ascend to?

No, I believe he was referring to His Father.

Quote

May reason and clear thinking prevail, in terms of Proverbs 4:5-7.

Yes.

Blessings
Hi Is 1:18. Thanks for your wordy response. Still I think we are getting hung up on pedantics.

Thus we have have God (Yahweh) making Jesus “as” God. Thus before this, he wasn't “as” God, he was something other than what He was before He was made “as” God.

Now let me try to understand what you are trying to defend. This is the way I am reading your output to date:

1: Jesus existed as God (I take that to mean within the trinity)
before He took it upon Himself to become a man. Is this right?

2: Upon becoming a man He “emptied” himself of what it was He was before. Can we say, divested Himself of everything that made Him God (part of the Trinity) before, so that he could be “truly” a man in every sense of the term. Is this right?

3.Therefore when He “emptied” Himself, He was no longer God (no longer part of the trinity), He was now man. Is this right?

4. Trinitarian theology informs me that Christ was 100% man and 100% God, in spite of the fact that no other man has ever been 100% God and 100% man. Therefore He wasn't made like unto His brethren in all respects (Heb 2:17). Contrary to what Scripture says in this regard, He was actually not fully man, if trinitarian theology is correct. Is this right?

5. When Jesus “emptied” himself, He was no longer God, but now man. Therefore He must have shed or “emptied” His 100% God aspect, so that He could be 100% man. Is this right?

6. Thus if Jesus was Yahweh, before He was man, what was left of Yahweh whilst He stepped into His new role? Evidently from your theology, Jesus could not be both God and Man, whilst He was a man, because He had “emptied” Himself of what He was before?

7. Thus Jesus, whilst He was on earth as a man, had to depend on the other two characters who made up the tri-unity, which had now become a bi-unity to carry on the God role and give Jesus His instructions. Is this right?

8. Whilst Jesus, was on earth, as a man, He prayed to the other remaining parties in the trinity, because He was no longer there as part of the God team. He had left and came to earth, to plead for the souls of men, and pay the price for sin. Is this right?

9. Thus in Hebrews 1:8, according to you, we have God (Yahweh) still in heaven, overseeing the affairs of heaven and earth, making or “appointing” Jesus as God whilst He was on earth, because He was no longer God, in the sense that He was before He came to earth. Now, if this appointing of Jesus to be God didn't apply whilst He was on earth, but only applied after, He ascended back to heaven, as some say, then He wasn't in any sense God, whilst He was on earth. Is this right?

Is 1:18, the more I hear from those who try to defend the trinitarian concept of God, the more confusing things become. The interesting thing about listening to trinitarians is that there is not a lot of consistency in their point of view. Like Oxy, for example, says the Holy Spirit is not equal with the Father. If I listen to others describe what they think they believe, they definitely believe in 3 separate Gods, in spite of their denials.

From my way of thinking, it all seems to fall into the category, of “professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools” Sorry no offence, I am just conveying the readout that I get when I hear and read your line of reasoning and that of others in your camp.

Be of good cheer.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote

Elidad, you have not given me a verse that calls Yahshua “A” God. Proj de ton uion o qronoj sou o qeoj, pros de ton huion ho thronos sou ho theos, (lit. “but regarding the Son [He says], the throne of you the God. . . .”). Both grammatically and contextually is to see the articular nominative qeoj, theos as carrying vocative force of direct address: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” This is the overwhelming consensus among objective scholarship. And this is why the translating teams of the 20 English versions listed on BibleGateway render this verse as follows: 1. NIV But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 2. NAS 8But of the Son He says,”YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 3. MSG But he says to the Son, You're God, and on the throne for good; your rule makes everything right. You love it when things are right; you hate it when things are wrong. 4. AMP 8But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness). 5. NLT 8But to his Son he says, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal power is expressed in righteousness. 6. KJV 8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 7. ESV 8But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 8. CEV But God says about his Son, “You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice. 9. NKJV 8 But to the Son He says:“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 10. KJ21 8But unto the Son He saith, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom. 11. ASV 8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 12. YLT 8and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign. 13. DARBY 8but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 14. NLV 8 But about His Son, He says, “O God, Your throne will last forever. Whatever You say in Your nation is right and good. 15. HCSB 8 but about the Son: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. 16. NIRV 8 But here is what he says about the Son. “You are God. Your throne will last for ever and ever. Your kingdom will be ruled by what is right. 17. WYC 8 But to the Son he saith, God, thy throne is into the world of world [into the world of worlds]; a rod of equity is the rod of thy realm; 18. WE 8But here is what God says about his Son: `O God, you will sit and rule for ever. You will rule in the right way. 19. NIVUK 8But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom. 20. TNIV 8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. None render Ho theos as “A God”, that would be bad grammar. Regarding context: HEBREWS 1:1-11 1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” 7And of the angels He says, “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” 8But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9″YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.” This short passage records these things about Yahshua: 1.He made the world(s) (v2) 2.He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His [Father’s] nature (v3) 3.He “upholds all things by the word of His power” – He sustains the entire Universe. Its estimated that 100,000,000 solar systems exist, each with approximately 100,000,000 planetary bodies and Yahshua sustains every atom! 4.All the angels of God worship Him. Angels are forbidden to worship anyone But God (Rev 22:8-9). 5.The pre-incarnate Word of God is clearly identified as having “laid the foundations of the earth” the Heavens are also “the works of HIS hands” in v10. This is a quote from Psa 102:25 – and is a verse written about YHWH. 6.He is immutable (v12) None of these could be true of any being of inferior ontology to Almighty God. In fact a sharp distinction is drawn between Yahshua and angels, and there are no beings with ontology intemediate to God and angels described in scripture. Hebrews 1:8 (the correct rendering) fits naturally and harmoniously within the context of this passage. The Father calls Yahshua “God” because He is….it's as simple as that. Blessings

Hi Is 1:18, Are you not getting hung up on pedantics? Please answer a question for me. Did God (Yahweh) make Moses God to Pharoah? Exodus 7:1

My comment, derived from this, was, that in the same way that God (Yahweh) made Moses God to Pharoah, he has made Jesus God to us.

The fact that I said “a God”, picking up the way it is expressed in the KJV, is beside the point. Some translations read “as God” or “thee God”. The issue is, the Scriptures state that the LORD (Yahweh) made Moses God to Pharoah.

Based on this, why do you see a problem with the LORD (Yahweh) making Jesus God to us, as conveyed in Hebrews 1:8?

According to your viewpoint, it seems tha
t in verse 9, you have Yahweh, annointing Yahweh. Please tell me who annointed who and what did the annointing signify?

Whilst we are here in Hebrews, would you also please let me know how Christ can be “appointed heir of all things”, if He is the Supreme God, who owns all things. How can he inherit that which your view alleges He already owns? How can He be both the benefactor and the heir?

Also whilst thinking about this, please let me know how Christ, if He is the Supreme God; the Almighty God, can have a head who is God? 1 Corinthains 11:3 says “the head of Christ is God”

If God, according to your concept is three persons in one, then this text should be read as: “the head of Christ is the trinity” or “the head of Christ is Father, Son and Holy Spirit” or “the head of Christ is three persons in one person”

Just one last question. In John 20:17 we read: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.“

Who was Jesus referring to here when He said, “My God”? Was He saying, “My three in one God”? Who was the God that Jesus was going to ascend to?

May reason and clear thinking prevail, in terms of Proverbs 4:5-7.

Peace be with you.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 08 2006,21:45)

Quote (Elidad @ Sep. 08 2006,23:54) But as Nick has pointed out, he is referred to as a God. Hello Elidad, Can you please point me to a verse in the Bible where Yahshua is referred to as “a God”? Thanks

Hi Is 1:18, Happy to oblige. How about Hebrews 1:8 as others have already pointed out?

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (Hebrews 1:8-9)

Let's consider this reference a little more closely. It is one that has been wrongly used to support trinitarian theology. Interestingly enough, such theology does recognise that this reference refers to Jesus as God, but goes too far by insisting that it is referring to 'the God'. It is alleged that because the verse addresses Jesus as “God”, He must therefore be a part of a Triune “godhead”.

However, as we shall see, that conclusion goes one big step beyond what is actually written.

We note first that, in John 17:3, Jesus addresses His Father as “THE ONLY TRUE GOD“. In the same prayer He also carefully identifies Himself as distinct from the “one true God”, by whom He is sent (delegated) to perform the task of glorifying His Father's name on earth.

This verse from John, should be enough in itself, to remind us to tread a little more carefully with the reference in Hebrews 1:8. However if we need more, it is contained in the immediate context in verse 9.

There we read two things which make it quite clear that Jesus is NOT the supreme deity; i.e. Yahweh, the Almighty God, the Father.

1. JESUS IS “ANOINTED”.
This word “anointed”, points us directly back to the OT prophecies about the Messiah. (Messiah as you well know is an Anglicised form of the Hebrew word for “anointed one”, which is directly equivalent to the Greek “christos”, and our English “Christ”) Reference to those prophecies will quickly reveal that the Messiah is NOT the ONE GOD of the OT. Instead He is clearly described as someone else, quite distinct and separate from God.

2. JESUS HAS BEEN ANOINTED BY HIS GOD!
This confirms again that, although addressed as “God“, Jesus is NOT Himself the supreme God. Instead, He also worships that God, as the one who has anointed Him with a (delegated) authority to rule over His (future) Kingdom.

ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATIONS
Hebrews 1:8-9 is a direct quotation from Psalm 45:6-7. In verse 6, in place of “Thy throne, O God” the RSV has “Your Divine throne”. And a marginal note in the RSV offers a further possible alternative as – “Your throne is a throne of God”. The NEB has “Your throne is like God's throne”.

As I am not a trained Hebrew Scholar, I won't try to resolve the reason why the translators feel it necessary to offer these alternatives. Let's merely note in passing, that if correct, they only serve to emphasise what is already clear from verse 7 ….. that there is a distinction drawn between Jesus and God. The “anointed one” is NOT Himself the Supreme God, but a worshipper of that God.

It takes a lot of double talk to get around what is here written. As Jesus said to his Acccuser, “it is written“.

Cheers

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Sep. 08 2006,19:44)

Nick, at least Oxy does not deny that we should call Jesus God. Even though I disagree with his stand on the trinity, for I believe the Son was begotten of the Father in the beginning, even before creation, and that the Father made him God, and by the Son and through the Son by the will of the Father, all of creation came into begin by the unction of the Holy Spirit, I believe Oxy's stand is stronger in the faith then that of yours. For he does not deny God, who is Chirst Jesus. For none can come to the Father, but through the Son. Yet, there will come a time once all things have been subdued that the Son will relinquish his authority of the Godhead unto the Father so the that Father will be all in all. For there is only one God.

Hello H.I.C.I.T.C, Really I think we are arguing at cross purposes at times, as I read through the various posts.

In fact, unless I have missed something somewhere, I don't think Nick or t8 have any problem referring to Christ as God. Nick and t8 , please correct me if I have got it wrong.

What they are challenging, as with myself, is the belief that Christ is Almighty God; in other words Yahweh. I have just recently listened to a CD by Charles Swindoll and he strongly insists that Christ is Yahweh, using such references as John 8:58 (among others) to support his contention.

In spite of what he makes of John 8:58, where he is totally and absolutely incorrect, the Scriptures do not teach that Christ is Yahweh. Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah spoken of extensively throughout the Old Testament. He is not Almighty God.

But as Nick has pointed out, he is referred to as a God. Why because his Father, the Almighty God, has made Him be a God to us, in exactly the same way he made Moses be God (Elohim) to Pharoah of Egypt. Exodus 7:1 reads (KJV)“And the LORD (Yahweh) said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (elohim) to Pharoah: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”

Compare also with Exodus 4:16.

So yes, whilst I contest trinitarian theology, I stand with Thomas when he said to Christ “My Lord and my God” but I see a vast difference between this and saying “My Lord and my Almighty God” as trinitarian theology urges.

Thus I think it is important in this dicussion Forum to understand what is being contested. It is not the fact that Jesus is referred to as God, but rather as Almighty God.

Scripture is quite clear, if you carefully compare Scripture with Scripture, and allow it to be its own interpreter, that Christ is not Almighty God. He is not Yahweh. It may well be right to refer to Christ as the Mighty God as we read in Isaiah 9:6 but certainly not as Almighty God. As an aside, it is interesting to read what other translators and commentators have said about Isaiah 9:6, where it speaks of Christ as the Mighty God and everlasting Father – seems the KJV translators didn't quite get it right.

Christ made known who the only true God was, and said,
“This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

The only “true” God is Yahweh, the Father, the Almighty God and His son is Jesus Christ.

Can anything be clearer? It is essential that we get this sorted out, because Christ said, 'eternal life' is bound up in understanding this consideration.

Perhaps the catch cry of Elijah is very relevant, if I may paraphrase:

“How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if the trinity be God, then follow such. And the people answered him not a word. (1 Kings 18:21)

As for me, I will follow the LORD; Yahweh, and do Him honor, and glorify His name, by falling into line behind His son; like He instructed, whom He has appointed heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2)

Incidently, no one has ever explained to me how Christ can be the heir of all things, and also be the benefactor?

Peace be with you.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 08 2006,10:48)

I once believed the trinity doctrine myself. Then I seriously looked into the evidence. The things T8 is saying is the exact information I discovered. We all agree here, I think, that the scriptures must supersede the authority of tradition and teachings of men. I no doubt believe that the trinitarians on this forum are God fearing and sincere Christians. I also realize that all of us are fully capable of simply being wrong by not properly applying and weighing the evidence before us. I myself am probably wrong on several beliefs, yet, if and when ever I discover an error I know I must yield my former position. When I honestly look at the evidence with all pride and fear of men removed from my thoughts then I cannot help but see very clearly the deceptive teaching of the Trinity. We all love God and therefor defend what we believe to be the truths about him. So I do not judge trinitarians at all in that regard. The vast majority of my christian friends are trinitarians. But, I cannot help but yearn for them to see what I see and I wish the same for you. With respect, grace, sincerity and all humbleness.

Hi Mercy, Nicely said. I too was a former trinitatian, baptised and confirmed in the High Church of England. However after having my beliefs challenged, because in the main they had been basically inherited from my mother (father was an athiest, until the later part of his life, when he eventually saw the light and submitted to Christ) I discovered, after many years of searching, that I needed a radical change of thinking.

Incidently many of our friends are trinitarians and we actually attend a Baptist Church and have done so for the past 4 years or more. With things were we don't agree, we decide to disagree, yet get on happily together, trusting that in good time further enlightement will come when and where needed.

Peace be with you.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (Oxy @ Sep. 07 2006,22:18)

It's obvious we're just going round in circles here. I stand by what God showed me last night: Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. If you study the Hebrew, God is saying “Let Us (God being in the plural sense) fashion man after Us” God made us this way: Body – The flesh. Soul – Identity, including the thought process, personality, decision making. Spirit – Conscience, “6th sense”, intuition, inner knowledge. We are one being, but made up of three parts, fashioned after God.

Hi Oxy, Sorry, I am dragging the chain with this discussion, we seem to have moved on a few pages since this one.

May I ask, what makes you think Genesis 1:26 supports the trinity concept of God? On what authority do you restrict the “us” to two others in a party of three?

Given that the Scripture reveals that there are many angels in the heavenly host, have you ever considered that God may have been addressing, others of the heavenly host, His ministering spirits? (Hebrews 1:14) They were evidently present at the time of creation, if we go by what we read in Job 37, especially verse 7.

Given that God is one, surely when He uses the word “us” he is addressing someone other than Himself?

Why even Herman Bavinck, a noted trinitarian in his book “The Doctrine of God” says on page 258 that Genesis 1:26 cannot be used to support belief in the trinity. Here is what he says, “The plural forms found in Genesis 1:26, 27; 3:22; Is 6:8 etc, lack sufficient force to prove the trinity, inasmuch as they can be explained in the same manner as the plural Elohim” On page 100 of this same book, he outlines why Elohim, which is a plural word, also cannot be used to bolster an argument for belief in the trinity. These are statements coming from some one who in the rest of his 407 page book, endeavours to build a case for belief in the trinity.

So here we have an honest trinitarian, dismissing this reference that you are appealing to support your stand.

The jews who were very familiar with the their own language, never concluded from the Genesis creation chapters that there was a plurality of Gods involved.

What you should note is that in the verses, singular pronouns are used with the word God. “in His (not their) image”. In the image of God “He” (not they) created them.

It takes a fair stretch of the imagination to deduce from this verse, where the personal pronoun describing God (His) is singular, that a plurality of beings was being referred to?

What about verse 29 where it says “I” not 'we' have given you every plant yielding seed …… verse 31 and God saw that everything that “He” had made (not they) which it should read if God was a plural being.

There is always greaty danger in appealing to a text of Scripture in isolation. The context cannot be ignored.

You say, “if you study Hebrew”. What do you mean by this? I have gathered that many scholars have come to understand by studying Hebrew, that the phrase “Let us” or the word “Elohim” cannot be taken to mean a plurality of God persons. Thus you have left me puzzled as to what you have studied or where you have studied?

Perhaps you can enlighten me further as to your sources of information?

Finally your three part illustration of what a person is, doesn't seem to fit very well with what I read in Genesis 2:7; reading KJV

Here I find that dust + breath of life = a living soul. In other words, Body (formed of dust) + spirit = man.

Man is a soul, it is not something separate from a person. Go get your concordance and look up every reference where the word soul appears and every reference where the original hebrew word has been translated with a word, other than soul and you may well be surprised what you find.

Cheers

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote

It should also be noted that the trinity doctrine is a mainstream doctrine and held as truth by the absolute vast majority of Christians across almost all the creditable denominations, not just the catholics.

Hi Is 1:18,

Did Jesus, go along with “popular opinion” during the time of his ministry?

I have just noticed on the WEB that mainstream Churches are increasingly accepting and supporting the “theory” of Evolution as fact; some 10,000 ministers having signed a petition to this effect. Go here to read about it: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

Would you also advocate that we should now throw out the Genesis account of Creation, because an increasing number of mainstream churches think Evolution is the truth of the matter?

Cheers

Elidad

[Elidad]

Quote (Oxy @ Sep. 07 2006,20:22)

Elidad.. you speak of things that obviously do not understand. You certainly don't understand me so don't try to tell me what I believe or where my faith comes from.

Hi Oxy, It is not a case of speaking of things that I do not understand, but rather a matter of speaking in terms of the thoughts that you are expressing. If you do not fully understand the implications of the terms that you use, is is right to say that I do not understand what you believe?

The Scriptures says “as a man thinketh in his heart so is he” Proverbs 23:7

Thus, the way I see it, the words you chose to use to express your thoughts in this Forum, give an indication of who and what you are, unless of course you are choosing the wrong words to convey your thoughts?

I can only understand you by as much as your words reveal. So if I am failing to have a full appreciation of what you are driving at, perhaps you might like to add some clarification.

From reading your posts, I get the impression that you believe in the trinity concept of God, similar if not the same as that promoted by conventional theological thinking. Although you evidently have your own version of the trinity concept, as it certainly doesn't seem to be lining up with the popular and official concept.

So perhaps you could explain yourself some more, so that I can get a proper handle on what you are really advocating?

Peace be with you.

Elidad

[Author]

Posts