Concerning the Nature of God [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

gregoryfl

08-31-2008, 08:00 AM

This is in response to the following post given to me to consider:

Hello Greg
My name's Alec. Good to read your response to Richard. I would like to offer you my take on the subject. First let me draw your attention to the fact that the name used in the beginning was not El Shadai ( The allmighty. Singular ) but Elohim which is plural. A bit farther down you will read “Jehovah Elohim” . The one who is Objects of worship. God said “let US make man in OUR own image. It would be ludicrous to suggest that because I am this shape then God must be this shape. I am created in the image of God.. God is a triune being and so am I . I have a mind . This body is not a mind . I have a soul (or spirit. Whichever label you might want to use) and that is separate . These three are separate and yet inseparable. In the beginning was the word and the word was God. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. “ I have exalted my word above my name”.Peace be your portion.
Alec

Here is my response:

Alec,

Thank you very much for sharing with me your understanding of the nature of God. One thing I failed to mention in any of my other posts is that I, for several years, taught that God was a trinity, and so I am familiar with it.

So I will share what I understand about the points you brought up.

You made mention of the word Elohim being plural, and yes, that is true. It is the plural of the form Eloah. The two letters 'im' make it so. But when it is meant to be understood as plural, the verbs connected to it are also plural. This is the form of the word, but it is not always the sense of the word. In other words, while there are some uses of the word Elohim where it is understood to be plural, the vast majority of its uses are actually singular in nature. We know this because of the verbal modifiers used. They are singular most of the time when referring to the one true God. The scripture you mentioned gives us this example.

There you quoted "let US make man in OUR image." Here, it is clear that God is speaking to other elohim who are in his image. I will get to what that image is shortly, but notice how right after that it switches back to the singular usage of the word, where it says, "And God created man in HIS image..."

This singular usage of the word Elohim is the predominant one in scripture since it refers to the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe they rightly understood him to be a singular being. Yet they had no problem referring to him as Elohim. Why?

This was the Hebrew way of expressing something superior to all others. In this case, the word 'El' and 'Eloah' mean "Mighty One", or "Strong One." When "Elohim" is used with singular verbs, it would have been understood as "Mightiest One", or "Strongest One."

One very clear example of this can be found in Exodus 4:16, where Moses is told by Yahuwah that he would be "as an elohim for [Aaron]." Moses was of course only one person, yet he is referred to as an elohim. This usage is not to be understood as plural in nature, but rather as expressing the idea that while Aaron, acting as the mouthpiece for Moses and Yahuwah, Moses would be a higher authority, representing the Mightiest One himself.

One more example showing that there are others who are rightly considered elohim, or mighty ones, can be found by comparing Psa 8:5

For you have made him a little lower than elohim...

with Heb 2:7

For you have made him a little lower than the angels...

Here we see that angels are also considered as elohim. Of course, in this case, the word is plural. So again, my understanding is that when the word elohim is used, if it is used with plural modifiers, it is to be understood as the plural of eloah, which is why I am translating it in those cases as mighty ones. If it is used with singular modifiers, it is to be understood as speaking of one person magnified above other els, or mighty ones; which is why I am translating those instances as Mightiest One.

It is these angels, who are also in God's image, that I believe he was speaking to since they were there watching with great anticipation as the earthly creation was taking place.

This is getting rather long so I will stop here and continue on another post to consider your other points. Thanks again for stimulating the mind to think things through. Very appreciated.

alec cotton

10-15-2008, 11:10 AM

This is in response to the following post given to me to consider:

Hello Greg
My name's Alec. Good to read your response to Richard. I would like to offer you my take on the subject. First let me draw your attention to the fact that the name used in the beginning was not El Shadai ( The allmighty. Singular ) but Elohim which is plural. A bit farther down you will read 'Jehovah Elohim' . The one who is Objects of worship. God said 'let US make man in OUR own image. It would be ludicrous to suggest that because I am this shape then God must be this shape. I am created in the image of God.. God is a triune being and so am I . I have a mind . This body is not a mind . I have a soul (or spirit. Whichever label you might want to use) and that is separate . These three are separate and yet inseparable. In the beginning was the word and the word was God. The word became flesh and dwelt among us. ' I have
exalted my word above my name'.Peace be your portion.
Alec

Here is my response:

Alec,

Thank you very much for sharing with me your understanding of the nature of God. One thing I failed to mention in any of my other posts is that I, for several years, taught that God was a trinity, and so I am familiar with it.

So I will share what I understand about the points you brought up.

You made mention of the word Elohim being plural, and yes, that is true. It is the plural of the form Eloah. The two letters 'im' make it so. But when it is meant to be understood as plural, the verbs connected to it are also plural. This is the form of the word, but it is not always the sense of the word. In other words, while there are some uses of the word Elohim where it is understood to be plural, the vast majority of its uses are actually singular in nature. We know this because of the verbal modifiers used. They are singular most of the time when referring to the one true God. The scripture you mentioned gives us this example.

There you quoted "let US make man in OUR image." Here, it is clear that God is speaking to other elohim who are in his image. I will get to what that image is shortly, but notice how right after that it switches back to the singular usage of the word, where it says, "And God created man in HIS image..."

This singular usage of the word Elohim is the predominant one in scripture since it refers to the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe they rightly understood him to be a singular being. Yet they had no problem referring to him as Elohim. Why?

This was the Hebrew way of expressing something superior to all others. In this case, the word 'El' and 'Eloah' mean "Mighty One", or "Strong One." When "Elohim" is used with singular verbs, it would have been understood as "Mightiest One", or "Strongest One."

One very clear example of this can be found in Exodus 4:16, where Moses is told by Yahuwah that he would be "as an elohim for [Aaron]." Moses was of course only one person, yet he is referred to as an elohim. This usage is not to be understood as plural in nature, but rather as expressing the idea that while Aaron, acting as the mouthpiece for Moses and Yahuwah, Moses would be a higher authority, representing the Mightiest One himself.

One more example showing that there are others who are rightly considered elohim, or mighty ones, can be found by comparing Psa 8:5

For you have made him a little lower than elohim...

with Heb 2:7

For you have made him a little lower than the angels...

Here we see that angels are also considered as elohim. Of course, in this case, the word is plural. So again, my understanding is that when the word elohim is used, if it is used with plural modifiers, it is to be understood as the plural of eloah, which is why I am translating it in those cases as mighty ones. If it is used with singular modifiers, it is to be understood as speaking of one person magnified above other els, or mighty ones; which is why I am translating those instances as Mightiest One.

It is these angels, who are also in God's image, that I believe he was speaking to since they were there watching with great anticipation as the earthly creation was taking place.

This is getting rather long so I will stop here and continue on another post to consider your other points. Thanks again for stimulating the mind to think things through. Very appreciated.

Hello Greg.
I am so grateful to you for your reply . I don't know how long it has been . The forum is so big that I find it hard to keep up. There is nothing like discussion ,debate and argument to stimulate the heart and mind. You say that God solicited the help of the angels in creating the world
when he said ' let us'. God needs no one. ' the earth was without form and void' . God projected a mental image into a formless mass and the formless mass assumed the shape of the projected image. Our heavenly father draws our attention to himself and his nature in many and various ways.
.In gen.17.1 we read When Abraham was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to him and said I am El Shadai------ Verse 22 and he left off talking to him and Elohim went up from Abraham. In the next chapter Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the form of three men. Whenever God spoke ,it was Jehovah. Whenever Abraham addressed God he used the word Adonai (plural ).
Jehovah ,singular. Adonai,plural. Now , to make sure that there is no misunderstanding,God choreographed the scene and had Sarah say ' My lord (adon, Singular)being old also'. Isa.9.6
Unto us a child is born and he shall be called the everlasting father—The mighty God. I am sure that you are familiar with all the rest. Jesus IS God. God is Jesus. The Holy Ghost IS the spirit of God. Jesus is not one of them. The Holy spirit is not One of them Jehovah is one..I hope to read more from you here or elsewhere on the forum
Alec

gregoryfl

10-15-2008, 03:29 PM

Hello Greg.
I am so grateful to you for your reply . I don't know how long it has been . The forum is so big that I find it hard to keep up. There is nothing like discussion ,debate and argument to stimulate the heart and mind. You say that God solicited the help of the angels in creating the world
when he said ' let us'. God needs no one. ' the earth was without form and void' . God projected a mental image into a formless mass and the formless mass assumed the shape of the projected image. Our heavenly father draws our attention to himself and his nature in many and various ways.
.In gen.17.1 we read When Abraham was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to him and said I am El Shadai------ Verse 22 and he left off talking to him and Elohim went up from Abraham. In the next chapter Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the form of three men. Whenever God spoke ,it was Jehovah. Whenever Abraham addressed God he used the word Adonai (plural ).
Jehovah ,singular. Adonai,plural. Now , to make sure that there is no misunderstanding,God choreographed the scene and had Sarah say ' My lord (adon, Singular)being old also'. Isa.9.6
Unto us a child is born and he shall be called the everlasting father—The mighty God. I am sure that you are familiar with all the rest. Jesus IS God. God is Jesus. The Holy Ghost IS the spirit of God. Jesus is not one of them. The Holy spirit is not One of them Jehovah is one..I hope to read more from you here or elsewhere on the forum
Alec

Alec,

Thanks for your reply. You mentioned that God needs no one, and I agree. Whether God had the angels participate in forming man I do not know for sure, but either way, I still believe that God was speaking to them when he said "Let us make man in our image." Let me take the view that the angels did not actually participate at all. This language can still be used genuinely, even if God alone ended up making man, because even today we use terms like that, where "we" are said to do something, when not everyone actually ends up doing it.

I can tell my wife, "Let us put in new windows." So we discuss it, I go out and buy them, and I put them in myself. She did not participate in putting them in, yet I involved her in the conversation. I believe that is what happened there. After all, the angels were very fascinated with this creation of man, who would be a part of a grand master plan, hidden in a mystery, which the angels longed to look into.

As far as the plural Adonai being used of God, the fact that singular modifiers are used in those instances shows that it is speaking of the singular Lord, or Master, just as with the case of Elohim. When God appeared to Abraham, I believe he appeared in human form with two angels. When those angels went to Sodom to get Lot, God manifested in human form was still with Abraham.

Alec, I too believe that Jesus is God, and that God is Jesus. He is the very union of God and man. Jesus is the manifestation of the invisible God. I do not believe Jesus was some created creature, but one supernaturally born from the very Spirit of God as the seed implanted into Mary, the same seed from Jesus himself now reproduced many times over by the same spirit in us who are born from above.

As far as the Holy Spirit, I do believe that when speaking, such as at the time when Paul and Barnabas were sent into their apostolic work, that it is God himself, who is Holy Spirit. Jesus himself possesses and is that same spirit, both Jesus and the Spirit being called by the same title, Parakletos, which most Bible translations fail to bring out. Compare 1John 2:1 with John 14:6.

At this time I just simply cannot bring myself to believe that each are separate and distinct persons all considered the one God. And I also do not see how what I believe in any way diminishes the God we serve and love. I once held to such views in my earlier years.

It's good to continue thinking on these things, and ultimately know that this isn't about arguing about who is right and who is wrong, but presenting what we see scripture teaching while hopefully seeing at least why we believe the way we do, even if we cannot agree with it. We are still brothers in Christ.

Ron

Bob May

10-17-2008, 05:14 AM

Alec,

Thanks for your reply. You mentioned that God needs no one, and I agree. Whether God had the angels participate in forming man I do not know for sure, but either way, I still believe that God was speaking to them when he said "Let us make man in our image." Let me take the view that the angels did not actually participate at all. This language can still be used genuinely, even if God alone ended up making man, because even today we use terms like that, where "we" are said to do something, when not everyone actually ends up doing it.

I can tell my wife, "Let us put in new windows." So we discuss it, I go out and buy them, and I put them in myself. She did not participate in putting them in, yet I involved her in the conversation. I believe that is what happened there. After all, the angels were very fascinated with this creation of man, who would be a part of a grand master plan, hidden in a mystery, which the angels longed to look into.

As far as the plural Adonai being used of God, the fact that singular modifiers are used in those instances shows that it is speaking of the singular Lord, or Master, just as with the case of Elohim. When God appeared to Abraham, I believe he appeared in human form with two angels. When those angels went to Sodom to get Lot, God manifested in human form was still with Abraham.

Alec, I too believe that Jesus is God, and that God is Jesus. He is the very union of God and man. Jesus is the manifestation of the invisible God. I do not believe Jesus was some created creature, but one supernaturally born from the very Spirit of God as the seed implanted into Mary, the same seed from Jesus himself now reproduced many times over by the same spirit in us who are born from above.

As far as the Holy Spirit, I do believe that when speaking, such as at the time when Paul and Barnabas were sent into their apostolic work, that it is God himself, who is Holy Spirit. Jesus himself possesses and is that same spirit, both Jesus and the Spirit being called by the same title, Parakletos, which most Bible translations fail to bring out. Compare 1John 2:1 with John 14:6.

At this time I just simply cannot bring myself to believe that each are separate and distinct persons all considered the one God. And I also do not see how what I believe in any way diminishes the God we serve and love. I once held to such views in my earlier years.

It's good to continue thinking on these things, and ultimately know that this isn't about arguing about who is right and who is wrong, but presenting what we see scripture teaching while hopefully seeing at least why we believe the way we do, even if we cannot agree with it. We are still brothers in Christ.

Ron

Hi guys,
I have all but stopped trying to reconcile God is One with all of the God names in the Bible. It just IS.
There is no contradiction in it. It is just a matter of our not being able to understand spiritual things with a carnal mind and not being able to put those things into words.

God is Spirit.
Jesus said if you have known me you have known the Father.
Paul says there is one Spirit.
In the Qabala there are ten Emanations of God. Pure "aspects". Each has a God name attributed to it. The first is Eheieh. "I Am" the second, IHVH Jehovah, the third, Jehovah Elohim.
There is also an order of angels called Elohim and another called Beni Elohim.
All of these and more are God's functions in various spheres of operation.
These names can be called on for specifics.
But God is one. And we are one with him at some level.

Ex 6:3 "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.."

Jehovah or Father is the name I use. Jesus also did and sometimes Abba.
On the Tree of Life Eheieh "I am" is the uppermost Source, first Sephirah, Crown, ancient of Days, Etc. It borders on the Unknowable. It is said it is all "right side" as we can know it only in part.

In the above quote from Exodus we see that Jehovah (IHVH) seems to be a further revealing of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. (And, it seems to me a further revealing of the Covenant) It seems to me also that Jesus use of the "familiar" term of Abba is also a further revealing of our relationship with the One God.

IHVH, Jehovah also denotes Wisdom,.. the merciful side of God on the Pillar of Mercy on the Tree of Life as opposed to Jehovah Elohim on the Pillar of Severity.

Whether He used angels in the Creation or not is not as important to me as the idea that God is One and that as we grow in understanding we find that He is closer to us than we ever imagined.

Bob

gregoryfl

10-17-2008, 09:54 AM

Bob and Alec,

Thank you both for sharing what you understand and participating in this discussion.

Many blessings,

Ron

gregoryfl

11-25-2008, 12:31 PM

I have heard it said that the idea of using a plural form to indicate plural of majesty was foreign to the hebrew peoples. While the concept called "plural of majesty" may be a product coined and used first by the England monarchy, the hebrew peoples did indeed use the plural form of nouns to indicate, not only quantity, but also quality.

For example, the word "behemah" is a single land animal. It is written in the feminine form so the plural form of "behemah" would be "behemot." Masculine plurals end in "iym", while feminine plurals end in "ot."

Now, let's compare a couple of verses in Job:

Job 12:7 “But ask the animals, now, and they shall teach you;
the birds of the sky, and they shall tell you.

Job 40:15 “See now, behemoth, which I made as well as you.
He eats grass as an ox.

The two words colored in red, "animals" and "behemoth," are the same Hebrew word "behemot." The first word has plural modifiers around it, so we know that it is refering to more than one animal.

In the second instance, there are singular modifiers around it, so it is referring again to a single animal, but one larger than the others. While most have chosen to transliterate it as "behemoth," to be more consistent, it should be translated as "largest animal."

With this understanding, that is why I understand "Elohiym" to be referring to, not a plural of Gods, as say the Mormons would understand it, nor would I take it to mean a plural of persons within one God, as those believing in the trinity would understand it. I would take it to mean simply that "Elohiym" is the Strongest, of eloah's. In my translation, I have translated it, when referring to the one, true God, as "Strongest-Yoked-One."

Ron

gregoryfl

11-26-2008, 09:35 AM

I have had it asked of me why I translated Elohim as Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd. I believe that this term is describing our God as one who yokes himself to his people by oaths and covenants. The Semitic people were familiar with the common practice of yoking an older, more powerful, experienced ox with a younger one. The older one would bear the load, and at the same time the younger ox would learn from the older one.

There are 3 words for God in Hebrew, they are:

1) El: Commonly understood to mean Mighty One, or Strong One.

2) Eloah: The parent root of this word is related to the word for oath, and to swear. This to the Hebrew would yoke the two parties together. I translate this as Strong-Yoked-One.

3) Elohim: This I understand to be the plural of Eloah, but used as a plural of quality. I translate this as Strongest-Yoked-One.

This idea of covenant and the binding of two parties together being thought of as a yoke may seem strange to us today, but it was not to them. Here are a couple examples. Jesus himself said:

Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am tame and lowly in inner-shepherd; and you will find entry-into-the-tent for your breathing-throats.

Notice that this is Jesus' own yoke. He is describing himself as the older ox offering to be yoked to these weary ones. His saying to learn from him is reminiscent of the older ox teaching the younger ox yoked together.

Now see later in history as expressed by the early disciples:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.'

Act 15:10 Now therefore why do you tempt God, that you should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Here we see that circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses was referred to as a yoke. This is clearly the agricultural idea of oath taking and covenant making.

Our Strongest-Yoked-One has never been distant, nor aloof from his people. Unlike others gods who were, and had to be appeased by sacrifice and other rituals in order to even get their "so-called" attention, the God of scripture is always actively involved in and among his people, even to the point of being bound with them by means of a figurative yoke. We can be thankful that the yoke we bear with him now is, as Jesus himself said, easy and light.

More to come....

Ron

gregoryfl

11-26-2008, 03:35 PM

In the interest of fairness I will also be presenting evidence from other views for comparison. This will allow the reader to see how various views have come about concerning God's nature.

Ron

gregoryfl

11-27-2008, 09:49 AM

gregoryfl

11-27-2008, 06:38 PM

By the way, I do not expect to convince anyone here of what I understand concerning the nature of God. I am only presenting what I see because Richard invited me to do so for discussion.

Perhaps this is not a subject that others are interested in pursuing. I realize that there are some who feel it is pointless to debate these things, and I respect that. I humbly agree that to debate some things can be pointless. However, when it comes to God himself, and how he has revealed himself, I feel that it is perhaps the most important foundation of which everything else is built.

It may seem strange to see the same person presenting views not his or her own, but this is something I did for my wife when we were Jehovah's Witnesses. I was very familiar with what other people believed, and why they believed the way they did, and so would share with my wife those other views from their perspective. It proved fruitful in helping both of us coming out of the group and being drawn by God to himself.

Therefore, I would hope that my sharing of various views, including my own, for everyone to see would show that I am familiar with other points of view and have taken them into consideration. I hope that I do justice in presenting even the views I do not agree with. I would love to hear what any of you think of what I am sharing, but if not, then I hope you get a more well-rounded view of where people are coming from when they speak of God.

Ron

gregoryfl

11-28-2008, 07:21 AM

As promised, I will be presenting another understanding, one from the viewpoint of someone who believes that there is one God who exists eternally as 3 separate and distinct, yet equal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is nothing to fear from examining and being willing to carefully look at other views.

Remember when I said that when singular modifiers surrounded the plural word Elohim, that it indicated, not more than one Elohim, but one stronger than the others? Well, there are instances where there are actually plural modifiers when referring to God. For example:

Gen 20:13 It happened, when the Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd caused me to wander from my family-strengthener’s house, that I said to her, This is your neck-bowing which you shall show to me. Everywhere that we go, say of me, He is my male-strong-protector.

The verb rendered "caused to wander" is plural. Therefore we have, more literally but a bit more awkwardly in English "they caused me to wander..." speaking of the Elohiym here.

Also in Genesis we find, in the case of Jacob:

Gen 35:7 He built an altar there, and called the place the Strong-Shepherd of Beythel; because there the Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd was revealed to him, when he fled from the face of Esav, his male-strong-protector.

Literally the text tells us that "the Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd, they were revealed to him."

There are many more, but let me share one more:

Job 35:10 But none says, Where is the Strong-Yoked-Shepherd my Maker, who gives songs in the night,

Even though here we find Eloah, which is singular, being used, the word Maker is plural. Literally we have "the Strong-Yoked-Shepherd my Makers."

Those who understand God to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit see these verses showing that God has revealed his oneness in unity, a unity of 3 persons.

That's it for now. Will share more later since I want to keep these teachings short and concise.

Ron

In response to this, there is a grammatical reason behind what we see in the 9 instances where plural modifiers are used of Yahuwah Elohiym. Basically, the plural verb or adjective in those few instances, when clearly a singular Elohiym is being referred to, is instead rendered as a plural, based on the plural rendering of the noun Elohiym. The verb or adjective is "attracted" to the noun and rendered according to whether it is plural or singular, regardless of what the sentence indicates.

Here are some other examples of such a use of attraction:

Gen 3:8 and he is hiding himself the man and his woman from the faces of Yahuwah Elohiym...(CLV interlinear)

Notice that even though 2 person, Adam and Eve, are being spoken of here as hiding, the verb, being attracted to the singular noun Adam, is rendered as "he is hiding" even though it is translated in English as "they hid." We know that both Adam and Eve hid themselves, not just Adam.

Num 12:1 and she is speaking, Miriam and Aaron, in Moses...

In this instance, the verb, although rendered in English as "they spoke, Miriam and Aaron, to Moses..." because the verb is "attracted" to the noun Miriam, is instead rendered as "she is speaking."

Exo 32:4 and he is taking from hand of them and he is forming in the stylus and he is making him calf molten and they are saying these Elohim of your Israel who they brought you up from land of Egypt

They made a single calf. This is clear from the singular word for calf. Yet, when referring to what the calf did, the verb "they brought you up" is attracted to the noun to which it refers, which is the plural "Elohim." Another attraction we see in the word "these," which is also attracted to the same noun. There were not multiple calves, only one, even though in the Hebrew they used plural modifiers around it.

Interestingly, in 2 of the instances where this law of attraction is used, 2Sa 7:23 and here in Exo 32:4, they are recounted later in history and notice the way they are rendered. I will cite them next to each other for comparison:

2Sa 7:23 What one nation in the earth is like your people, even like Israel, whom God [they] went to redeem to himself for a people

Compare with:

1Ch 17:21 What one nation in the earth is like your people Israel, whom God [he] went to redeem to himself for a people,

Also..

Exo 32:4 He received what they handed him, and fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made it a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt.”

Compared with:

Neh 9:18 Yes, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, ‘This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt,’ and had committed awful blasphemies;

Notice the change from plural modifiers to singular modifiers when the account is shared later in history. That later change reflects how the earlier text was to be properly understood.

This is why again, I believe that God is singular, although he has chosen to manifest himself in many different ways throughout history, in ways we can relate to and identify with.

More to come...

Ron

gregoryfl

11-28-2008, 11:06 AM

Another verse that appears at first glance to substantiate that there are more than one person called Yahweh, and that if there are, yet only the one God, then it must mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each Yahweh, separate persons yet one God, is found in Genesis 19:24:

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky.

Since earlier we read of Abraham standing before Yahweh and speaking with him, what is said concerning this verse is that the Yahweh that rained fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah was the Son, and that he did it from the other Yahweh, the Father, out of the sky, or out of heaven.

I believe that such need not be the case, but that there is a logical grammatical explanation for this rendering. What I see is that the writer is simply saying that Yahweh rained down fire from heaven from himself. In other words, it could be understood as saying:

Gen 19:24 Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from himself out of the sky.

While not very common, this isn't the only case of such a grammatical construction. Here is another, one which speaks of Solomon:

1Ki 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers’ households of the children of Israel, to king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion.

Now, again, at first glance it appears as though there is one Solomon gathering all these people to another Solomon in Jerusalem. Of course, no one believes this to be true, so most modern translations render it in a way similar to this:

At that time Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, all the tribal heads and the ancestral leaders of the Israelites before him at Jerusalem in order to bring the ark of the LORD's covenant from Zion, the city of David. (HCSB)

Then King Solomon summoned into his presence at Jerusalem the elders of Israel, all the heads of the tribes and the chiefs of the Israelite families, to bring up the ark of the LORD's covenant from Zion, the City of David. (NIV)

The meaning that is obvious from the renderings in this scripture, I believe to be the same meaning and construction used in Genesis 19.

Ron

gregoryfl

12-01-2008, 09:27 AM

What about the use of plural pronouns when referring to the one true God? These are the scriptures which show this:

Gen 1:26-27 The Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd said, Let us make man in our shadow, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flyers of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the land, and over every mover that moves on the land. The Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd fattened man in his own shadow. In the Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd’s shadow he fattened him; male and female he fattened them.

Gen 3:22 Yahuwah the Strongest-Yoked-Shepherd said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing function and dysfunction. Now, lest he reach out his hand, and also take of the tree of the filled-stomach, and eat, and fill-the-stomach to the horizon...

Gen 11:7-8 Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So Yahuwah scattered them abroad from there on the face of all the land. They stopped building the city.

Isa 6:8 I heard the Master’s voice, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here I am. Send me!

Notice the interplay between God being referred to in the plural, and then in the singular. Such seems to indicate that there must be something the writer is trying to convey, namely, that this one God consists of more than one person. In these texts, we see one of the persons of the Godhead speaking to the others, yet the one God is clearly meant. Therefore, not multiple Gods, nor one single person as God, but one God in (as scripture reveals) 3 persons.

I would like to offer another grammatical explanation for this in my next post, something that shows that the above explanation need not be the only one to consider.

Ron

gregoryfl

12-03-2008, 03:29 PM

In providing another explanation for the switch between plural and singular when speaking and doing, I explained this somewhat in an earlier post. Now I would like to provide some scriptural examples that deal with others besides God.

Dan 2:36 This is the dream, and we will tell the meaning of it before the king.

2Ch 18:5 And the king of Yisrael gathered the prophets, four hundred men. And he said to them, Shall we go to Ramoth Gilad to battle, or shall I forbear?

In these 2 scriptures, we see that Daniel is speaking of himself and the revealer of the dream, God, yet Daniel alone is the one who spoke to the king. Also, Ahab feels free to use both plural and singular pronouns when referring to his own decision, yet we know that Ahab was not speaking of multiple persons making up Ahab, but merely of taking some action in behalf of the nation.

For clarity, let's put Ahab's statement next to God's, to get a better visual as to what I am speaking of:

2Ch 18:5 And the king of Israel gathered the prophets, four hundred men. And he said to them, Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?

Isa 6:8 I heard the Master’s voice, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

Both the king of Israel, and the Lord are speaking in a royal type setting. Ahab of course with human subjects serving him, and the Lord with the heavenly host serving him. That is who he is speaking to in those instances where he speaks in the plural, yet, just as with Ahab and with Daniel, God alone is the one who did that action. He alone made man, he alone went and confused the languages, etc.

I have written quite a bit so far and I think this is a good place to stop and wait until I get some other responses which will tell me whether this information warrants discussion. I would hope it does.

Ron

joel

12-03-2008, 04:22 PM

Ron, which version are you using?

Joel

gregoryfl

12-03-2008, 04:48 PM

Joel,

When you see me quoting scripture with quite a few hyphenated words, which is most of the time, in those cases I am using my own translation. I haven't given it a name, other than the scriptures. You can find it here, http://ketuvim-writings.blogspot.com/ where, as I continue to work on it, I post my updates there.

Ron

joel

12-03-2008, 06:51 PM

Gen 3:8 and he is hiding himself the man and his woman from the faces of Yahuwah Elohiym...(CLV interlinear)

When you cited this verse, is CLV the Concordant Literal Version?

Joel

gregoryfl

12-03-2008, 07:18 PM

When you cited this verse, is CLV the Concordant Literal Version? Joel Not the CLV itself, but the interlinear that it is based on, with a couple of changes. It can be found here. http://www.scripture4all.org/

Ron

gregoryfl

12-04-2008, 02:01 PM

Joel,

Were you just curious about what version I was using, or did you have questions about the way the words were rendered?

Ron

joel

12-04-2008, 02:24 PM

Were you just curious about what version I was using, or did you have questions about the way the words were rendered?

Ron

What caught my eye was reference to CLV......the Concordant Literal Version of the Old Testament has just be finished, and is to be published soon as a bound volume.....so I am told. Portions of the scriptures have been available in the past, and it has been a goal of Concern to finish the Old Testament.

It is rare to find someone familiar with their work.

As to the interlinear, I have not seen a copy until I viewed the Scripture4All version which was hard to view.

I am familiar with ISA which is the sponsor of the Scripture4All download versions supplied by them.

I like the way that the words are displayed in segments....i.e.....elements.

I am familiar with the Greek version....but have not studied the Hebrew.

Having read a portion of your personal version, I am pondering over certain word segments that you use......very interesting.

The love of God's Word is providing you with passion to do this .......press onward.

Joel

gregoryfl

02-05-2009, 10:05 AM

gregoryfl

02-14-2009, 07:40 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-14-2009, 08:37 PM

Has anyone here ever considered whether these points have any validity or not? I am willing to drop the subject if it isn't appropriate here. Just thought it would stimulate some deep discussion. :)

Ron
Hi Ron,

Actually, I'm very interested in discussing this. I've just been very distracted with work and other threads. I'll review the thread up to this point and see if I can find a good place to start.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

02-14-2009, 08:56 PM

Having had time for this to sit for a while, I will now present another portion of what I see regarding the nature of God. As I pointed out in another post, some have told me that Jesus must have existed as a person before coming to the earth because he created all things. These are some of the verses used to demonstrate this:

Col 1:16 For in him [speaking of Jesus] all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.

This is commonly understood to mean that 1) Jesus himself created all things, and 2) that he had to have existed as a person at the time of creation in order for this to happen. I would like to offer a slightly different understanding, one that takes into account the fact that it was indeed in him that creation occurred, yet not in the way commonly understood.

The error comes in assuming that he had to have existed as a person in order to create. We know that scripture is clear as to who was creating, when it says:

Isa 44:24 Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and your Former from the belly:"I, Yahweh, am Maker of all, Who stretched out the heavens alone. When stamping out the earth, who was with Me?

Yes, it is true that he is contrasting his actual existence with the false existence of idols. But the point remains that he alone created. Now we need to ask, how did he create?

Psa 33:6 In the word of Yahweh, the heavens were made, And in the spirit of His mouth, all their host."

What is the word here? It is paralleled with "the spirit of his mouth." Most Christians correctly believe that God spoke creation into existence. We can see this clearly in these example:

Gen 1:3 And saying is the Elohim, "Become light!" And it is becoming light.

Very easy to understand what is happening here. God speaks, and it comes into existence. Where is Jesus in this verse? He is in the word "saying." He existed as the very word of God, not as a person, but as an expression of God's very nature and character.

This is why John, when speaking of before Jesus existed as a person, speaks of his in this way:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." Joh 1:1-3

Thus I see perfect harmony with God existing as one person, speaking his word which creates and does his desire, at a point in history birthing his word in the womb of Mary to produce God and man joined together in spirit, and in this way gathering all things back to himself by means of his word, the Lord Jesus Christ. Hope to have others jump in on this very important discussion, and examine so far what I have shared with an open mind. More to come.

Ron
Hi Ron,

I think this is a good point to start my discussion. I do not yet fully understand you position - I will need to see how you respond to other relevant passages.

It appears that you are suggesting that Christ is an "an expression of God's very nature and character" but not a "person" who has an individual "center of consciousness" and who is able speak to the Father. How then do you understand the prayers of Christ? If he was nothing but an expression of the Father, than what is the meaning of the "Son"? Christ had personal existence while on earth and after his ascension to "sit at the right of the Father."

One of the important things to consider is that you are saying that CHrist is the "the Word" by which God created, which is true, but it also is true that it is Christ's own Word that upholds creation:

Hebrews 1:1-5 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his [Christ's] power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
How can Christ be the "heir" of all things if not a "personality"? I see the "personality" of Christ throughout this passage, and many others. I think this is probably a good point to start.

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

gregoryfl

02-15-2009, 08:46 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-15-2009, 10:09 AM

Hello Richard,

What I understand is that Jesus, as a person, did not exist as such prior to being born from Mary. He was literally the Word, the expression, of God. God took his expression, which in times past were manifested through the mouths of angels and prophets and writings, etc, and produced it as a Son to himself, who of course, as a person, had personality.

I am not denying that Jesus became a man who could talk to his Father. He is now still a person, the beginning of the new creation that would gather all things by reconciliation back to God.

As for the scripture you shared, I have a slightly different understanding of it. I notice that you inserted [Christ] in the last of the 3-fold expressions of how Jesus relates to God. What I see is this:

Hebrews 1:3 For he [Christ] is the brilliance of his [God's] glory, and the image of his [God's] being, and upholds all things by the power of his [God's] word...

God's glory as seen in brilliance is expressed in the person of Christ.

God's very being as an image is expressed in the person of Christ.

God's powerful word is also expressed in the person of Christ, who upholds everything. You speak the truth when you say Christ's own word uphold's creation, for whatever Christ speaks is what God speaks. As John points out in his gospel, "the Word is God." I do not separate God's word from Jesus' words, anymore than I can separate your words from you. The only difference is that your words are not expressed in a body. God has chosen to do so with His, and now, everything God says and does is in the man, the last Adam, Christ.

As to his being an heir of all things, I think I answered that already. He is a person, and thus he has personality. I am only saying that prior to the birth in Bethlehem he did not exist as a person then.

I understand about being busy Richard, so I thank you for delving into this with me.

Ron
Hi Ron,

I had noticed that the progression of three occurrences of "his" in the passage from Hebrews could fit with your understanding but thought I would wait for your response before digging in deeper. I have yet to do an in depth study, but it appears that this verse may be too ambiguous to determine whose "word" is meant. It could be either the Father's Word or the Son's Word. But the Son is the Word of the Father so we have a conceptual overlap as well as a linguistic ambiguity that often accompanies the use of pronouns. It is particularly interesting that the ambiguity occurs at the inflection point where the subject changes from God to the Son:
Hebrews 1:1-4 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [the] Son, whom he [God] hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he [God] made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his [God's] person, and upholding all things by the word of his [God's or Son's???] power, when he [Son] had by himself [Son] purged our sins, sat down [Son] on the right hand of the Majesty on high [God]; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he [Son] hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
I will continue to research this, but I suspect it may not be sufficiently clear to settle the question of the pre-incarnate Personality of Christ by itself.

I think the best way to start is to ask what passages seem to demand a pre-incarnate Personality of Christ. Since you have studied this in depth, I think the fast track to truth would be for you to present what you think are the strongest passages supporting the pre-existent personality of Christ. That will get us to the heart of the matter quickly.

Here are a few of the obvious ones off the top of my head - you can choose which (if any) you think are the most important to reply to.

The Word is distinct from God while being God, and appears to be a personality. John 1:1-5. This coheres with the words of Christ:
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Christ spoke as if He were distinct from the father before His incarnation.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
And Christ chose to come to earth and be incarnated.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And David said "the LORD spoke to my Lord" in reference to the Father speaking to Christ before the incarnation.

Well, that's just a few quick ideas off the top of my head. I'll meditate on it more and get back to you. I very much look forward to digging deep into this question with you Ron.

Many blessings,

Richard

gregoryfl

02-15-2009, 06:51 PM

Richard,

Thank you for your reply. I can understand your thinking that "word of his power" refers to the Son. Because Jesus is the word of God bodily, I have no problem understanding "the word" to mean both God the Father, and his Son. Jesus is both a separate person from God himself, who is spirit, and yet also, because Jesus is the very word of God himself, Jesus himself is God. Jesus speaks, yes, but his words are the very words of God, so to say the word spoken of there is Jesus' or God's, to me isn't a point of contention.

I would love to respond as I am able to anything you bring to the table. I would also like if possible to have some of the other previous posts addressed as to their validity, because I believe those provide a good grammatical foundation for how the early believers would have thought of God in the first century, and how Christ would relate to that understanding.

The Word is distinct from God while being God, and appears to be a personality. John 1:1-5. This coheres with the words of Christ:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

In considering this, a couple of points I think we need to consider. First, does this definitively indicate that Jesus HAD to have been a person prior to his coming to earth? Not at all, for it is also written concerning us:

2Timothy 1:9 who having saved us, and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time itself,

Grace was given to us in Christ before time. Yet we know the realization of that grace in time took place in our experience upon being saved. This verse cannot be used to try and say that we existed before we were born in this world. Likewise, Jesus indeed had a glory before the world was, but the realization of that glory in time took place in his experience when he was raised from the dead. The glory he had, as well as the grace we were given, were all in the mind and purpose of God, before either we or Jesus existed as persons. Also, both Jesus as a person, and each of us as people, existed in the mind of God from before creation. These are things that, along with Jesus himself, "were foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times..." 1Peter 1:20

Again, I do believe that he is distinct from God, being in glorified, immortal bodily form, and since he is the very expression, the ultimate manifestation of God, that yes, he is God. Again, I agree that he is now a personality. I just maintain that he was not always so.

And Christ chose to come to earth and be incarnated.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

I do not see here where Jesus says he "chose" to come to earth. I merely see that he came down to earth. How did he come? The end of the verse tells us, as well as other verses, which say that it was the Father who sent him. It was a common Hebraic way to express the idea that something has its source from God. Consider this:

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

To come from heaven is to come from God. I believe it is that simple. That is all Jesus was saying. There is no need to read into this the thought that Jesus had to have existed as a person in a place called heaven, and literally came down from there, anymore than one would think that there were gifts in a place called heaven that came down literally from there.

And David said "the LORD spoke to my Lord" in reference to the Father speaking to Christ before the incarnation.

This is, as you know, one of many Messianic psalms. I cannot say with certainty what David was thinking when he wrote such psalms, but judging from this, and comparing it with others, we need not conclude that God the Father spoke this to his Son during David's time, for him to record. In fact, we know this isn't the case, because what the Father said, namely, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool," did not actually take place until after Jesus rose from the dead. Messianic prophecies could be spoken of as if having already happened at the time they were written, but in actuality, were only prophetic statement which would later take place. For example, David wrote psalm 22, which vividly describes the crucifixion of Christ. Yet, it is written as if it had taken place in David's day. We of course, know that isn't the case. Likewise, Daniel sees a vision, which he describes as follows:

Daniel 7:13-14 I beheld in the night vision, and behold, One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven, and He came to the Ancient of Days, and was brought near to Him. And to Him was given the dominion, and the honor, and the kingdom; and all nations, tribes, and languages, shall serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.

Although this is written as if the event actually occurred then, we know that this is a prophetic dream, speaking of something that would occur in the future. I believe that all the verses which speak of Jesus in this way, are spoken of from a future vantage point. He did not exist as a person until he was born from Mary. Then, in time, all these events occurred with the person, Jesus the Christ.

You have caused me to think through some issues here Richard, and for that, I thank you. In closing for now, I want to make sure I understood your request Richard. Were you wanting me to think as a trinitarian, and come up with passages that I can think of that support the pre-existence of Jesus as a person? I can do that, but I just wanted to make sure that is what you are asking.

Ron

gregoryfl

03-03-2009, 12:57 PM

Richard,

I guess this got lost again, or I will just assume you wish me to supply scriptures I have seen before that appear to teach a concept of Jesus existing as a person in the scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. I will get to work on that. I wonder if there are any others who at least have an understanding as to where I am coming from, from the posts so far?

Ron

gregoryfl

03-04-2009, 02:19 PM

seeking_one

03-07-2009, 04:44 PM

Has anyone here ever considered whether these points have any validity or not? I am willing to drop the subject if it isn't appropriate here. Just thought it would stimulate some deep discussion. :)

Ron

Ron,
Excellent exposition on the nature of the Almighty GOD!!! I too believe exactly as you. I can find nothing that you have said that contradicts what the Scripture says. I too, believe that Jesus did not exist as a person before HE became flesh, but was the WORD of LIFE. I too, believe that HE is THE BREAD of Heaven(the WORD of GOD).

When Jesus said the FATHER was IN the SON and the SON was IN THE FATHER, I believe HE was talking about more than just unity. I believe HE meant this literally. The FATHER and the SON are IN THE WORD.

But, I must say you sure did expound on this beautifully. I posted on another forum about the nature of Jesus; it was on a "messianic" board and it generated controversy. I will post post here to see what you think.

seeking_one

03-07-2009, 04:57 PM

SUBJECT: YHWH's word. Part 1 as revealed unto the Holy Prophets of old

"Word" is transliterated in Hebrew "word" as "dabar". I have chose to represent YHWH's WORD as "HE" as Jesus declared in John 6.

In order to understand who Jesus is, it is essential to understand the WORD(dabar) of YHWH.

1) HE(Word of YHWH) is right. Psalm 33:4 - For the word of YHWH is RIGHT; and all HIS works are done in truth.

2) HE(Word of YHWH) created the heavens and earth. Psalm 33:6 - "By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of HIS mouth.

3) HE(Word of YHWH)[ is SENT. Is 55:11 - "So shall MY word be that goeth forth out of MY mouth: and it shall not return void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Therefore, HE is a messenger and YHWH's messengers ARE HIS Sons.

4) HE(Word of YHWH) is ETERNAL. Is 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of YHWH shall stand forever.

5) HE(Word of YHWH) QUICKENS. Psalm 119:50 - This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word has quickened[revive or make alive] me.

6) HE(Word of YHWH) is LIGHT. Psalm 119:105 - Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.

7) HE(Word of YHWH) is magnified before ALL thy name. Psalm 138:2 - I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy above alll thy name. NOTE: This is a powerful verse.

8) HE(Word of YHWH) is LIFE which is implied from Ezekiel 37:4 and explicitly stated by Jesus.
NOTE: Eze. 37:4. When Ezekiel saw the dry bones in the valley, he was told to prophesy unto the dry bones.
Question? What did Ezekiel say? According to Scripture(Ezekiel 37:4 "Again YHWH said unto me, Prophesy[preach] upon these bones, and say unto them "O ye dry bones,HEAR the word--dabar-- of YHWH".
Question? What happended when Ezekiel preached YHWH's "dabar"? Ezekiel said that there was a noise and a shaking and the bones came together and flesh came on the bones and skin came on the bones. These dry bones received LIFE because of YHWH's word and Spirit.

9) HE(Word of YHWH) is food for the soul. Deut 8:3 "And YHWH humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that YHWH might make thee know that man doth not live by bread[NATURAL food], but by every word(dabar) that proceededth out of the mouth of YHWH [spiritual food] doth man live.
NOTE: This verse shows that there is NATURAL food and SPIRITUAL food. The Spiritual food is the WORD of YHWH that is sent forth from Heaven. The natural food represents things of this world which cannot make a man live.

CONCLUSION: YHWH's dabar is awesome. HE[Word of YHWH] is light, HE is eternal, HE quickens. HE lives and is sent forth from the Eternal One, sent forth from Heaven. HE even CREATED the world. So the Prophets reveal that you can't see the WORD OF YHWH with your natural eyes. HE is invisible. Though the Israelites could not see HIM. Moses said in Deut 30:14 "But the word is very nigh unto thee..." What word was Moses talking about? It is found in verse 11. "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off." Moses told them the Commandment is not in heaven. Why? Because YHWH sent it forth to Moses to deliver to the Israelites. MOSES revealed HIM[the Word of YHWH] to the Israelites!!! That is why Moses said it is not hidden. The Prophet Moses told the Israelites in Deut 32:46 And Moses said unto them, Set your[Israelites] hearts unto all the WORDS(dabar) which I[Moses] TESTIFY among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words(dabar) of this law[i.e the TORAH]. verse 47, For it is not a vain thing for you[Israelites]; because it[the WORDS of YHWH] is YOUR LIFE... Now, I see why Jesus said that Moses testified about HIM. Moses TESTIFIED about what? THE WORD OF YHWH which Moses said IS LIFE to the soul.

Thoughts?

Peace.

seeking_one

03-07-2009, 05:01 PM

SUBJECT: YHWH's word. Part 2 as revealed unto the Holy Apostles by HIS darling Son.

1) Jesus declared and confirmed that YHWH's word is like unto food, not natural, but spiritual. Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:3. For when Jesus was tried, the Evil One knew Jesus could make stones as bread to eat. But Jesus being probably hungry went back to that WORD that was delivered unto Moses; that WORD which is all powerful and living and said it is written and HE repeated Deut 8:3.

2) Jesus who knows more than any prophet, any king, any hebrew lexicon, any greek lexicon, any man living in past, present, or the future, should know best
about YHWH's word. For Jesus said that YHWH's logos(WORD) IS TRUTH. [b]John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth. THY WORD IS TRUTH." And to understand what is the TRUTH, one must go back to the Prophets and look at what was recorded in Psalms 119:42 where David agreed with the Messiah and said THY LAW IS THE TRUTH. So the Scriptures declare that YHWH's WORD which THE LAW is THE TRUTH. When David was meditating on the LAW, he was meditating on YHWH's Word.

3) The Hebrew writer said Hebrews 4:12 For the WORD of YHWH is quick, and powerful, sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
NOTE: This one verse confirms all the attributes of YHWH's word which the Prophets of old said. Please refer to my Part one posting.

CONCLUSION: YHWH's WORD is ETERNAL and YHWH's WORD LIVES; HE can NEVER DIE and will always exist for HE is sent forth to HEAL and SAVE. If YHWH's Word cannot die then HE always existed. As the Apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 1:25 But THE WORD OF YHWH endureth for ever...

Thoughts?

Peace.

seeking_one

03-07-2009, 05:26 PM

SUBJECT: YHWH's WORD. Part 3(Final). The awesome truth of the Scripture as revealed by YHWH's darling Son.

HE(YHWH's Word--THE TORAH):

A) that created the heavens and earth.
B) that quickens the soul.
C) that gives life
D) that is magnified before all YHWH's name. Whose name was magnified and glorified in the Apostolic time? Acts 19:17 And this was know to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and THE NAME of THE KURIOS Jesus was magnified. 2 Thess 1:12 That THE NAME of our KURIOS Jesus THE MESSIAH may be glorified..."
E) that is truth
F) that is powerful
G) that is life
H) that is eternal
---------
IS NONE OTHER THAN the King of kings, the First and Last, the Lord of lords, the Alpha and Omega, the ARM of YHWH, the GLORY of YHWH, the ROCK of Israel, the Messiah/Christ, Jesus, the Son of the living Eternal One.

John said in Revelation that he saw a white horse; and HE that sat upon him was called Faithful And True, and in righteousness HE doth judge and make war and HE had on a vesture dipped in blood. We know from Scripture that the "HE" in this verse refers to the "Lamb of YHWH", the Messiah/Christ. Now, what did John call that HE whose robe was dipped in blood? Revelation 19:12 "...and HIS name IS called THE WORD[logos] of ELOHIM. The morphology for "IS" according to the interlinear i'm using is "perfect, indicative, passive". The definition of "perfect" is: The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action. Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology (perfect). Logos Bible Software.

So clearly Scripture shows that Jesus is called the WORD OF ELOHIM before HIS resurrection. This confirms John's teaching that HE was called the WORD OF ELOHIM in eternity past.

Who is that "HE" that sat on the horse? That HE is Jesus(Lamb of GOD), the Eternal WORD REVEALED PHYSICALLY. Now, what did John say about Jesus? That same Apostle John confirmed again in one of his letters who the Word of Life is. Remember, John was an eyewitness, he did not need a lexicon or anything else for John said we[the Apostles] touched WITH THEIR[Apostle's] HANDS!!!

This is what John said about the "logos":
1) The "logos" became "FLESH". Which means that the logos(that created the world, that quickens, that gives life, that is magnified before all YHWH's name,that is truth, that is eternal, that is living) was made a human(i.e flesh, blood, and bone).

2) And this Word living in eternity, living in the bosom of the Father became a natural man and is Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living Eternal One. John 1:17,29

3) 1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the WORD OF LIFE".

John 1:1, 1 John 1:1, and Is 40:8 show that YHWH's WORD-THE WORD OF LIFE--THE BREAD OF LIFE is ETERNAL.

John said we heard the logos, not the plan, but the logos/dabar of YHWH, the Torah, the commandments of YHWH.

John said we have seen with our eyes and looked upon it. Well, how can you see something invisible unless it becomes visible.

When did the Eternal WORD become visible. HE became visible at the birth of the MAN Jesus, but HE was invisible before that time for HE is spirit. Jesus said HIS words are spirit and since Jesus spoke YHWH's word they must be spirit also.

Then John sums it up. We saw the WORD OF LIFE that was revealed and sent forth by the Eternal One. Jesus is the visible manifestation of the logos of YHWH.

Now, somebody might doubt the Apostle John. They may not believe what John has said in his letters. So I'm going show that Jesus, out of HIS own mouth confirmed this AWESOME truth which many I believe stumble at. The Apostle John recorded this interaction with the Judeans. See John Chapter 6.

The Judeans of that day wanted Jesus to show them a sign as was done in
the days of Moses when "Manna(bread)" came down from heaven.

What did Jesus say? Moses did not give you bread from Heaven, but My Father gives you the TRUE BREAD. John 6:32. This TRUE BREAD had to be with THE FATHER in Heaven. In Part 1, I talked about spiritual food and natural food. Jesus explained what the spiritual food is: John 6:33 "For the BREAD of Elohim is HE which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Now, Jesus was not talking about natural food, HE was talking about spiritual food. Moses confirmed in Deut 8:3 that the spiritual food IS THE WORD OF YHWH and Jesus confirmed and re-iterated what was in the Torah. So it is evident that THE BREAD OF LIFE was IN Heaven and that THE BREAD OF LIFE came down from Heaven. So too me, what Jesus was reallying saying is the following(MY INTERPRETATION in bold): John 6:33 For THE WORD OF YHWH is HE which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world". Notice something else, Jesus called this SPIRITUAL FOOD(BREAD of YHWH) a HE, and not an "it". NOTE: This is the reason why I refer to the WORD/BREAD OF YHWH as a "HE".

Now after explaining what this spiritual food is, Jesus then says and CONFIRMS what ALL the Scriptures have said: JOHN 8:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I AM the BREAD(WORD) OF LIFE: he that cometh to ME[Jesus] shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst. JOHN 8:38 For I came down from heaven...". Further proof from the Saviour's mouth: John 6:48 I am THAT BREAD OF LIFE. John 6:51 I am THE LIVING BREAD.

THE AWESOME TRUTH is NOT only DID Jesus PREACH THE WORD OF YHWH, HE IS the WORD OF YHWH. I have to repeat it: Jesus said "I AM THE WORD OF YHWH..." THE LIVING BREAD!

Now, the Judeans, stumbled when they heard this as do many now. For they said,
THIS IS IMPORTANT. John 6:52 "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that Jesus saith, "I came down from heaven"? The Judeans thought they knew the origins of Jesus, but they did not. For Jesus's origin is eternal. FOR HE is the ONE that CREATED THE world, not as a man, but as the WORD of YHWH. THEY stumbled because they did not accept THIS MAN saying HE IS THE LIVING BREAD. Then, Jesus said, "DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU". If one is offended because Jesus said HE IS THE BREAD OF LIFE, then one will really be offended as those unbelievers in John 6 when Jesus said "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where HE WAS BEFORE? The key is the phrase in BOLD. The Greek for "BEFORE" is proteron. The main definition of "proteron" IS formerly. This same word comes from Strongs G4387,"proteros" which means "former, prior".

And Jesus declared later that "YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH" and the FATHER's WORD(logos/dabar) IS TRUTH".

This is why Jesus could say "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH[the WORD OF YHWH], and THE LIFE[the Spirit]". John 14:6. Did not Jesus say that HIS flesh is THE WORD? Jesus said "EAT MY FLESH". John 6:54. Jesus's flesh SYMBOLIZED the WORD. Was not the the WORD made FLESH? Did not Jesus say HIS flesh is food? What is the Spiritual Food? John 6:48,54,58, John 6:32, Deut 8:3, and Matt 4:4.
Did not Jesus say that YHWH's WORD is SPIRIT? John 6:63. How could Jesus say HE is TRUTH, unless HE meant exactly what HE said in John 6, that HE is YHWH's WORD, the LIVING BREAD that came down from Heaven.

In my conclusion, The Word of YHWH never changes. HE never stopped being TRUTH and LIFE, even when the "WORD" became flesh. In the OT the Israelites could not see that truth with their eyes, they could not handle it with their hands, but in due time it was YHWH's plan that HIS WORD would become flesh and Israel would have a chance see THE LIFE of YHWH with their natural eyes. And as John said, this word which became flesh was IN the bosom of the Father, AS the SON.

So did Jesus exist in the OT? As a man, definitely not. For by definition a man is flesh, blood, and bone. BUT before HE[the Son] was begotten in the flesh, HE existed as the WORD OF YHWH.

The Hebrew writer said that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever more. How can a man be the same yesterday, today, and forever more. HE can't. Jesus was flesh, blood, and bone during 1 period of HIS existence. The Hebrew writer is talking about the SPIRIT, the WORD. That is what is constant and does not change and is the same today, as it was yesterday, and will be forever more.

YHWH's logos in Moses day, YHWH's logos in Jesus's day, YHWH's logos in the Apostle's day, and YHWH's logos today IS the SAME logos. This logos is living, powerful, and still able to discern the hearts of men and give life to the dead.

CONCLUSION: Jesus existed AS the WORD in eternity past and during the days of the OT. HE did NOT exist as MAN[flesh, blood, and bone], but HE existed as the literal WORD of the Almighty. And that WORD manifested itself in many ways during the OT, but in due time the WORD became FLESH in the Person of Jesus. The same WORD that is LIFE in the OT was LIFE in the flesh. That is why the Apostle John said in 1 John 1:1 that WE[the Apostles] touched that WORD OF LIFE with their hands. That is why Jesus could declare emphatically that HE IS THE LIFE.

Peace to all those that read this. May the Spirit of YHWH guide you in understanding what I believe is the AWESOME TRUTH as revealed in the Scriptures and spoke by YHWH HIMSELF THAT Jesus, who not only PREACHED THE WORD of YHWH, IS the WORD OF YHWH, THE LIVING BREAD FROM HEAVEN, THE WORD OF LIFE THAT WAS WITH THE FATHER.

Thoughts?

Peace.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-08-2009, 01:58 PM

Richard,

Thank you for your reply. I can understand your thinking that "word of his power" refers to the Son. Because Jesus is the word of God bodily, I have no problem understanding "the word" to mean both God the Father, and his Son. Jesus is both a separate person from God himself, who is spirit, and yet also, because Jesus is the very word of God himself, Jesus himself is God. Jesus speaks, yes, but his words are the very words of God, so to say the word spoken of there is Jesus' or God's, to me isn't a point of contention.

I would love to respond as I am able to anything you bring to the table. I would also like if possible to have some of the other previous posts addressed as to their validity, because I believe those provide a good grammatical foundation for how the early believers would have thought of God in the first century, and how Christ would relate to that understanding.

Hi Ron,

Believe it or not, I'm still very interested in discussing this. I just got a little stuck on your request that I answer the arguments in previous posts, since I was not sure which ones you were referring to, and there was a bit too much to read over to figure it out. I think it's easier to answer direct questions.

I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on Hebrews 1. I don't think it is a decisive passage for either position.

As for the understanding of the first century believers - I do not think that "matters" in a fundamental sense, because there are many truths that they didn't get at first. For example, the disciples did not even understand Christ when he told them that he was going to die and be resurrected. It took a long time before Christians were able to articulate their understanding of the nature of the Godhead and the relation between Christ and the Father.

The Word is distinct from God while being God, and appears to be a personality. John 1:1-5. This coheres with the words of Christ:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

In considering this, a couple of points I think we need to consider. First, does this definitively indicate that Jesus HAD to have been a person prior to his coming to earth? Not at all, for it is also written concerning us:

2Timothy 1:9 who having saved us, and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time itself,

Grace was given to us in Christ before time. Yet we know the realization of that grace in time took place in our experience upon being saved. This verse cannot be used to try and say that we existed before we were born in this world. Likewise, Jesus indeed had a glory before the world was, but the realization of that glory in time took place in his experience when he was raised from the dead. The glory he had, as well as the grace we were given, were all in the mind and purpose of God, before either we or Jesus existed as persons. Also, both Jesus as a person, and each of us as people, existed in the mind of God from before creation. These are things that, along with Jesus himself, "were foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times..." 1Peter 1:20

At first blush, that sounds like a pretty good argument for your position, but I don't think it really holds up under close scrutiny. Paul did not say that we "had" or "possessed" glory before we existed. He said that it was "given" in the sense of "pre-ordained." That is entirely different than Christ's statement that he himself HAD and POSSESSED glory WITH the Father before he came to earth.

I think the difference is clear when we try to apply the words of Christ to ourselves. Would we ever say "O Lord, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world"? It just doesn't sound right to me.

Again, I do believe that he is distinct from God, being in glorified, immortal bodily form, and since he is the very expression, the ultimate manifestation of God, that yes, he is God. Again, I agree that he is now a personality. I just maintain that he was not always so.

Your position sounds completely orthodox in regards to the status of Christ after the incarnation. And since our knowledge of Christ before the incarnation is very limited, the whole topic is very challenging. It seems to me that the plain reading of Scripture most naturally lends itself to a belief in the pre-incarnate existence of Christ as a personality separate from the Father. But the "plain sense" may not be the "true sense" and so I am very interested in really testing this question in light of Scritpure to find its true FOUNDATION.

As an aside, Hank Hanegraaff (Bible Answer Man) presents the doctrine of the Trinity as follows (http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548551/k.6E1D/Is_the_Trinity_Biblical.htm):

The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one God who exists eternally as three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I can assure you that the elements of this doctrine are all taken directly from the Bible.
The thing that has always made me wonder is his insertion of the word "eternally" in the definition of the Trinity. Even if we begin by asserting that God now is a Trinity, why would we have to say that it was eternally that way? Scripture says that God "begat" the Son, and the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father (and the Son if you are Catholic). These are temporal words, that involve time and time always involves change. But temporal words could be used to indicate a "logical" are "relational" hierarchy that is non-temporal, which is how many interepret it. But now we find ourselves in the outer limits of linguistics, semantics, and logic ... and one thing I know is that no certain knowledge will be found in this realm.

And Christ chose to come to earth and be incarnated.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

I do not see here where Jesus says he "chose" to come to earth. I merely see that he came down to earth. How did he come? The end of the verse tells us, as well as other verses, which say that it was the Father who sent him. It was a common Hebraic way to express the idea that something has its source from God. Consider this:

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

To come from heaven is to come from God. I believe it is that simple. That is all Jesus was saying. There is no need to read into this the thought that Jesus had to have existed as a person in a place called heaven, and literally came down from there, anymore than one would think that there were gifts in a place called heaven that came down literally from there.

Again, your argument appears pretty good on the surface, but I'm not sure it really holds up. When Jesus said that he "came down from heaven" he imediately linked it to his own will "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will" - thus when he said "I came down" it seems to imply a choice made with his own will. But again, this is not decisive. It could fit with your interpretation, but it seems to fit more naturally and gracefully with the understanding that Christ as a person with a will pre-existed and chose to come to earth.

Well, there is much to reflect on. Your interpretations are somewhat new to me, and I will have to re-read a lot of the NT in light of them before I can form a strong opinion.

I very much look forward to your response to this post (and all others are welcome to join in, of course!).

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-08-2009, 02:01 PM

CONCLUSION: YHWH's dabar is awesome. HE[Word of YHWH] is light, HE is eternal, HE quickens. HE lives and is sent forth from the Eternal One, sent forth from Heaven. HE even CREATED the world. So the Prophets reveal that you can't see the WORD OF YHWH with your natural eyes. HE is invisible. Though the Israelites could not see HIM. Moses said in Deut 30:14 "But the word is very nigh unto thee..." What word was Moses talking about? It is found in verse 11. "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off." Moses told them the Commandment is not in heaven. Why? Because YHWH sent it forth to Moses to deliver to the Israelites. MOSES revealed HIM[the Word of YHWH] to the Israelites!!! That is why Moses said it is not hidden. The Prophet Moses told the Israelites in Deut 32:46 And Moses said unto them, Set your[Israelites] hearts unto all the WORDS(dabar) which I[Moses] TESTIFY among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words(dabar) of this law[i.e the TORAH]. verse 47, For it is not a vain thing for you[Israelites]; because it[the WORDS of YHWH] is YOUR LIFE... Now, I see why Jesus said that Moses testified about HIM. Moses TESTIFIED about what? THE WORD OF YHWH which Moses said IS LIFE to the soul.

Thoughts?

Peace.
My thoughts are that that is an excellent review of the nature of God's Word. Thanks!

Richard Amiel McGough

03-08-2009, 02:32 PM

SUBJECT: YHWH's WORD. Part 3(Final). The awesome truth of the Scripture as revealed by YHWH's darling Son.

HE(YHWH's Word--THE TORAH):

A) that created the heavens and earth.
B) that quickens the soul.
C) that gives life
D) that is magnified before all YHWH's name. Whose name was magnified and glorified in the Apostolic time? Acts 19:17 And this was know to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and THE NAME of THE KURIOS Jesus was magnified. 2 Thess 1:12 That THE NAME of our KURIOS Jesus THE MESSIAH may be glorified..."
E) that is truth
F) that is powerful
G) that is life
H) that is eternal
---------
IS NONE OTHER THAN the King of kings, the First and Last, the Lord of lords, the Alpha and Omega, the ARM of YHWH, the GLORY of YHWH, the ROCK of Israel, the Messiah/Christ, Jesus, the Son of the living Eternal One.

I agree with all the descriptions except "Torah." The problem is that the word "Torah" has more than one meaning. It can be "teaching" or "law" or the first five books of the Bible. None of these words really "capture" the full meaning of God's Word, and it certainly does not seem identical to Christ as the living Word of God. My main reason for making this point is Paul's use of "nomos" (law = torah) in the NT doesn't make sense if we identify Christ = Torah.

The Judeans of that day wanted Jesus to show them a sign as was done in
the days of Moses when "Manna(bread)" came down from heaven.

What did Jesus say? Moses did not give you bread from Heaven, but My Father gives you the TRUE BREAD. John 6:32. This TRUE BREAD had to be with THE FATHER in Heaven. In Part 1, I talked about spiritual food and natural food. Jesus explained what the spiritual food is: John 6:33 "For the BREAD of Elohim is HE which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Now, Jesus was not talking about natural food, HE was talking about spiritual food. Moses confirmed in Deut 8:3 that the spiritual food IS THE WORD OF YHWH and Jesus confirmed and re-iterated what was in the Torah. So it is evident that THE BREAD OF LIFE was IN Heaven and that THE BREAD OF LIFE came down from Heaven. So too me, what Jesus was reallying saying is the following(MY INTERPRETATION in bold): John 6:33 For THE WORD OF YHWH is HE which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world". Notice something else, Jesus called this SPIRITUAL FOOD(BREAD of YHWH) a HE, and not an "it". NOTE: This is the reason why I refer to the WORD/BREAD OF YHWH as a "HE".

Now after explaining what this spiritual food is, Jesus then says and CONFIRMS what ALL the Scriptures have said: JOHN 8:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I AM the BREAD(WORD) OF LIFE: he that cometh to ME[Jesus] shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst. JOHN 8:38 For I came down from heaven...". Further proof from the Saviour's mouth: John 6:48 I am THAT BREAD OF LIFE. John 6:51 I am THE LIVING BREAD.

THE AWESOME TRUTH is NOT only DID Jesus PREACH THE WORD OF YHWH, HE IS the WORD OF YHWH. I have to repeat it: Jesus said "I AM THE WORD OF YHWH..." THE LIVING BREAD!

That's an excellent point. The connection with Deut 8:3 confirms that Christ was saying that He was the "Word of YHVH."

Now, the Judeans, stumbled when they heard this as do many now. For they said,

THIS IS IMPORTANT. John 6:52 "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that Jesus saith, "I came down from heaven"? The Judeans thought they knew the origins of Jesus, but they did not. For Jesus's origin is eternal. FOR HE is the ONE that CREATED THE world, not as a man, but as the WORD of YHWH. THEY stumbled because they did not accept THIS MAN saying HE IS THE LIVING BREAD. Then, Jesus said, "DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU". If one is offended because Jesus said HE IS THE BREAD OF LIFE, then one will really be offended as those unbelievers in John 6 when Jesus said "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where HE WAS BEFORE? The key is the phrase in BOLD. The Greek for "BEFORE" is proteron. The main definition of "proteron" IS formerly. This same word comes from Strongs G4387,"proteros" which means "former, prior".

This seems to imply that Christ existed as a person of the Trinity before the incarnation, since he said he would ascend up where he was before. How do you understand this?

And Jesus declared later that "YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH" and the FATHER's WORD(logos/dabar) IS TRUTH".

This is why Jesus could say "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH[the WORD OF YHWH], and THE LIFE[the Spirit]". John 14:6. Did not Jesus say that HIS flesh is THE WORD? Jesus said "EAT MY FLESH". John 6:54. Jesus's flesh SYMBOLIZED the WORD. Was not the the WORD made FLESH? Did not Jesus say HIS flesh is food? What is the Spiritual Food? John 6:48,54,58, John 6:32, Deut 8:3, and Matt 4:4.
Did not Jesus say that YHWH's WORD is SPIRIT? John 6:63. How could Jesus say HE is TRUTH, unless HE meant exactly what HE said in John 6, that HE is YHWH's WORD, the LIVING BREAD that came down from Heaven.

In my conclusion, The Word of YHWH never changes. HE never stopped being TRUTH and LIFE, even when the "WORD" became flesh. In the OT the Israelites could not see that truth with their eyes, they could not handle it with their hands, but in due time it was YHWH's plan that HIS WORD would become flesh and Israel would have a chance see THE LIFE of YHWH with their natural eyes. And as John said, this word which became flesh was IN the bosom of the Father, AS the SON.

So did Jesus exist in the OT? As a man, definitely not. For by definition a man is flesh, blood, and bone. BUT before HE[the Son] was begotten in the flesh, HE existed as the WORD OF YHWH.

The Hebrew writer said that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever more. How can a man be the same yesterday, today, and forever more. HE can't. Jesus was flesh, blood, and bone during 1 period of HIS existence. The Hebrew writer is talking about the SPIRIT, the WORD. That is what is constant and does not change and is the same today, as it was yesterday, and will be forever more.

YHWH's logos in Moses day, YHWH's logos in Jesus's day, YHWH's logos in the Apostle's day, and YHWH's logos today IS the SAME logos. This logos is living, powerful, and still able to discern the hearts of men and give life to the dead.

CONCLUSION: Jesus existed AS the WORD in eternity past and during the days of the OT. HE did NOT exist as MAN[flesh, blood, and bone], but HE existed as the literal WORD of the Almighty. And that WORD manifested itself in many ways during the OT, but in due time the WORD became FLESH in the Person of Jesus. The same WORD that is LIFE in the OT was LIFE in the flesh. That is why the Apostle John said in 1 John 1:1 that WE[the Apostles] touched that WORD OF LIFE with their hands. That is why Jesus could declare emphatically that HE IS THE LIFE.

Peace to all those that read this. May the Spirit of YHWH guide you in understanding what I believe is the AWESOME TRUTH as revealed in the Scriptures and spoke by YHWH HIMSELF THAT Jesus, who not only PREACHED THE WORD of YHWH, IS the WORD OF YHWH, THE LIVING BREAD FROM HEAVEN, THE WORD OF LIFE THAT WAS WITH THE FATHER.

Thoughts?

Peace.
[/quote]
Your explaination makes a LOT of sense. But I'm not sure how it relates to the question in this thread. We are trying to figure out if the Bible says that the Word before the incarnation was personal in the sense that the Word was God but also separate from the Father as in John 1 "the Word was with God." It seems that Christ said that he personally was "with God" in heaven before he came to earth because he said he would ascend back to where he was before.

Thanks for the input. I look forward to your response.

Richard

seeking_one

03-08-2009, 04:58 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-08-2009, 05:29 PM

Hi Ram,
Thanks for responding. Let me start off by saying first, i do not believe in the Trinity. I don't have a definition for what I believe. You ask "Is the WORD personal?". Yes, i think so. The WORD is THE LIFE OF GOD ALMIGHTY; it can think, discern, and do EVERY thing YHWH can. THE WORD is NOT CHRIST nor the 2nd person in the trinity. THE WORD became FLESH, meaning that HE DWELT in the body of CHRIST just as THE WORD dwelt in the Ark in the OT. One cannot separate GOD ALMIGHTY from HIS WORD and that is what I think John 1:1 is trying to say. 1 John 1 clarifies this by saying what the Apostle's saw and felt was THE VERY LIFE OF GOD. THE WORD is with GOD ALMIGHTY just as our word is with us, but the difference between our word and GOD's WORD is that it can speak and can do things; our words can't do that. Hebrews 4:12 (Darby) For the WORD OF GOD [is] living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to [the] division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of [the] heart.

GOD told Isaiah that HE sends HIS WORD out and it[THE WORD] or as like to say "HE" will do what YHWH wills. Words in bracket are my words. Isaiah 55:11 (Darby) so shall MY WORD be that goeth forth out of MY mouth: it [HE] shall not return unto me void, but it [HE] shall do that which I please, and it [HE] shall accomplish that for which I send it [HIM].

Look at 1 Kings 12:22, it is the WORD OF GOD that spoke to Shemaiah and told HIM to speak and say "Thus sayeth YHWH...."

I think one of the keys to understanding what Jesus' said is to understand THAT HIS WORDS WERE NOT HIS. John 14:24 (Darby)... and THE WORD which ye hear is NOT MINE[the Son's], but [that] of the Father who has sent me.

Peace.
Hi seeking_one,

It will be good to dig deep into this question with you. I think we will make the best progress by focusing on one question at a time. I noticed that you said " THE WORD is NOT CHRIST". How then do you understand that the name of Christ is "The Word of God"?

Revelation 19:11-13 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Do you agree that it is Christ upon the White Horse? If so, then is not His name "The Word of God"? It seems that this is confirmed earlier in Revelation when Christ is identified as the "faithful witness":

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Many blessings,

Richard

seeking_one

03-08-2009, 06:26 PM

Hi seeking_one,

It will be good to dig deep into this question with you. I think we will make the best progress by focusing on one question at a time. I noticed that you said " THE WORD is NOT CHRIST". How then do you understand that the name of Christ is "The Word of God"?

Revelation 19:11-13 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Do you agree that it is Christ upon the White Horse? If so, then is not His name "The Word of God"? It seems that this is confirmed earlier in Revelation when Christ is identified as the "faithful witness":

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Many blessings,

Richard

Hi Richard,
Yes, the ONE that sat upon the Horse is Jesus the CHRIST. Now, John said that HE is CALLED. The KEY being "called". I didn't not say that CHRIST is not "called" the WORD of GOD. I said CHRIST is NOT the WORD OF GOD. It is the WORD OF GOD that begot THE CHRIST and dwelt IN THE CHRIST. There is a difference between the TWO. THE WORD OF GOD did not DIE, but JESUS the CHRIST did. CHRIST implies a MAN with flesh, blood, and bone.

Many blessings and Peace,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-08-2009, 08:09 PM

Hi Richard,
Yes, the ONE that sat upon the Horse is Jesus the CHRIST. Now, John said that HE is CALLED. The KEY being "called". I didn't not say that CHRIST is not "called" the WORD of GOD. I said CHRIST is NOT the WORD OF GOD. It is the WORD OF GOD that begot THE CHRIST and dwelt IN THE CHRIST. There is a difference between the TWO. THE WORD OF GOD did not DIE, but JESUS the CHRIST did. CHRIST implies a MAN with flesh, blood, and bone.

Many blessings and Peace,
DB
Hi DB,

I don't understand your answer. The word "called" is used frequently to express identity. For example:
Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The island that is "called" Patmos is Patmos. Here is another example:
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
The serpent that is "called" the Devil is the Devil.

Now there are examples where the word "called" does not indicate a literal identity, as when apostate Jerusalem is "called" Sodom and Egypt in Rev 11:8, but I don't see anything in this context that would suggest that Christ is not really the Word of God.

I understand your primary point that Christ is not the "Word" because the "Word" is deathless, but that is the same argument that folks have used to deny the divinity of Christ, saying that God could not die. I agree that we might think that to be true, but then again, there could be something we are not understanding. Many hymns have been written about how our God died for us. The simple fact is that there are many difficulties trying to understand how God became man. For example, man is finite, but God is not. I think it would be an error to conclude from this that God did not become man.

These are not simple issues. I am glad to be discussing them with you.

Richard

seeking_one

03-09-2009, 02:55 PM

Hi DB,

I don't understand your answer. The word "called" is used frequently to express identity. For example:
Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The island that is "called" Patmos is Patmos. Here is another example:
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
The serpent that is "called" the Devil is the Devil.

Now there are examples where the word "called" does not indicate a literal identity, as when apostate Jerusalem is "called" Sodom and Egypt in Rev 11:8, but I don't see anything in this context that would suggest that Christ is not really the Word of God.

I understand your primary point that Christ is not the "Word" because the "Word" is deathless, but that is the same argument that folks have used to deny the divinity of Christ, saying that God could not die. I agree that we might think that to be true, but then again, there could be something we are not understanding. Many hymns have been written about how our God died for us. The simple fact is that there are many difficulties trying to understand how God became man. For example, man is finite, but God is not. I think it would be an error to conclude from this that God did not become man.

These are not simple issues. I am glad to be discussing them with you.

Richard
Hi Richard,
Yes, this is a not a simple issue. The best way i know how to describe CHRIST is by using 2 Samuel 6:2 (Darby) And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale-Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God which is called by the name, the name of Jehovah of hosts who sitteth between the cherubim.

The ARK held the WORD OF GOD. Also, note that in 2 Samuel 6:2, that the ARK OF GOD took on THE NAME of YHWH of Hosts. Now, was the ARK OF GOD the same as the ONE who is YHWH of Hosts? No, but the ARK OF GOD took YHWH's Hosts identity, power, authority, etc. The ARK was a vessel and it represented the presence of YHWH. So in essence, in the OT, the ARK OF GOD was a physical object that revealed the ONE who said "I AM".

Now, Christ's body is like unto the ARK. See Hebrew 10:5. Just as the WORD indwelt the ARK, so to does the THE WORD indwell CHRIST. This is why John said THE WORD tabernacled amongst them. John 1:14 (Darby) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us... Just as the ARK OF GOD revealed "I AM", so too does JESUS reveal The FATHER and the Father is in THE WORD. And just as the ARK OF GOD was not YHWH of HOST, nor the WORD, so too is JESUS not YHWH or THE FATHER, nor THE WORD.

Also, when people use the expression that GOD became a man that creates a problem. "God" is a TITLE, and not a person, but if you ask most people they will tell you that "God" is a person. Now, "GOD The Father" is a person and "THE GOD", but not just "God".

I enjoy chatting with you. I'm going to tackle the Gentile thread as time permits, but I don't want to post things in rush because some of these topics are very complex.

Peace and Blessings,
DB

Rose

03-09-2009, 05:06 PM

Hi Richard,
Yes, this is a not a simple issue. The best way i know how to describe CHRIST is by using 2 Samuel 6:2 (Darby) And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale-Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God which is called by the name, the name of Jehovah of hosts who sitteth between the cherubim.

The ARK held the WORD OF GOD. Also, note that in 2 Samuel 6:2, that the ARK OF GOD took on THE NAME of YHWH of Hosts. Now, was the ARK OF GOD the same as the ONE who is YHWH of Hosts? No, but the ARK OF GOD took YHWH's Hosts identity, power, authority, etc. The ARK was a vessel and it represented the presence of YHWH. So in essence, in the OT, the ARK OF GOD was a physical object that revealed the ONE who said "I AM".

Now, Christ's body is like unto the ARK. See Hebrew 10:5. Just as the WORD indwelt the ARK, so to does the THE WORD indwell CHRIST. This is why John said THE WORD tabernacled amongst them. John 1:14 (Darby) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us... Just as the ARK OF GOD revealed "I AM", so too does JESUS reveal The FATHER and the Father is in THE WORD. And just as the ARK OF GOD was not YHWH of HOST, nor the WORD, so too is JESUS not YHWH or THE FATHER, nor THE WORD.

Also, when people use the expression that GOD became a man that creates a problem. "God" is a TITLE, and not a person, but if you ask most people they will tell you that "God" is a person. Now, "GOD The Father" is a person and "THE GOD", but not just "God".

I enjoy chatting with you. I'm going to tackle the Gentile thread as time permits, but I don't want to post things in rush because some of these topics are very complex.

Peace and Blessings,
DB

Hi Seeking_one,
This is my first post to you, so welcome to the forum. :welcome:

I am going to address just one point:
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
It says the Word was made flesh....implying that the Word that was in existence "became" man. What I hear you saying is that the Word dwelt in Jesus in the same manner as the Word dwelt in the "Ark", instead of as I read it the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us. Am I understanding you correctly?

God Bless,

Rose

gregoryfl

03-10-2009, 12:50 PM

As for the understanding of the first century believers - I do not think that "matters" in a fundamental sense, because there are many truths that they didn't get at first. For example, the disciples did not even understand Christ when he told them that he was going to die and be resurrected. It took a long time before Christians were able to articulate their understanding of the nature of the Godhead and the relation between Christ and the Father.

Ron: Very true Richard, yet what I am referring to and believe is that period of time after Jesus rose again, where the Spirit led them into all truth. I believe that took place at some point before any of their writings were made. Therefore, with the exception of Acts, which shows progression, I do not see progression with the Gospels or epistles, but that complete understanding already given by the spirit to them.

What I see taking place with regard to the understanding of Christ and how he relates to the Father was right on with regard to scripture, yet in subsequent centuries with more Greek influence and a desire to compromise, different things were articulated concerning that relationship than originally was intended by God.

[QUOTE=Ron]In considering this, a couple of points I think we need to consider. First, does this definitively indicate that Jesus HAD to have been a person prior to his coming to earth? Not at all, for it is also written concerning us:

2Timothy 1:9 who having saved us, and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time itself,

Grace was given to us in Christ before time. Yet we know the realization of that grace in time took place in our experience upon being saved. This verse cannot be used to try and say that we existed before we were born in this world. Likewise, Jesus indeed had a glory before the world was, but the realization of that glory in time took place in his experience when he was raised from the dead. The glory he had, as well as the grace we were given, were all in the mind and purpose of God, before either we or Jesus existed as persons. Also, both Jesus as a person, and each of us as people, existed in the mind of God from before creation. These are things that, along with Jesus himself, "were foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times..." 1Peter 1:20

At first blush, that sounds like a pretty good argument for your position, but I don't think it really holds up under close scrutiny. Paul did not say that we "had" or "possessed" glory before we existed. He said that it was "given" in the sense of "pre-ordained." That is entirely different than Christ's statement that he himself HAD and POSSESSED glory WITH the Father before he came to earth.
I think the difference is clear when we try to apply the words of Christ to ourselves. Would we ever say "O Lord, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world"? It just doesn't sound right to me.

Ron: Again, true. It does not use the term "had", yet does someone "give" anything to someone that does not exist? You give something to your wife, because she exists as your wife now. However, with God, all things existed to him in his mind before they were manifested in time and space. This is again, how I see that Jesus possessed glory before he existed on earth, the same as us being given grace before we existed, the same also as God "knowing" (not knowing about, but knowing) Jeremiah, before he was born.

As an aside, I can also refer to the Word having glory before existing as a person simply because that word was God's own word, and anything from God is indeed glorious. His word has glory, his right hand also has glory, and his name has glory, just to name some examples. Anything of God has glory. So for him to speak of his glory before becoming flesh I could see both ways, depending on what view I am coming at the text with.

Your position sounds completely orthodox in regards to the status of Christ after the incarnation. And since our knowledge of Christ before the incarnation is very limited, the whole topic is very challenging. It seems to me that the plain reading of Scripture most naturally lends itself to a belief in the pre-incarnate existence of Christ as a personality separate from the Father. But the "plain sense" may not be the "true sense" and so I am very interested in really testing this question in light of Scritpure to find its true FOUNDATION.

Ron: Yes, and that is why I am interested in examining the foundation, going all the way back to Genesis, and seeing how that revelation unfolds in light of what I have shared so far. I know it is a lot, since I kept posting without any discussion taking place, but we can certainly take it piece by piece and work through it slow. I feel that if we just pick whatever verses seem to suit our understanding at random, we will just be giving reasons why we believe them from our vantage point, which can be beneficial, but it will be like taking a puzzle piece here and there and each one giving his understanding of what that puzzle piece looks like, rather than going from the start, and putting the pieces together gradually to see the complete picture, so starting with how the hebrews would have understood God, and working from there.

I do not see here where Jesus says he "chose" to come to earth. I merely see that he came down to earth. How did he come? The end of the verse tells us, as well as other verses, which say that it was the Father who sent him. It was a common Hebraic way to express the idea that something has its source from God. Consider this:

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

To come from heaven is to come from God. I believe it is that simple. That is all Jesus was saying. There is no need to read into this the thought that Jesus had to have existed as a person in a place called heaven, and literally came down from there, anymore than one would think that there were gifts in a place called heaven that came down literally from there.

Again, your argument appears pretty good on the surface, but I'm not sure it really holds up. When Jesus said that he "came down from heaven" he imediately linked it to his own will "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will" - thus when he said "I came down" it seems to imply a choice made with his own will. But again, this is not decisive. It could fit with your interpretation, but it seems to fit more naturally and gracefully with the understanding that Christ as a person with a will pre-existed and chose to come to earth.

Ron: Yes, I can see how you can understand it that way. It would be more decisive though if he had said "For I decided to come down from heaven..." because of course, I can understand it as simply saying that when he came down, God sending his spirit to impregnate Mary, God's expression took on human form, becoming human, a human who would only do his Fathers' will. As that human, he was still the very expression of God, and since our expression is us, and does nothing that we do not desire it to do, neither could he. The difference I see though is that Jesus, as a human, did have human will, dwelling in sinful flesh, which is why he could be tempted, and also why he could pray as he did in the Garden. Our words, not being made human, but simply remaining the expression of our minds, have no such difference.

Well, there is much to reflect on. Your interpretations are somewhat new to me, and I will have to re-read a lot of the NT in light of them before I can form a strong opinion.

Ron:And I would also encourage you to go over to the foundation moreso, the Hebrew writings, and allow that to flow into how the writers after Jesus came understood Jesus in light of God. And to be candid, they are still new to me, so to have this discussion helps me to try to take as much as possible into consideration. Thanks so much.

Ron

seeking_one

03-10-2009, 02:12 PM

Hi Seeking_one,
This is my first post to you, so welcome to the forum. :welcome:

I am going to address just one point:
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
It says the Word was made flesh....implying that the Word that was in existence "became" man. What I hear you saying is that the Word dwelt in Jesus in the same manner as the Word dwelt in the "Ark", instead of as I read it the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us. Am I understanding you correctly?

God Bless,

Rose

Hi Rose,
The question is what does it mean when the Scripture says the WORD became flesh? Does it mean that the WORD somehow metamorphosed or changed its state of being. I believe that the WORD never changed it's state of being. You remember in Colossians where Paul says that all the fullness of GOD DWELLS IN JESUS. That statement by Paul lines up with what I believe and another interesting item to note is that John uses the Greek word whose transliteration is "skēnoō". The definition from strongs says "to tent or encamp; to reside (as GOD did in the Tabernacle of old, a symbol of protection and communion)." Jesus' natural BODY is a vessel just as our body is vessel, just as the Ark was a vessel for GOD to tabernacle in. Wherever the ARK was, YWHW of Host was there because HE dwelt in the ARK. Wherever Jesus went the FATHER was there because the FATHER dwelt in JESUS. And if the FATHER dwelt in Jesus, then that means HIS Word and HIS Spirit must have also DWELT in Jesus. This is why i think John wrote that the FATHER, the WORD, and the SPIRIT are ONE. They(FATHER, WORD, SPIRIT) took on FLESH by dwelling in a human body born by a woman by the Power of the Most High to become the Son of GOD.

Blessings,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2009, 08:15 PM

As for the understanding of the first century believers - I do not think that "matters" in a fundamental sense, because there are many truths that they didn't get at first. For example, the disciples did not even understand Christ when he told them that he was going to die and be resurrected. It took a long time before Christians were able to articulate their understanding of the nature of the Godhead and the relation between Christ and the Father.

Ron: Very true Richard, yet what I am referring to and believe is that period of time after Jesus rose again, where the Spirit led them into all truth. I believe that took place at some point before any of their writings were made. Therefore, with the exception of Acts, which shows progression, I do not see progression with the Gospels or epistles, but that complete understanding already given by the spirit to them.

What I see taking place with regard to the understanding of Christ and how he relates to the Father was right on with regard to scripture, yet in subsequent centuries with more Greek influence and a desire to compromise, different things were articulated concerning that relationship than originally was intended by God.

Hi Ron,

I am very much enjoying this discussion.

I think the only question is "What do the Scriptures teach?" - since Peter (for example) persisted in error even after the Spirit was given to guide them into all truth (see Galatians).

The early church struggled to articulate in the doctrine of the Trinity because of things that are taught in Scripture. You say that it was because of compromise with Greek ideas. Do you have an historical basis for this claim? In my studies, I have found that the reason for the Trinity lies entirely in the Biblical testimony that Christ is Creator and Lord, and we have only One Lord, and Christ is the Son, not the Father. In short, the Trinity seems to be a response to this Biblical testimony.

At first blush, that sounds like a pretty good argument for your position, but I don't think it really holds up under close scrutiny. Paul did not say that we "had" or "possessed" glory before we existed. He said that it was "given" in the sense of "pre-ordained." That is entirely different than Christ's statement that he himself HAD and POSSESSED glory WITH the Father before he came to earth.
I think the difference is clear when we try to apply the words of Christ to ourselves. Would we ever say "O Lord, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world"? It just doesn't sound right to me.

Ron: Again, true. It does not use the term "had", yet does someone "give" anything to someone that does not exist? You give something to your wife, because she exists as your wife now. However, with God, all things existed to him in his mind before they were manifested in time and space. This is again, how I see that Jesus possessed glory before he existed on earth, the same as us being given grace before we existed, the same also as God "knowing" (not knowing about, but knowing) Jeremiah, before he was born.

Yes, a thing can be "given" before the recipient exists. And you response does not address the problem that we would never say "O Lord, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world." Christ could say that, but we can not. This seems like a pretty strong demonstration that Christ possessed glory with God before he came to earth, whereas we did not.

Your position sounds completely orthodox in regards to the status of Christ after the incarnation. And since our knowledge of Christ before the incarnation is very limited, the whole topic is very challenging. It seems to me that the plain reading of Scripture most naturally lends itself to a belief in the pre-incarnate existence of Christ as a personality separate from the Father. But the "plain sense" may not be the "true sense" and so I am very interested in really testing this question in light of Scritpure to find its true FOUNDATION.

Ron: Yes, and that is why I am interested in examining the foundation, going all the way back to Genesis, and seeing how that revelation unfolds in light of what I have shared so far. I know it is a lot, since I kept posting without any discussion taking place, but we can certainly take it piece by piece and work through it slow. I feel that if we just pick whatever verses seem to suit our understanding at random, we will just be giving reasons why we believe them from our vantage point, which can be beneficial, but it will be like taking a puzzle piece here and there and each one giving his understanding of what that puzzle piece looks like, rather than going from the start, and putting the pieces together gradually to see the complete picture, so starting with how the hebrews would have understood God, and working from there.

I am willing to begin with Genesis if you like, but it seems like we should start with the Christian revelation since that is where the bright light resides. The OT is impossible to understand without the light of Christ, as Paul informed us:
2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ
It's not really a matter of "favorite verses" - there are "foundational" verses that tell us who Christ is. I would think we should start there. But I will follow your lead. There is no rush ...

Well, there is much to reflect on. Your interpretations are somewhat new to me, and I will have to re-read a lot of the NT in light of them before I can form a strong opinion.

Ron:And I would also encourage you to go over to the foundation moreso, the Hebrew writings, and allow that to flow into how the writers after Jesus came understood Jesus in light of God. And to be candid, they are still new to me, so to have this discussion helps me to try to take as much as possible into consideration. Thanks so much.

Ron
I'm not sure why we should be trying to understand a hypothetical historical development of the private understanding of the early Christians, since we don't have any certain knowledge of their subjective states, and even if we did, it would not really matter. The fundamental thing we need to discern is "What does the Scripture teach?" This is really important, because God revealed a lot of truth that the prophets did not understand at the time they wrote it. It was only understood centuries later. I think the same thing holds for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Thanks again for this great discussion.

Richard

seeking_one

03-11-2009, 03:27 PM

gregoryfl

03-11-2009, 03:35 PM

[QUOTE=RAM;11474]Hi Ron,

I am very much enjoying this discussion.

I think the only question is "What do the Scriptures teach?" - since Peter (for example) persisted in error even after the Spirit was given to guide them into all truth (see Galatians).

Ron: Yes, as all human are prone to do. I am not referring to that, but to the full knowledge of the truth which was said to be given to apostles. Peter's example does not show a failure to understand the truth about the Gentiles, and a need to have further revelation. Rather, it showed a man who succumbed to fear, and thus acted in hypocrisy. What he needed, and received, was a rebuke, for he knew better. I do agree that what the scriptures teach is indeed what we need to ascertain. I am not disputing that brother.

The early church struggled to articulate in the doctrine of the Trinity because of things that are taught in Scripture. You say that it was because of compromise with Greek ideas. Do you have an historical basis for this claim? In my studies, I have found that the reason for the Trinity lies entirely in the Biblical testimony that Christ is Creator and Lord, and we have only One Lord, and Christ is the Son, not the Father. In short, the Trinity seems to be a response to this Biblical testimony.

Ron: I do have what I believe could be considered historical basis for the infiltration of pagan thought into much of not only modern Church belief, but also much of modern Church practice. People over the years have surmised as to the motives of such changes, but then anyone could dispute such subjective evidence. Therefore I do not feel it beneficial to try to present those things, as they would only be my speculation as to what happened that led up to the events at Nicea, for example.

Yes, a thing can be "given" before the recipient exists. And you response does not address the problem that we would never say "O Lord, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world." Christ could say that, but we can not. This seems like a pretty strong demonstration that Christ possessed glory with God before he came to earth, whereas we did not.

Ron: The reason I did not address that is because I agree with you. We did not in any way exist before we were born, but were only in Gods mind, so naturally we could never ask him to glorify us with the glory we had with him before. However, Jesus could because he did exist, as the Word of God. God has been speaking his word for thousands of years before he sent his word to become flesh in the first century. I am not disputing that the Word of God possessed glory. What I am disagreeing with is what I also disagree with regarding other scriptures, namely, that such necessarily have to mean that the Word of God had to have been a person before coming to earth as a man. I know this did not happen, but if God's right arm, which is also said to possess glory, was sent by God to the earth to become a man, and we called that one Jesus, the Right Arm of God, it would be the same thing. Before Jesus was human, he was God's right arm, not a separate person. (As an aside, I do not believe that God necessarily has literal arms, but that he was speaking in ways we can understand...although I am open to the idea that he might).

I am willing to begin with Genesis if you like, but it seems like we should start with the Christian revelation since that is where the bright light resides. The OT is impossible to understand without the light of Christ, as Paul informed us:
2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ
It's not really a matter of "favorite verses" - there are "foundational" verses that tell us who Christ is. I would think we should start there. But I will follow your lead. There is no rush ...

Ron:I appreciate what you are saying here, but the reason I said this was something i remember hearing a long time ago; that one of the reasons people don't understand the things concerning the jewish old covenant is because they only read the new testament which tells them of the fulfillment of those things, but understanding the shadow by reading the old testament gives a good foundation upon which to later understand the reality given in the new testament. It sounds logical to me, but I can also see what you are saying, so either way is fine to me brother.

I'm not sure why we should be trying to understand a hypothetical historical development of the private understanding of the early Christians, since we don't have any certain knowledge of their subjective states, and even if we did, it would not really matter. The fundamental thing we need to discern is "What does the Scripture teach?" This is really important, because God revealed a lot of truth that the prophets did not understand at the time they wrote it. It was only understood centuries later. I think the same thing holds for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ron: You seem to be echoing what I mentioned above concerning that which is subjective in nature. I too wish to stick to what the scriptures teach, but I do not understand what you mean by "hypothetical development of the private understanding of the early Christians." Did what I said convey that? If so, I know it would be fruitless to try to speculate about how things developed. I too wish to just go scripture by scripture and share what I understand concerning God and how Christ relates to him, as compared to what I used to teach and understand about him as relates the Trinity teaching.

I know you are busy, so thank you again for being willing to discuss this and challenge me in love.

Ron

gregoryfl

03-11-2009, 03:37 PM

Hi Richard,
I have a question for you, Who's words were Christ's? Were they HIS Words or the Father's Word?

If I gave you a word and i told you to speak these words on this forum, are they your words are mine?

Peace and Blessings my friend,
DB

Great question, although I can see where someone could say both, but I know of where you are coming from brother. As for me, although Jesus spoke the words and in that sense they could be called his, as you already know, he ONLY spoke what the Father gave him to speak, for God was indeed, as it is written "spoken with us in these last days by means of His Son..."

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2009, 03:42 PM

Hi Richard,
I have a question for you, Who's words were Christ's? Were they HIS Words or the Father's Word?

If I gave you a word and i told you to speak these words on this forum, are they your words are mine?

Peace and Blessings my friend,
DB
Hey there DB,

We know, of course, that Christ spoke the words that he "heard from" his father. But we also know that Christ himself was called "The Word of God." There is no question about the close identity between Christ and the Father, because Christ is called the "Image of God." But I don't see how this would help solve the question about the Trinity because the fundamental issue for me is that Scripture seems to present Christ as both "God" and "with God" (John 1:1). This duality is not properly expressed by suggesting that Christ was only a "container" (ark) for the Word of God. I very much agree that the Ark of the Testimony was an excellent type of Christ the Son of God in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, but I do not think that image is complete because Christ is much more than a mere "container." He has personality, and declares himself to be the Alpha and Omega, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Almighty. Or that's how it seems to me anyway. I very much look forward to digging in to this doctrine more with you.

Many blessings,

Richard

seeking_one

03-11-2009, 05:15 PM

Hey there DB,

We know, of course, that Christ spoke the words that he "heard from" his father. But we also know that Christ himself was called "The Word of God." There is no question about the close identity between Christ and the Father, because Christ is called the "Image of God." But I don't see how this would help solve the question about the Trinity because the fundamental issue for me is that Scripture seems to present Christ as both "God" and "with God" (John 1:1). This duality is not properly expressed by suggesting that Christ was only a "container" (ark) for the Word of God. I very much agree that the Ark of the Testimony was an excellent type of Christ the Son of God in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, but I do not think that image is complete because Christ is much more than a mere "container." He has personality, and declares himself to be the Alpha and Omega, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Almighty. Or that's how it seems to me anyway. I very much look forward to digging in to this doctrine more with you.

Many blessings,

Richard
Hi Richard,
First what do you mean by "Christ"? "THE Christ" is a TITLE given to a particular man. So when you say Christ was with God and "God". What you are saying then is that " A MAN" was with "God" and "A MAN" is "God", which contradicts the Scripture. Don't you think John knew the word CHRIST, yet HE chose not to use that word. Why? Because 1 John 1:1 tells you what was with God THE FATHER. 1 John 1:2 (Darby) (and the life has been manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, WHICH WAS WITH THE Father, and has been manifested to us . Between John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-2 you can see that THE WORD=THE WORD OF LIFE=THE LIFE=ETERNAL LIFE. This is what was with God the Father. So what this is telling me literally is that YHWH's LIFE, that which makes HIM alive and also gives Eternal Life to us, became visible to Human Eyes, which is why I can see why Jesus told the Apostles that they have SEEN THE FATHER. And the visibility of that LIFE is the Son, Jesus THE Anointed ONE. The invisibility of that LIFE is called THE WORD OF GOD.

You are right that "Christ" is not a container. I never said that. I said that HIS BODY is a container. HIS body being a container does not make HIM any less human, just like our bodies without YHWH's Spirit does not make us any less human. CHRIST means THE ANOINTED ONE and what does it mean to be THE ANOINTED ONE? It means that THE SPIRIT OF THE MOST HIGH DWELLS WITHIN and is UPON and REMAINS on a CERTAIN MAN, in this case, the MAN is Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe that when we all stand before the Throne, we will only see ONE MAN, Jesus THE CHRIST.

Peace and Blessings,
DB

seeking_one

03-11-2009, 05:18 PM

Great question, although I can see where someone could say both, but I know of where you are coming from brother. As for me, although Jesus spoke the words and in that sense they could be called his, as you already know, he ONLY spoke what the Father gave him to speak, for God was indeed, as it is written "spoken with us in these last days by means of His Son..."

Ron

Hi Ron,
Exactly. HE only spoke HIS FATHER's Words.

DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-14-2009, 09:48 AM

Hi Richard,
First what do you mean by "Christ"? "THE Christ" is a TITLE given to a particular man. So when you say Christ was with God and "God". What you are saying then is that " A MAN" was with "God" and "A MAN" is "God", which contradicts the Scripture.

Hello my friend, :yo:

Sorry for the slow response. But that's what so great about online forums - the conversation can always be picked up right where it was left off.

I think there is an error in your logic. You have assumed the conclusion that you are seeking to prove. In Trinitarian theology, the title "Christ" does not merely signify the human being known as Jesus Christ, but is the title of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ who is eternal God and the Creator, the Son of God, the Image of God, the Alpha and Omega, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Beginning and the End, the Lord God Almighty. Christ acquired a human nature when He was incarnated, which means that your "contradiction" does not exist in Trinitarian theology.

It is absolutely essential to understand the basics of Trinitarian theology before attempting to formulate arguments against it. The idea that Christ is the Word comes directly from Scripture. The Bible declares that "all things" were created by the Word, that "all things" were created by Christ, and that "all things" were created by God, so simple logic demands that the Word = Christ = God:
Colossians 1:12-17 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son [Jesus Christ]: 14 In whom [Jesus Christ] we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him [= Word = Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him [Jesus Christ], and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This understanding is confirmed by the fact that Christ existed BEFORE he was incarnated, when He was "made in the likeness of men":
Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation,and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The phrase "made in the likeness of men" is parallel to John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh." The identity Christ = Word is confirmed in many verses, not the least of which is Rev 19:13 (also written by John) "His name is called the Word of God." The declaration that "Jesus Christ is Lord" means that Jesus Christ is God, since we have only one Lord, and He is God. The Holy Bible would never declare a mere man to be "Lord" in the context of He to Whom every knee would bow. This prerogative is UNIQUE to the Lord God Almighty.

The important thing to understand is that there are many Scriptures that seem to imply the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not a doctrine that can be lightly dismissed. I look forward to your response to these Scriptures.

Many Blessings,

Richard

seeking_one

03-14-2009, 02:13 PM

Hello my friend, :yo:

Sorry for the slow response. But that's what so great about online forums - the conversation can always be picked up right where it was left off.

I think there is an error in your logic. You have assumed the conclusion that you are seeking to prove. In Trinitarian theology, the title "Christ" does not merely signify the human being known as Jesus Christ, but is the title of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ who is eternal God and the Creator, the Son of God, the Image of God, the Alpha and Omega, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Beginning and the End, the Lord God Almighty. Christ acquired a human nature when He was incarnated, which means that your "contradiction" does not exist in Trinitarian theology.

It is absolutely essential to understand the basics of Trinitarian theology before attempting to formulate arguments against it. The idea that Christ is the Word comes directly from Scripture. The Bible declares that "all things" were created by the Word, that "all things" were created by Christ, and that "all things" were created by God, so simple logic demands that the Word = Christ = God:
Colossians 1:12-17 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son [Jesus Christ]: 14 In whom [Jesus Christ] we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him [= Word = Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him [Jesus Christ], and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This understanding is confirmed by the fact that Christ existed BEFORE he was incarnated, when He was "made in the likeness of men":
Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation,and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The phrase "made in the likeness of men" is parallel to John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh." The identity Christ = Word is confirmed in many verses, not the least of which is Rev 19:13 (also written by John) "His name is called the Word of God." The declaration that "Jesus Christ is Lord" means that Jesus Christ is God, since we have only one Lord, and He is God. The Holy Bible would never declare a mere man to be "Lord" in the context of He to Whom every knee would bow. This prerogative is UNIQUE to the Lord God Almighty.

The important thing to understand is that there are many Scriptures that seem to imply the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not a doctrine that can be lightly dismissed. I look forward to your response to these Scriptures.

Many Blessings,

Richard
Hi Richard,
I was wondering where you were at. I enjoy chatting with you.

Well, first, let me say my posts were not to disprove the Trinity. I think the doctrine of the Trinity as explained by modern religions of today creates contradictions in the Scripture. The wording that is used is not consistent with the Scripture, thereby creating confusion. Let me be more clear in my definition. "CHRIST" is a TITLE that REFERS to a Natural MAN. In this case THE CHRIST refers to the MAN Jesus of Nazareth born of Mary. So in essence THE CHRIST=Jesus of Nazareth. That is how the writers of the Scripture understood it.

Remember, these were Hebrew's talking. They had NO idea about CHRIST being 2nd in the "Godhead". Now, let's go to the Scripture and see if those in Jesus' time knew CHRIST as a MAN.
1) Matthew 2:4 and, assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where THE CHRIST should be BORN.
2) Matthew 22:42 saying, What think ye concerning THE CHRIST? whose son is he? They say to him, David's.
3) 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you i exhort, who [am their] fellow-elder and witness of the SUFFERING OF THE CHRIST....

So these Scriptures show men(Apostles, Jesus, etc) believed that CHRIST was to be "BORN". Look at 1 Peter 5:1, THE WORD does not suffer, BUT CHRIST can. Why? Because Peter KNEW and understood THE CHRIST to be A MAN.

Do you believe that the Apostle John knew the difference between "CHRIST" and "WORD". In 1 John 5:7, John says that there are 3 that bear record in Heaven. THE FATHER, THE WORD, and THE SON. Now many people think that this proves a trinity. It does not because John says that these THREE are ONE. Which means to me that YHWH is ALL THESE. Just as you cannot separate us from our "word" so too I believe of YHWH. HIS WORD and SPIRIT are a part of HIM and HE is THE FATHER because ONLY HE is the CREATOR of ALL THINGS. Now, HE created ALL THINGS by HIS WORD and SPIRIT. Before Jesus came, nobody saw THE FATHER, THE WORD, or THE SPIRIT because HE is INVISIBLE. Notice that i did not say "they". The reason i say "HE" is because the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are ONE(meaning singular) and they are inseparable.

But when the THE SEED of the WOMAN was born, who is CALLED The CHRIST, HE revealed THE FATHER, and HE revealed THE WORD, and HE revealed THE SPIRIT. How did HE reveal these things? Because as Paul said, ALL the "godhead" which is (THE FATHER, THE WORD, and THE SPIRIT) dwelt IN HIM. Christ to me and as the Scripture reveals talks about YHWH's Anointed Man who was born of a woman and because this man Jesus the CHRIST rose, HE became the Son of the Almighty.

I guess i need to ask you some questions to get an understanding of what you believe.
1) What is you definition of Trinity?
2) What was the 2nd person of the Trinity before HE became man? Was HE an angel, a spirit.
3) When did HE come into existence or was he already there?
4) So if the 2nd person of the Trinity existed, what did the Prophets call him in the OT for they should have known who HE was? Right?
5) If Christ = THE WORD, then do you believe that they shared same identity, therefore, one could substitute one for the other?

Peace/Blessings,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-14-2009, 03:04 PM

Hi Richard,
I was wondering where you were at. I enjoy chatting with you.

I'm enjoying it too. :thumb:

Well, first, let me say my posts were not to disprove the Trinity. I think the doctrine of the Trinity as explained by modern religions of today creates contradictions in the Scripture. The wording that is used is not consistent with the Scripture, thereby creating confusion. Let me be more clear in my definition. "CHRIST" is a TITLE that REFERS to a Natural MAN. In this case THE CHRIST refers to the MAN Jesus of Nazareth born of Mary. So in essence THE CHRIST=Jesus of Nazareth. That is how the writers of the Scripture understood it.

I would not say that the doctrine of the Trinity has anything to do with "modern religions of today" since it was formulated in the first few centuries after Christ came.

Why do you say that Christ was a "natural" man? Yes, he was fully human, but that does not mean he was not also divine. What other man was born of a virgin? What other man created the world?
John 1:10 He [Jesus Christ] was in the world, and the world was made by him [Jesus Christ], and the world knew him not.
I do not think that the "confusion" is caused by the Doctrine of the Trinity which only tries to articulate what the Bible says about Jesus.

I don't think I can agree when you say that the "writers of the Bible understood" that Jesus was just a "natural man" - they spoke of Him as God, as when Thomas said "My Lord and my God" and when John and Paul said that "all things were made by him." It will probably take a little time for us to really understand each others position before we can evaluate which (if either) is correct.

Remember, these were Hebrew's talking. They had NO idea about CHRIST being 2nd in the "Godhead".

I agree that they had no idea about the specific formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. That took many years to articulate. But they did understand that Christ was Creator, and Lord, and God:
Titus 2:13-14 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
Whatever one may think about the first Christians, the one thing we know is that they spoke of Christ as God in the flesh:
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
These are the words of the first century Hebrews who encountered God in Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity is merely an attempt to articulate the meaning of what they wrote when we take into account the entire testimony of all Scripture.

Now, let's go to the Scripture and see if those in Jesus' time knew CHRIST as a MAN.

1) Matthew 2:4 and, assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where THE CHRIST should be BORN.
2) Matthew 22:42 saying, What think ye concerning THE CHRIST? whose son is he? They say to him, David's.
3) 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you i exhort, who [am their] fellow-elder and witness of the SUFFERING OF THE CHRIST....

So these Scriptures show men(Apostles, Jesus, etc) believed that CHRIST was to be "BORN". Look at 1 Peter 5:1, THE WORD does not suffer, BUT CHRIST can. Why? Because Peter KNEW and understood THE CHRIST to be A MAN.

I don't understand your point here. No one has ever disputed that Christ was born. But the fact that he was born does not mean that he did not exist before he was born. That's another question altogether.

Why do you say that the "Word" can not suffer?

Do you believe that the Apostle John knew the difference between "CHRIST" and "WORD". In 1 John 5:7, John says that there are 3 that bear record in Heaven. THE FATHER, THE WORD, and THE SON. Now many people think that this proves a trinity. It does not because John says that these THREE are ONE. Which means to me that YHWH is ALL THESE. Just as you cannot separate us from our "word" so too I believe of YHWH. HIS WORD and SPIRIT are a part of HIM and HE is THE FATHER because ONLY HE is the CREATOR of ALL THINGS. Now, HE created ALL THINGS by HIS WORD and SPIRIT. Before Jesus came, nobody saw THE FATHER, THE WORD, or THE SPIRIT because HE is INVISIBLE. Notice that i did not say "they". The reason i say "HE" is because the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are ONE(meaning singular) and they are inseparable.

There is good reason for John to use different titles of the Son of God to emphasize different aspects of who he is. He is the Word, the Christ, the Son of God, the Image of God, the Lamb of God, etc.

I agree that "YHWH is ALL THESE" because YHWH is the name of the One God. But Scripture presents YHWH as three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And we know that the Son is not the Father for many reasons. One of the more powerful is the fact that the Father and the Son are two different witnesses:
John 8:18 "I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."
The fundamental issue stems from the fact that Son is not the Father, yet both are "Creator" and both are "Lord". The Doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to articulate these facts presented in Scripture.

But when the THE SEED of the WOMAN was born, who is CALLED The CHRIST, HE revealed THE FATHER, and HE revealed THE WORD, and HE revealed THE SPIRIT. How did HE reveal these things? Because as Paul said, ALL the "godhead" which is (THE FATHER, THE WORD, and THE SPIRIT) dwelt IN HIM. Christ to me and as the Scripture reveals talks about YHWH's Anointed Man who was born of a woman and because this man Jesus the CHRIST rose, HE became the Son of the Almighty.

I don't disagree with those words, but they seem incomplete because they do not address the fact that the Father is not the Son, and yet both Father and Son are Creator and Lord.

I guess i need to ask you some questions to get an understanding of what you believe.

That's an excellent approach! :thumb:

I will do my best to answer.

1) What is you definition of Trinity?

The doctrine of the Trinity states that there is One God who reveals Himself in Three Persons, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each Person has all the attributes of God (Creator, Lord, Life, etc). Each Person is distinct from the other two. The three persons are related to each other: The Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

2) What was the 2nd person of the Trinity before HE became man? Was HE an angel, a spirit.

He was Spirit (for God is Spirit). He was the Son of God, but he did not acquire a human nature until the incarnation.

3) When did HE come into existence or was he already there?

He is co-eternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

4) So if the 2nd person of the Trinity existed, what did the Prophets call him in the OT for they should have known who HE was? Right?

There is no reason to believe that the OT prophets knew everything about the nature of the Godhead. But when they did refer to him, they sometimes called him "The Messenger of the Covenant", the "Messiah", "The Angel of the Lord" (not an "angel" in the sense of "Gabriel", but as "Messenger"). And many other titles too.

5) If Christ = THE WORD, then do you believe that they shared same identity, therefore, one could substitute one for the other?

The title "Word" is like the title "Christ" - it signifies the Second Person of the Godhead.

I am very much enjoying this conversation DB! It should really help us clarify the true teaching of Scripture,

Many Blessings,

Richard

seeking_one

03-14-2009, 04:36 PM

Why do you say that Christ was a "natural" man? Yes, he was fully human, but that does not mean he was not also divine. What other man was born of a virgin? What other man created the world?
John 1:10 He [Jesus Christ] was in the world, and the world was made by him [Jesus Christ], and the world knew him not.
I do not think that the "confusion" is caused by the Doctrine of the Trinity which only tries to articulate what the Bible says about Jesus.
Yes, i never said that HE was not divine. Just because HE was divine does not mean that HE was THE FATHER.

I don't think I can agree when you say that the "writers of the Bible understood" that Jesus was just a "natural man" - they spoke of Him as God, as when Thomas said "My Lord and my God" and when John and Paul said that "all things were made by him." It will probably take a little time for us to really understand each others position before we can evaluate which (if either) is correct.
I view "Elohim" as a TITLE. It signifies his Authority. It signifies in the case of Jesus that HE is THE KING of whom Israel waited for. For the Hebrews called their Kings, "O Elohim or O God". Psalm 45. When John said all things were made BY HIM. The question is WHO IS HIM? HE didn't say CHRIST and he could have. The HIM that created the world is referred back to John 1:3 when he said that "ALL things were made by HIM". The HIM is THE WORD that was with God the FATHER. So we can substitute HIM in John 1:10 and say "THE WORD was in the world, and world was made by THE WORD: and the world knew THE WORD not.
Doesn't this confirm Psalm 33:6 By THE WORD OF YHWH were the heavens made....

I agree that they had no idea about the specific formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. That took many years to articulate. But they did understand that Christ was Creator, and Lord, and God:
Titus 2:13-14 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
Whatever one may think about the first Christians, the one thing we know is that they spoke of Christ as God in the flesh:
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
These are the words of the first century Hebrews who encountered God in Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity is merely an attempt to articulate the meaning of what they wrote when we take into account the entire testimony of all Scripture.
Notice you said that the Hebrew encountered GOD IN CHRIST. This is important; they didn't encounter God in God; that makes no sense. But, they encountered GOD the FATHER in CHRIST which is just was the Apostle John confirms and even the Apostle Paul.(1 Tim 3:16)

Why do you say that the "Word" can not suffer?
Because in order for the THE WORD, which according to Scripture is SPIRIT, to suffer then it would have to taken on HUMAN FLESH. And this is exactly what the Scripture says happen.

I agree that "YHWH is ALL THESE" because YHWH is the name of the One God. But Scripture presents YHWH as three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And we know that the Son is not the Father for many reasons. One of the more powerful is the fact that the Father and the Son are two different witnesses:
John 8:18 "I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."
The fundamental issue stems from the fact that Son is not the Father, yet both are "Creator" and both are "Lord". The Doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to articulate these facts presented in Scripture. .
Okay. I agree 100% with everything you said, EXCEPT the last two statements. It is not an issue for THE FATHER and THE SON to be a "Creator", "Father", etc. Why? Because Jesus said that THE FATHER has given HIM the SAME Authority and Power that the HE, the FATHER, had. This is the eason the Jews and religious leaders in Jesus time got mad. By HIM saying this, that made Jesus, A MAN, equal with GOD ALMIGHTY. Remember, Jesus said HE WAS GIVEN. "Given" implies that the recipient did not have the object given him.

1) What is you definition of Trinity?

The doctrine of the Trinity states that there is One God who reveals Himself in Three Persons, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each Person has all the attributes of God (Creator, Lord, Life, etc). Each Person is distinct from the other two. The three persons are related to each other: The Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
okay. I can agree, except the Scripture reveals the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father and Son. I can agree that each is a person. But NONE of this necessitates pre-existence on the Son's part.

2) What was the 2nd person of the Trinity before HE became man? Was HE an angel, a spirit.
He was Spirit (for God is Spirit). He was the Son of God, but he did not acquire a human nature until the incarnation.
So let's examine this. The 2nd person of the trinity is SPIRIT, therefore the second person is God THE FATHER. Right? In John 4:24, Jesus said the FATHER is SPIRIT. HE did not say the SON is SPIRIT. So how can the 2nd Person be the Son of God AND the FATHER before HE acquired a human nature?

3) When did HE come into existence or was he already there?

He is co-eternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
How do you reconcile what YHWH said through the Prophets, that there is not another person/Elohim LIKE HIM, or BEFORE HIM, BESIDE HIM, or AFTER HIM. If the 2nd Person of the trinity is co-eternal, then there was another LIKE HIM. HIS Son. Yet HE(YHWH) said there was not another. You see how that would cause confusion. Proof text:

Is 45:6 That they may know from rising of the sun, and from the west, that THERE IS NONE BESIDE me. I, YHWH, and there IS NONE ELSE.
Is 45:21...who hath told it from that time? have not I YHWH? and there is NO ELOHIM(God) else BESIDE ME; a just God and a Savior, there is NONE BESIDE ME.

If the SON OF GOD existed in eternity past as SPIRIT as another Person, then that makes the above statements false because there WAS a "GOD" beside HIM. It was HIS Son.

4) So if the 2nd person of the Trinity existed, what did the Prophets call him in the OT for they should have known who HE was? Right?

There is no reason to believe that the OT prophets knew everything about the nature of the Godhead. But when they did refer to him, they sometimes called him "The Messenger of the Covenant", the "Messiah", "The Angel of the Lord" (not an "angel" in the sense of "Gabriel", but as "Messenger"). And many other titles too.
I'm not sure i agree with that. The Prophets of OLD did know about the Nature of the ALMIGHTY. Moses talked HIM face to face. Why is the Messenger special? Was it not BECAUSE YHWH put HIS NAME IN HIM; thereby putting HIS Power and Authority in HIM. Now THE MESSENGER was not YHWH but HE could DO ALL THAT YHWH did because HIS NAME was IN HIM. And "name" in this case refers to YHWH's authority and character. Ex 23:21 Beware of HIM, and obey HIS voice, provoke HIM not, for HE will not pardon your transgressions: FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM

5) If Christ = THE WORD, then do you believe that they shared same identity, therefore, one could substitute one for the other?

The title "Word" is like the title "Christ" - it signifies the Second Person of the Godhead.
So if this be the case, then i can substitute CHRIST for Word. Right? Do you believe that THE WORD is a Person and Title?

Peace and Blessings,

DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-16-2009, 09:36 AM

Hello my friend! :yo:

I very much appreciate your thoughtful responses. This is an excellent conversation.

Why do you say that Christ was a "natural" man? Yes, he was fully human, but that does not mean he was not also divine. What other man was born of a virgin? What other man created the world?
John 1:10 He [Jesus Christ] was in the world, and the world was made by him [Jesus Christ], and the world knew him not.
I do not think that the "confusion" is caused by the Doctrine of the Trinity which only tries to articulate what the Bible says about Jesus.

Yes, i never said that HE was not divine. Just because HE was divine does not mean that HE was THE FATHER.

I never said that the Son was the Father. It seems like you are assuming that YHWH is the personal name of the Father alone. That does not appear to be what Scripture teaches. There are many instances where Old Testament references to YHWH are applied to Jesus Christ. For example:
Romans 10:9-13 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
The quote from vs. 13 is from Joel:
KJV Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD [YHWH] shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
This implies Jesus Christ = YHWH. Another obvious example is from Philippians:
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
There is only ONE to whom "every knee shall bow" as declared by the Prophet Isaiah:
Isaiah 45:21-25 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD [YHWH]? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me [YHWH] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 25 In the LORD [YHWH] shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
There are many converging lines from this passage that all declare JESUS = YHWH. Every knee shall bow to Jesus/YHWH. The Saviour is Jesus/YHWH. We are justified in Jesus/YHWH.

The most important thing to consider is that the Bible is the Word of YHWH, and YHWH will not give His glory to another! Therefore, if we receive the Bible as the Word of YHWH and if we truly honour it as the Word of YHWH, we must not think that YHWH has given us a confused Word that appears to "mix up" His glory with that any other, even His Son Jesus. If Jesus is not YHWH, then how are we to understand the many verses that identify Him as YHWH? Why would God refer to Jesus as YHWH? We must not attempt to "explain away" these passages just so they will fit with a preconceived view of the nature of God. They are in the Bible and must be dealt with in a way that truly honours the Bible as God's Word.

I don't think I can agree when you say that the "writers of the Bible understood" that Jesus was just a "natural man" - they spoke of Him as God, as when Thomas said "My Lord and my God" and when John and Paul said that "all things were made by him." It will probably take a little time for us to really understand each others position before we can evaluate which (if either) is correct.

I view "Elohim" as a TITLE. It signifies his Authority. It signifies in the case of Jesus that HE is THE KING of whom Israel waited for. For the Hebrews called their Kings, "O Elohim or O God". Psalm 45.

It is true that "Elohim" can be used as a "title" signifying "authority" but that is a very rare usage, and it would be an error to apply it universally that way. Etymologically, the root means "strong one" and in the Bible it is used almost always as denoting "God" especially as Creator. That's how it is used in the very first verse:

In the beginning ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth.

This is confirmed by the fact that Elohim is almost always translated as Theos (God) in the Greek NT.

When John said all things were made BY HIM. The question is WHO IS HIM? HE didn't say CHRIST and he could have. The HIM that created the world is referred back to John 1:3 when he said that "ALL things were made by HIM". The HIM is THE WORD that was with God the FATHER. So we can substitute HIM in John 1:10 and say "THE WORD was in the world, and world was made by THE WORD: and the world knew THE WORD not.
Doesn't this confirm Psalm 33:6 By THE WORD OF YHWH were the heavens made....

None of your comments contradict the fact that Jesus is the Word which is confirmed by many other passages. Most importantly, John says that "all things" were created by the Word, and Paul says that "all things" were created by Jesus Christ. Does this not imply that Jesus Christ = the Word? This also is confirmed in John's Gospel. He said that the Word is the "True Light" and the Jesus Christ is the "Light of the World." It seems to me that everything everywhere in the Bible points to the fact that Jesus = the Word. Is there anything that contradicts this idea?

I'll respond to the rest of your post as time permits.

Many blessing to you my friend,

Richard

Rose

03-16-2009, 02:14 PM

How do you reconcile what YHWH said through the Prophets, that there is not another person/Elohim LIKE HIM, or BEFORE HIM, BESIDE HIM, or AFTER HIM. If the 2nd Person of the trinity is co-eternal, then there was another LIKE HIM. HIS Son. Yet HE(YHWH) said there was not another. You see how that would cause confusion. Proof text:
Is 45:6 That they may know from rising of the sun, and from the west, that THERE IS NONE BESIDE me. I, YHWH, and there IS NONE ELSE.
Is 45:21...who hath told it from that time? have not I YHWH? and there is NO ELOHIM(God) else BESIDE ME; a just God and a Savior, there is NONE BESIDE ME.
If the SON OF GOD existed in eternity past as SPIRIT as another Person, then that makes the above statements false because there WAS a "GOD" beside HIM. It was HIS Son.

Hi DB,

I would like to address just one question you asked:

"If the SON OF GOD existed in eternity past as SPIRIT as another Person, then that makes the above statements false because there WAS a "GOD" beside HIM."

The one thing that we must bear in mind is that Jesus was not like God, before God, or after God, Jesus WAS GOD......It clearly says that the WORD began with God, was co-eternal with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.

It is a very hard thing for man to comprehend the triune nature of God, I think the closest we can come to understanding it as finite beings, is comparing it to the relationship we have between our body, soul, and spirit.

God Bless

Rose

seeking_one

03-16-2009, 06:46 PM

Hi Ram,
I must say that I am really enjoying this discussion. You have mentioned this in another response and you mention again the following:

"If Jesus is not YHWH, then how are we to understand the many verses that identify Him as YHWH? Why would God refer to Jesus as YHWH?" Also, I do realize that Jesus name consist of the HEBREW words YHWH and YASHA.

This question you ask is the crux of the issue. How could Jesus do these things that the Scripture clearly indicates belongs to YHWH and HIM only.

YHWH means literally "HE was, HE is, HE is to come". Now the one that Spoke to Moses said HIS NAME is the following: YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, THE Elohim of Abraham, THE Elohim of Isaac, THE Elohim of Jacob which probably should have translated as follows: I AM, God of your fathers, THE GOD of Abraham, THE GOD of Isaac, and THE GOD of Jacob. This is THE ONE that spoke to Moses. So from henceforth, when you see me write YHWH, it should be read as the bolded underline above. Jesus confirms Ex 3:15; see Mark 12:26 and 27.

Therefore while Jesus, THE Son of God, referred to the FATHER as YHWH, HE did not view HIMSELF as YHWH. When Jesus prayed, HE prayed to THE ONE in Heaven, THE ONE that was also in HIM and Jesus called THAT ONE, the TRUE GOD. John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

All throughout the Book of John, Jesus referred to HIMSELF as THE SON and the Jews during that time considered that blashpame because when HE referred to the TRUE GOD as Father and referred to HIMSELF as Son, the Jews considered HIM as saying that HE was THE TRUE GOD. John 10:33 (KJV) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God [YHWH God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob]. Look at what Jesus said closely. HE tells them the Scriptures call man/men "gods"(Elohim)", which proves that it is okay to call Jesus "God". But, JESUS did not say HE was "THE Elohim(God)", HE said, John 10:36 (KJV) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON OF GOD(Elohim)?

It is acknowledging THE CHRIST as the SON OF GOD that the Scriptures require in order to the honour THE FATHER. John 5:23. This what the Apostle Peter did.

Realize that though HE is the SON OF GOD, it DOES NOT deny HIS deity or authority. Why? It is because THE FATHER(YHWH, THE GOD of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob) gave HIM authority on Heaven and Earth. When the Pharisee questioned HIS authority, HE told them where it came from. Jesus authority came from Heaven(Matthew 9:6,8 and Matthew 28:18) from the YHWH God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, THE FATHER, THE ONE who has ALL the Power and Authority.

Now, back to question, how can this Man do these things AND NOT BE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, Isaac, and Jacob? HE can do those things because: Jesus is ARM of YHWH and YHWH's ARM is a part of YHWH. So Scripture is TRUE when it says that HIS glory was not given to another. HIS Glory was given to HIS OWN ARM in the Person of HIS Son, Jesus THE CHRIST.
Isaiah 63:5 (KJV) And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore MINE OWN ARM BROUGHT SALVATION unto ME; and my fury, it upheld me.
John 12:38 (KJV) That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, YHWH, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath [/u]THE ARM OF THE YHWH been revealed?[/u]

This proves that the ARM OF YHWH is the Power of THE ALMIGHTY. This Power was revealed and manifested in A MAN. The Person of Jesus the CHRIST is THAT MAN who could feel as we do, who could be tempted as we are, who could die as we do. But this is the thing that is so marvelous; some people deny that Jesus had ALL authority and Power while living on the Earth, but I disagree with this. HE had ALL and I mean ALL Power. HE could have called 10,000 angels to fight for HIM. HE couild could SAVED HIS own life because I believe that HE had LIFE IN HIM as HE was walking the Earth. But what is so great is that although HE had this Power, HE did as Scripture said and LAID aside so that HE could fulfil THE FATHER's will. This is what Philippians is talking about.Phil 2:7,8 HE said NO MAN CAN TAKE MY LIFE. John 10:15 (KJV) As the Father knoweth ME, even so know I the Father: and I [Jesus] lay down my life for the sheep.

In conclusion, Jesus said HE could do nothing without YHWH THE GOD of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All the Power and Authority Jesus had was because HIS Father GAVE IT to HIM. Now, if we honor the FATHER by wosrhipping HIM as THE CREATOR, the GIVER of LIFE and GOD ALMIGHTY, then it is Scripturally sound to worship the SON the same way because THE SON(THE LAMB) was given THE FATHER's Power, Authority, and Glory and as Scripture says, we Honour the Father when we do this, but the mistake must not be made to attribute and say that THE SON has these Powers because HE is GOD ALMIGHTY. The Apostle Peter shows that glory and honor was NOT GIVEN TO GOD ALMIGHTY, but was given to HIS SON on the Earth.(2 Pet 1:17). And Revelation shows that Honor and Glory was given to the resurrected LAMB.(Rev 5:12)

Now, Jesus is sitting on the Right Hand Side of THE POWER and when we see HIM, HE is the ONLY ONE that we are going to see and this is why Paul said that every knee will confess him as "Kurios" which means "Supreme Authority" the same term used to express YHWH, THE GOD of Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And this confession will be to THE GLORY of GOD the FATHER, who IS the deity(theotēs) STILL dwelling IN Jesus THE CHRIST. That Paul used the "Present Indicative Active" shows that this verse was True in Paul's day and is still true today.

Peace and Blessings,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-16-2009, 08:18 PM

Hi Ram,
I must say that I am really enjoying this discussion. You have mentioned this in another response and you mention again the following:

"If Jesus is not YHWH, then how are we to understand the many verses that identify Him as YHWH? Why would God refer to Jesus as YHWH?"

Also, I do realize that Jesus name consist of the HEBREW words YHWH and YASHA.

This question you ask is the crux of the issue. How could Jesus do these things that the Scripture clearly indicates belongs to YHWH and HIM only.

YHWH means literally "HE was, HE is, HE is to come". Now the one that Spoke to Moses said HIS NAME is the following: YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, THE Elohim of Abraham, THE Elohim of Isaac, THE Elohim of Jacob which probably should have translated as follows: I AM, God of your fathers, THE GOD of Abraham, THE GOD of Isaac, and THE GOD of Jacob. This is THE ONE that spoke to Moses. So from henceforth, when you see me write YHWH, it should be read as the bolded underline above. Jesus confirms Ex 3:15; see Mark 12:26 and 27.

Therefore while Jesus, THE Son of God, referred to the FATHER as YHWH, HE did not view HIMSELF as YHWH.

It is good that you understand the Hebrew root meaning of YHWH as "He who was, who is, and who is to come." This is the key to understanding that Jesus is YHWH. It seems to me that Jesus very clearly referred to Himself as YHWH in John's Gospel:
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Why did the Jews seek to kill him? Because He declared Himself to be the "I AM" that spoke to Moses from the burning bush. They thought it was blasphemy because they did not understand His identity. The thing that is so important is that the phrase "Ego eimi" (I AM) is used in the LXX when YHWH says "I AM" and in the NT when Christ says it, and in a context that implies He self-consciously was referring to Himself as YHWH. To the first century Christians who read the LXX, the connection would have been impossible to miss. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that they called Christ "Kurios" (Lord) which is the word used in place of YHWH when the Hebrew was translated to Greek. For example, the prophecy of the coming of Christ/YHWH is prophesied in Malachi and fulfilled in Christ:
Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord [YHWH/KURIOS/JESUS], whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
It seems to me that the biblical testimony is extremely clear and consistent on this point. But I know you don't see it this way, so it is very good to dig deep into Scripture with you to find the truth.

Now, back to question, how can this Man do these things AND NOT BE THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, Isaac, and Jacob? HE can do those things because: Jesus is ARM of YHWH and YHWH's ARM is a part of YHWH. So Scripture is TRUE when it says that HIS glory was not given to another. HIS Glory was given to HIS OWN ARM in the Person of HIS Son, Jesus THE CHRIST.
Isaiah 63:5 (KJV) And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore MINE OWN ARM BROUGHT SALVATION unto ME; and my fury, it upheld me.
John 12:38 (KJV) That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, YHWH, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath [/u]THE ARM OF THE YHWH been revealed?[/u]

This proves that the ARM OF YHWH is the Power of THE ALMIGHTY. This Power was revealed and manifested in A MAN. The Person of Jesus the CHRIST is THAT MAN who could feel as we do, who could be tempted as we are, who could die as we do. But this is the thing that is so marvelous; some people deny that Jesus had ALL authority and Power while living on the Earth, but I disagree with this. HE had ALL and I mean ALL Power. HE could have called 10,000 angels to fight for HIM. HE couild could SAVED HIS own life because I believe that HE had LIFE IN HIM as HE was walking the Earth. But what is so great is that although HE had this Power, HE did as Scripture said and LAID aside so that HE could fulfil THE FATHER's will. This is what Philippians is talking about.Phil 2:7,8 HE said NO MAN CAN TAKE MY LIFE. John 10:15 (KJV) As the Father knoweth ME, even so know I the Father: and I [Jesus] lay down my life for the sheep.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't see how any of it contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, Christ is the "arm of the Lord" for indeed He is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

In conclusion, Jesus said HE could do nothing without YHWH THE GOD of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

No, Jesus never said that. Jesus IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus said that He could do nothing without the Father. That is a very different statement.

Now, Jesus is sitting on the Right Hand Side of THE POWER and when we see HIM, HE is the ONLY ONE that we are going to see and this is why Paul said that every knee will confess him as "Kurios" which means "Supreme Authority" the same term used to express YHWH, THE GOD of Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And this confession will be to THE GLORY of GOD the FATHER, who IS the deity(theotēs) STILL dwelling IN Jesus THE CHRIST. That Paul used the "Present Indicative Active" shows that this verse was True in Paul's day and is still true today.

Peace and Blessings,
DB
I grant that your explanation could work if it were true that Jesus were not YHWH, but it does not prove the case either way. It seems that this particular mode of discourse will never settle the question of the Trinity. You can explain things one way, and I another - there is no way to establish the truth with certainty.

So this is what I think we need to do. We need to find the FOUNDATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity (or show it has none). I think perhaps a good place to start would be to answer the point I raised earlier that has not been answered: Paul revealed that "all things" were created by Jesus and John revealed that "all things" were created by the Word. This seems to imply that Jesus = the Word = God. Can you answer this point?

Richard

seeking_one

03-17-2009, 03:03 PM

So this is what I think we need to do. We need to find the FOUNDATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity (or show it has none). I think perhaps a good place to start would be to answer the point I raised earlier that has not been answered: Paul revealed that "all things" were created by Jesus and John revealed that "all things" were created by the Word. This seems to imply that Jesus = the Word = God. Can you answer this point?
Richard
Hi Richard,
You can't take the Scriptures as you have done in make that leap. Remember, the Apostles only had the OT and the NT was gradually written. The verse you mention in Ephesians does say "BY JESUS CHRIST". Now, some translations omit, this but here is the thing "dia" can mean several things. One of the definitions is "for" and "because of ".
Look at Colossians where Paul said that ALL THINGS were CREATED dia HIM, and eis HIM.

Eis means "a primary prepostition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered)
Dia means a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act.

So one way of translating which would be consistent without any paradox would be to say that all things were created FOR, and IN HIM.

John is very clear that THE WORD created everything and this is consistent with the OT writings. If John meant Jesus, don't you think he would have wrote that?

seeking_one

03-17-2009, 03:51 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-17-2009, 05:12 PM

Hi Richard,
You can't take the Scriptures as you have done in make that leap. Remember, the Apostles only had the OT and the NT was gradually written.

The Bible is a UNITY inspired by God, so the limited knowledge of the Apostles means nothing in this regard. For example, David knew nothing of Christ through natural knowledge, but he prophesied his crucifixion in Psalm 22.

The verse you mention in Ephesians does say "BY JESUS CHRIST". Now, some translations omit, this but here is the thing "dia" can mean several things. One of the definitions is "for" and "because of ".
Look at Colossians where Paul said that ALL THINGS were CREATED dia HIM, and eis HIM.

Eis means "a primary prepostition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered)
Dia means a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act.

So one way of translating which would be consistent without any paradox would be to say that all things were created FOR, and IN HIM.

John is very clear that THE WORD created everything and this is consistent with the OT writings. If John meant Jesus, don't you think he would have wrote that?
Yes, I am very familiar with the Greek of the NT. I can read it rather fluently, only rarely requiring reference to a dictionary. Your comments about the words "dia" and "eis" are essentially correct, but they did not fully address the issue at hand. Let's look closely at the text. There are four prepositions EN, DIA, EIS, and PRO:
Colossians 1:16-19 For by [EN] him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by [DIA] him, and for [EIS] him: 17 And he is before [PRO] all things, and by [EN] him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in [EN] him should all fulness dwell;
Note that twice the word "EN" is translated as "by" and once as "in."

Now the main point is this. I am reading the WORD OF GOD and it declares the following things about JESUS CHRIST:

All things were created BY JESUS CHRIST
All things were created FOR JESUS CHRIST
All things are IN JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST is BEFORE all things

All of these attributes apply to GOD and GOD ALONE. The Bible would never present a mere creature as the recipient of these attributes. Consider these questions:

FOR whom were all things created? The Bible declares FOR GOD:
Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
IN whom do all things exist? The Bible declares IN GOD:
Acts 17:24-30 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in [EN] him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Now here is the FUNDAMENTAL POINT that MUST be considered. It is the HOLY BIBLE that contains these verses that strongly imply that Jesus is God. I have shown you dozens of verses that carry this implication. And in every case you need to "explain" why they don't really mean what they appear to mean. These verses are in the HOLY BIBLE. We must not simply "explain them away" to fit a theory about the nature of God. We need to RESPECT the Bible and trust in the INFINITE INTELLIGENCE of Almight God who gave it to us.

As alway, it is a blessing to be working with you to understand God's Word,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-17-2009, 05:54 PM

Hey Ram,
If you substitue GOD ALMIGHTY in the Scriptures from Gen-Revelations every where you see YHWH AND Jesus the CHRIST, then you will have plenty contradictions. I can go in the OT and the NT and substitute in the OLD where it says YHWH; i can say "EL SHADDAI(GOD ALMIGHTY)". In the NT, where it says "GOD the FATHER", I can say "GOD ALMIGHTY". IF i do that I will have NO CONTRADCTIONS whatsoever. I could also use the NAME told to Moses, not just YHWH, but YHWH[I AM], Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacob.

Hey there DB,

I don't think that is correct at all. For example, let us begin with Genesis 1:1 -
In the beginning God/Jesus/The Word created the heavens and the earth.
This makes perfect sense, with no contradictions. On the contrary, it coheres perfectly with the other Scriptures that declare that everything was created by God/Jesus/The Word.

There also is no contradiction if we speak of Jesus Christ as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, this has been how Chritians have understood Jesus Christ for millennia.

Unfortunately, our translations have confused titles with name. The ONE that Spoke to Moses said HIS NAME IS THIS forever: Exodus 3:15YHWH[I AM], Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacob has sent me to you. THIS IS MY NAME FOREVER...

Elohim,Theos, Kurios are ALL titles NO matter what the lexicons say.

Why would you think that you have linguistic authority to denounce "what the lexicons say"? Can you read Greek and Hebrew? I can. And I agree with the lexicons. I have found no errors in regard to the entries relating to Elohim, Theos, and Kurios. But your comments do seem erroneous - so we will need to discuss the validity of your claims about "titles" vs. "names."

It seems that there is a fundamental error in your assertion, because the Lord mentioned many names as "His name" - most notably the name YHWH (which is differnt that AHYH, of course):
Isaiah 42:8 I am YHWH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
And another ...
Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
And another ...
Jeremiah 46:18 18 As I live, saith the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts, Surely as Tabor is among the mountains, and as Carmel by the sea, so shall he come.
And here is a variation ..
Amos 5:27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.
Note particularly that the BIBLE contradicts the idea that Elohim is a "title" since it says that God's name is "Elohi Tzaboath." I think distinctions between "titles" and "names" are completely meaningless in this regard, so if you want to use such distinctions in our discussion, you will need to explain why they are meaningful.

In the NT, because the name has been hidden one must look at the Greek text which in just about ALL cases when referring to THE ONE that spoke to Moses, the Definite Article(HO) is USED along with (GOD)THEOS. Unfortunately, our translations fail to translate THE, The Definite Article points to a particular PERSON. By using THEOS without also translating HO can lead to errors.

Yes, we must be careful with the Greek, but as yet, you have not shown any misunderstanding based on the article. I would be delighted to discuss it if you have an example, but I should let you know that I have never seen a successful argument against the Trinity based on the use of the article (and I've seen many failed attempts).

Now, you cannot find me one statement that Jesus said that indicated that Jesus is the YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isacc, and Elohim of Jacob.

Yes I can, and indeed, I already have but you never responded. When Jesus used the EGO EIMI in response to the Jews, He was claiming to be YHWH who spoke from the Burning Bush.

Jesus IS NOT HIS OWN FATHER.

This statement indicates that you do not understand the basic definition of the Trinity which EXPLICITLY states that The Son is not the Father. This is FUNDAMENTAL to the doctrine and it has been understood for millennia since otherwise Christians would be asserting absurd things like "Jesus is His Own Father." The fact that you bring this up as an "argument" indicates that you are not familiar with the topic we are discussing. This makes me wonder why you feel qualified to have such a strong opinon about something you know nothing about.

I think the real problem that you have with the Trinity is that you really do not understand it at all. It's not that you disagree with the doctrine - its that you simply do not know what the doctrine states.

I trust you sense no malice in my words here. I am merely trying to state things as clearly as possible.

Many blessings to you DB,

Richard

seeking_one

03-17-2009, 06:00 PM

Hi Ram,
You forget the English version of that you and i have are Translations. I never said Jesus is not "God" Elohim. All the Hebrew Kings of the Bible are and can be addressed as "God".

The question to you is what do you mean when you use the vague English word "God" which can be used for many things. Jesus is NOT THE GOD. Notice I used "THE". Acts 17:24 says "THE GOD", not "God". The underlying Greek says HO THEOS. There IS NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that addresses Jesus as THE GOD, either in the NT or OT, if so i can't find it.

Please answer these questions?
1) Who is THE GOD in Acts 17?
2) Who is being referred to in Rev 4? Is it not THE GOD. NOTE: the LAMB did NOT APPEAR yet, HE was hidden in Rev 4. HE was in THE GOD's "bosom" (i.e. heart) Then, in Rev 5 HE came out of the midst of the Throne.
3) Find me one verse in the Gospels that Jesus said HE is/was THE GOD?
4) Who is Jesus' FATHER? and what is HIS Name?

It is very easy in Scripture to refute logic that insinuates that Jesus IS THE GOD of the OT or the NT.

I believe that THE GOD, THE FATHER, the ONE GOD, and GOD the FATHER point to only 1 and 1 person and that Person is NOT THE Son, nor Jesus the CHRIST, but YHWH the Theos of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is what the Scripture says verbatim.

Peace My Friend,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-17-2009, 06:23 PM

Hi Ram,
You forget the English version of that you and i have are Translations. I never said Jesus is not "God" Elohim. All the Hebrew Kings of the Bible are and can be addressed as "God".

Hey there my friend, :yo:

I didn't forget anything about translations. I do not depend on translations. I read the original Greek and Hebrew.

I already answered your point about "Elohim" being used rarely as meaning "authority." Did you read it? Here is what I wrote in post #56:

It is true that "Elohim" can be used as a "title" signifying "authority" but that is a very rare usage, and it would be an error to apply it universally that way. Etymologically, the root means "strong one" and in the Bible it is used almost always as denoting "God" especially as Creator. That's how it is used in the very first verse:

In the beginning ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth.

This is confirmed by the fact that Elohim is almost always translated as Theos (God) in the Greek NT.

It is my understanding that Jesus is both "Elohim" and "God."

The question to you is what do you mean when you use the vague English word "God" which can be used for many things. Jesus is NOT THE GOD. Notice I used "THE". Acts 17:24 says "THE GOD", not "God". The underlying Greek says HO THEOS. There IS NOT ONE SCRIPTURE that addresses Jesus as THE GOD, either in the NT or OT, if so i can't find it.

Let's take a look again at Acts:17:24

Acts 17:24-25 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Scripture declares that both descriptions apply to Jesus Christ:

1) JESUS CHRIST "made the world and all things therein"

2) JESUS CHRIST is "Lord of heaven and earth."

Therefore, Jesus Christ is "The God" of Acts 17:24.

Talk more soon,

Richard

seeking_one

03-18-2009, 02:48 PM

seeking_one

03-23-2009, 03:15 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2009, 09:18 AM

:yo: Ram,
Where are you? Still awaiting your response to my previous post. BTW, one last statement that I will say that might seem like a contradiction, but I DO BELIEVE that THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST(the Spirit of the Anointed One) EXISTED, LIVED, and SPOKE during the age of the Prophets'.

Scripture to support this:
1 Peter 1:11 (KJV) Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST which was in them did signify, when IT (THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST) testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

So the question is what did Peter say? Peter said the THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST testified.

So the next question is: What is THE SPIRIT of Christ? Look at Rom 8:9. THE SPIRIT of Elohim = THE SPIRIT of Christ. So THE SPIRIT belongs to YHWH the Father AND Jesus THE CHRIST (THE SON). This is why the Jesus said I and THE FATHER are ONE and why the Apostle Paul said there IS ONE SPIRIT.

Remember, Jesus confirmed Peter's word and said that David spoke in SPIRIT. Matt 22:43. And David said in 2 Samuel 23:2 (KJV) The SPIRIT of YHWH SPAKE BY me, and HIS Word was in my tongue. 2 Samuel 23:3 (KJV) THE ELOHIM of Israel said, THE ROCK of Israel spake TO me, ...

THE SPIRIT can be whatever it wants to be. It can be "THE FATHER" or THE SON. And the Scriptures Prove that THE SPIRIT spoke by putting WORDS in the mouth of the Prophets. Sometimes it talked as THE CHRIST and sometimes it talked as THE FATHER, but it was STILL that ONE SPIRIT that Paul said, NOT two.

Hello my friend! :yo:

Sorry for the long hiatus. You had said that you probably wouldn't be around for a few days, so I put off answering immediately, and the next thing I knew, a whole week had passed. :rolleyes:

I will get back to your previous post after answering this one. There is much you say that agrees perfectly with the Doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, the SPIRIT is the SPIRIT OF THE FATHER, and the SPIRIT OF THE SON. This is because there is ONE GOD. But none of this contradicts the Trinity.

The real problem here is that we are not being sufficiently careful with our language. We are attempting to articulate the nature of eternal God as revealed in bits and pieces throughout the Bible. In general, words are utterly insufficient to capture the REALITY of anything in creation, so we must walk very humbly when speaking of the nature of the infinite Creator.

And this brings up the fundamental problem of your method of exegesis. You are applying logical categories derived from your finite experience and finite mind to understand our infinite God. There are many fallacies that arise from applying finite logic to infinity. For example, suppose I gave you a simple mathematical equation:

x + 1 = x

What is the value of x? If x is finite, then there is no solution, because we simply subtract x from both sides and find 1 = 0, which is a logical contradiction. But if x = infinity, then the equation is true, because infinity + 1 = infinity. This demonstrates that you can not always apply standard algebraic operations to infinities. If x is finite, you "obviously" can subtract x from both sides to find your solution. But if x is infinite, the same operation leads to a logical contradiction. Similar problems with infinities have confounded humans for millennia (e.g. Xeno's paradox).

Even after Jesus' died, John wrote some years later that THE SON IS in the bosom of THE FATHER. Note, John USED THE PRESENT TENSE, even after Jesus' was seated on the Right Hand of Power!

So THE SON and THE CHRIST were/are IN THE FATHER's bosom.

I agree completely. Christ made a similar statement:
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus said that the Son of man was "in heaven" even when he, the Son of man, was standing on the earth. This seems to imply that Christ was in both places at once, which is an attribute of Deity (omnipresence).

Also, this brings up one point as I said in my previous posts. Was it the Prophet's words' are YHWH's? Same thing with JESUS? Was it HIS Words or THE FATHER's?. When one grasp whose Words and who is speaking, then one can understand some of Jesus' sayings such as "Before Abraham was I AM" or "I came down from Heaven" or John 17:5.

Peace.
DB
Why do you assume that YHWH is the Father only? I believe YHWH is the name of the Triune God, and each Person of the Trinity can be called "YHWH." For example:
Romans 10:9-13 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord [YWHW/JESUS] shall be saved.
And the Spirit is called Lord [YHWH] too:
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 Now the Lord [YHWH] is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord [lit. by the Lord the Spirit].
Again, sorry for the long delay in answering. But that is the beauty of forums such as this - conversations can continue over the span of years, be dropped and picked up right where we left off.

Many blessings to you,

Richard

seeking_one

03-27-2009, 03:47 PM

:yo: Richard,
Glad your back! Like you said the beauty of this is you can always come back and pick-up where you left off.

And this brings up the fundamental problem of your method of exegesis. You are applying logical categories derived from your finite experience and finite mind to understand our infinite God. There are many fallacies that arise from applying finite logic to infinity. For example, suppose I gave you a simple mathematical equation:

x + 1 = x

What is the value of x? If x is finite, then there is no solution, because we simply subtract x from both sides and find 1 = 0, which is a logical contradiction. But if x = infinity, then the equation is true, because infinity + 1 = infinity. This demonstrates that you can not always apply standard algebraic operations to infinities. If x is finite, you "obviously" can subtract x from both sides to find your solution. But if x is infinite, the same operation leads to a logical contradiction. Similar problems with infinities have confounded humans for millennia (e.g. Xeno's paradox).

Interesting approach....

Your #1 belief is that because the ONE GOD can do the things HE does, that if any one does these SAME, things then HE must be the ONE GOD. The Jews got stuck on this for centuries and they are still stuck on this, which is "HOW CAN A MAN DO THE THINGS that the Scripture says ONLY THE ONE GOD can do?.

The Trinity as explained by Modern religion is a contradiction of the Scriptures and my previous post to my last post shows this contradiction. The Trinity says there are 3 distinct PERSONS, but YET they are THE ONE GOD. The Scripture says that the ONE GOD is a PERSON and HE is the FATHER. The SON is a PERSON, who is NOT THE FATHER, therefore, HE cannot BE THE ONE GOD either.
For me the Spirit of Truth(Holy Spirit) is NOT just another Person. It is THE ONE GOD' Spirit. It or HE can FUNCTION and BE anything it wants to be. It can talk as THE ONE GOD, it can talk as THE SON, it can talk as THE FATHER, but it is ONE SPIRIT.

When I refer to THE ONE THEOS/ELOHIM, then I CANNOT be referring to more than 1 person because i have used "THE", an article. It MUST BE ONE PERSON and the use of the article in ANY language implies this.

Why do you assume that YHWH is the Father only? I believe YHWH is the name of the Triune God, and each Person of the Trinity can be called "YHWH."
HE gave HIS name as "I AM" to indicate that HE has many NAMES/TITLEs that indicate HIS nature and the Scripture bears this fact. When THE SON came, HE came in HIS Father's Name and HE inherited HIS Father's Name, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. Because Jesus' inherited HIS Father's Name (Heb 1:6), then to call on JESUS, who is ONE KURIOS, is to call upon YHWH, THE Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

For 2 Cor 3:17, where it says that THE KURIOS is THE SPIRIT or THAT SPIRIT. Notice that it did not say THE KURIOS is Jesus Christ. Notice, that there is a difference between ONE KURIOS and THE KURIOS. The problem many people do not understand is that "KURIOS" is A TITLE and HAS ALWAYS been used as such in the Scripture. Everywhere "KURIOS" is I can substitute "SUPREME in Authority". And this title belongs to BOTH The FATHER and The SON, who are NOT THE SAME.

THE SON was given THIS TITLE because of who HE is, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. THE FATHER gave THE SON an inheritance. Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as THE SON hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a MORE EXCELLENT NAME than they.

I will await for you response to http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=11562&postcount=66

Peace and Blessings,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2009, 04:21 PM

:yo: Richard,
Glad your back! Like you said the beauty of this is you can always come back and pick-up where you left off.

Hey there my friend, :tea:

Yes, this is a wonderful aspect of modern communication.

And this brings up the fundamental problem of your method of exegesis. You are applying logical categories derived from your finite experience and finite mind to understand our infinite God. There are many fallacies that arise from applying finite logic to infinity. For example, suppose I gave you a simple mathematical equation:

x + 1 = x

What is the value of x? If x is finite, then there is no solution, because we simply subtract x from both sides and find 1 = 0, which is a logical contradiction. But if x = infinity, then the equation is true, because infinity + 1 = infinity. This demonstrates that you can not always apply standard algebraic operations to infinities. If x is finite, you "obviously" can subtract x from both sides to find your solution. But if x is infinite, the same operation leads to a logical contradiction. Similar problems with infinities have confounded humans for millennia (e.g. Xeno's paradox).

Interesting approach....

Your #1 belief is that because the ONE GOD can do the things HE does, that if any one does these SAME, things then HE must be the ONE GOD. The Jews got stuck on this for centuries and they are still stuck on this, which is "HOW CAN A MAN DO THE THINGS that the Scripture says ONLY THE ONE GOD can do?.

The Trinity as explained by Modern religion is a contradiction of the Scriptures and my previous post to my last post shows this contradiction. The Trinity says there are 3 distinct PERSONS, but YET they are THE ONE GOD. The Scripture says that the ONE GOD is a PERSON and HE is the FATHER. The SON is a PERSON, who is NOT THE FATHER, therefore, HE cannot BE THE ONE GOD either.
For me the Spirit of Truth(Holy Spirit) is NOT just another Person. It is THE ONE GOD' Spirit. It or HE can FUNCTION and BE anything it wants to be. It can talk as THE ONE GOD, it can talk as THE SON, it can talk as THE FATHER, but it is ONE SPIRIT.

When I refer to THE ONE THEOS/ELOHIM, then I CANNOT be referring to more than 1 person because i have used "THE", an article. It MUST BE ONE PERSON and the use of the article in ANY language implies this.

Let's not skip over the problem of x + 1 = x too quickly. It demonstrates the fundamental error when thinking of God as if He were finite since that can lead to false "contradictions" (which I highlighted red in your post). Your application of logic appears to be based on the assumption that God is a FINITE PERSON like you or me. That is not what the word "person" means when discussing the Trinity. This confusion has come up a number of times. For example, when you wrote this:
The Scripture says that the ONE GOD is a PERSON and HE is the FATHER. The SON is a PERSON, who is NOT THE FATHER, therefore, HE cannot BE THE ONE GOD either
Where does the Scripture say that "the ONE GOD is a PERSON"? You are approaching this discussion as if you have never read or considered the beliefs that Christians have held for thousands of years. You repeatedly assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught by "Modern religions" but this is simply not true. It is the ancient and accepted understanding of Christians since very early times. There is nothing "modern" about the Trinity at all. It is ancient.

It seems to me that the real problem with your attempt to "prove" the Trinity false is that you are using very simplistic logic based on a false understanding of the word "PERSON." This is a big problem because you then must "explain away" all the verses that teach that Jesus is God. So you focus on one set of verses that you think are "contradictions" and then explain away the others that really do contradict you position. You could just as well have gone the other way and choose to "explain away" the verses you think contradict the unity of God. What I mean should become clear as the conversation continues.

HE gave HIS name as "I AM" to indicate that HE has many NAMES/TITLEs that indicate HIS nature and the Scripture bears this fact. When THE SON came, HE came in HIS Father's Name and HE inherited HIS Father's Name, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. Because Jesus' inherited HIS Father's Name (Heb 1:6), then to call on JESUS, who is ONE KURIOS, is to call upon YHWH, THE Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

This exemplifies the problem I mentioned above. You use the word "people" to refer to the FATHER and the SON. That will lead only to confusion. The FATHER is not a member of the class "People" because He was never incarnated. He has no body. Only the Son was incarnated. He had a body, and so can be classed amongst other "people." But even then, he was no mere "person" in the human sense, because He was also Divine, God in the flesh. This topic is not simple, and will never be resolved if we are "sloppy" with our language. x + 1 = x. God is infinite. We must not think that he is finite and subject to the laws of finite objects.

For 2 Cor 3:17, where it says that THE KURIOS is THE SPIRIT or THAT SPIRIT. Notice that it did not say THE KURIOS is Jesus Christ. Notice, that there is a difference between ONE KURIOS and THE KURIOS. The problem many people do not understand is that "KURIOS" is A TITLE and HAS ALWAYS been used as such in the Scripture. Everywhere "KURIOS" is I can substitute "SUPREME in Authority". And this title belongs to BOTH The FATHER and The SON, who are NOT THE SAME.

Again, you are exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding about the Trinity. No one who believes in the Trinity would ever say that the Father and the Son are the "same." Its perfectly ok if you don't agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity, but if you want to refute it, you must at the very least understand what it states. Otherwise, your words will have no real meaning in this discussion.

THE SON was given THIS TITLE because of who HE is, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. THE FATHER gave THE SON an inheritance. Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as THE SON hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a MORE EXCELLENT NAME than they.

I will await for you response to http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=11562&postcount=66

Peace and Blessings,
DB
I will get to that post right away.

Many blessings and abundant peace to you, my friend! I very much enjoy discussing this with you.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2009, 07:13 PM

:yo: Ram ,
We can't proceed until you further clarify the use of "Elohim"- Hebrew and "Theos"-God.
THE ONE that spoke to Moses said that HE would make Moses "Elohim" or "Theos" to Pharoah. So this proves 100% and i have never disputed that it is Scriptural to say that the title "Elohim" and "Theos" can be applied to Jesus.
The application of "Elohim/Theos" to Moses in relation to Pharaoh is nothing like its application to Jesus Christ. "All the fullness of THEOS" did not reside in Moses! I don't think your example helps clarify the question of the Trinity.

What i have said and what you have not proven is that Jesus said that HE is THE Elohim/Theos? When "THE Elohim" and "THE THEOS" are written in the Scriptures, they point to ONLY 1 PERSON. That Person IS NOT Jesus the CHRIST. I think people feel that if Jesus is Not THE GOD that it takes away something from HIM, but on the contrary it AFFIRMS HIS divinity and affirms that HE was THE CHRIST, the chosen One who is THE GOD's Son.

First, you have not defined what you mean by "person" when it comes to God. Obviously, you must mean something other than "person" in the ordinary sense, given that we know that all "persons" had a beginning and have died or will die some day soon. And all "persons" are FINITE, with limited understanding, and so on and on. There are many differences between a finite person and God, so WHAT DO YOU MEAN when you say that God is a "person"??? This is a very important question, is it not?

Now as for you assertion that I "have not proven is that Jesus said that HE is THE Elohim/Theos" - that is not entirely correct. First, I showed that Christ declared Himself to be the "I AM" that spoke to Moses. Yes, you disagreed, but we never settled that issue. So we still need to discuss it. Also, I showed that Paul taught that Jesus Christ is THE GOD who created all things, but you never responded to this specific point. Here is what I wrote in post #52 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11517&postcount=52):

It is absolutely essential to understand the basics of Trinitarian theology before attempting to formulate arguments against it. The idea that Christ is the Word comes directly from Scripture. The Bible declares that "all things" were created by the Word, that "all things" were created by Christ, and that "all things" were created by God, so simple logic demands that the Word = Christ = God:
Colossians 1:12-17 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son [Jesus Christ]: 14 In whom [Jesus Christ] we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him [= Word = Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him [Jesus Christ], and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This understanding is confirmed by the fact that Christ existed BEFORE he was incarnated, when He was "made in the likeness of men":Does this passage state that Christ is Creator, the ONE GOD? I think so.

I think we need to "slow down" and FOCUS on specific points until we come to agreement. We have both written many things that did not get settled. It only gets more confusing if we keep adding more verses to the mix without coming to a mutual understanding of the ones already on the table.

Now, can you translate Acts 12:42 as you have, yes you can, but when you do that you contradict a host of Scriptures. I will prove that Jesus nor the Apostles believed that Jesus was THE Elohim/Theos of Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Thomas said to Christ, in the presence of the other Apostles, "My LORD and my GOD." Christ would have corrected him, and his fellow apostles would have been absolutely scandalized if they did not agree with his inspired declaration of the identity of Christ as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Scriptural Support for my belief:

1) Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto Jesus, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth, for there is ONE GOD; and there is none other but HE.
Now here is the opportune time for the Scripture to assert your belief. If the scribe thought as you would suggest, then he would have said the following:
Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto Jesus, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth, for there is ONE GOD; and there is none other but YOU. BUT HE DIDN'T!!! And look what Jesus said: Mar 12:34 "And when Jesus saw that he ANSWERED DISCREETLY.... "Nounechos" means wise or prudent.

The "discreet" answer was not concerning the nature of the Triune God, but rather the recognition that none are "good" but God. The verse is consistent with either your view or mine, so it does not settle the issue.

2) 1 Cor 8:6 But to us ONE Theos(GOD), The FATHER, of whom all things, and we IN HIM [THE FATHER]; and ONE LORD(Kurios), Jesus Christ, dia all things, and we dia HIM.

NOTE: This verse PROVES that Paul ALL the believes and understood that the ONE GOD is THE FATHER who is NOT The Lord, Jesus CHRIST.
NOTE: This PROVES that THE FATHER, The THEOS is the Origin of ALL THINGS because Paul used "ek". "ek" signifies ORIGIN. This shows that JESUS CHRIST is NOT THE origin of ALL THINGS.
NOTE. Paul does say Jesus is the channel of an act which means HE is the CAUSE OF. Look in the lexicon and i'm using Strong's and it says "dia" a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; THROUGH (in VERY WIDE APPLICATIONS, local, causal). Paul used the right term, but the translators used a term that causes confusion. It should be [b] ONE LORD(Kurios), Jesus Christ, FOR WHOM all things, and we we IN HIM.
I think you are really "jumping the gun" when your suggest that a single verse "proves" your point. I say this becuase you are then forced to "explain away" the verses that contradict your view, such as the many verses I have presented. It is this apparently contradictory testimony of Scripture that Christians have never been willing to "explain away" and so arose the Doctrine of the Trinity.

3) You say that Jesus Christ is Kurios of Heaven and Earth. Let's see what Jesus said and remember HE spoke HIS Father's Word so both are saying this:
Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, "Kurios" of Heaven and Earth... The Apostle Paul wrote and said in Acts 17:24 that THE GOD is "Kurios" of Heaven and Earth. NOTE: This proves that THE GOD, who is THE FATHER, IS "Kurios" of Heaven and Earth. Not Jesus the Christ.

That's a good point. I don't recall any Scripture that directly applies that title to Christ. I'll give it more thought and get back to you.

4) Let's see what Jesus said about THE THEOS: John 4:24 THE GOD is Spirit: and they that worship HIM must worship in spirit and truth. NOTE: So Jesus proves that THE GOD is spirit, NOT FLESH and BLOOD.

Of course God is Spirit. But we must not forget that God was manifest in the flesh! (1 Tim 3:16) So here we have another apparent contradiction. Since both verses are in Scripture, I take the position that the contradiction arises from the way you are interpreting the verses, rather than the verses themselves.

5) Now, who is THE FATHER? Let's see what Jesus said: John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when true worshippers shall worship THE FATHER in SPIRIT and in TRUTH...
NOTE: Verse 23 and 24 CONFIRM the Truth of Scripture that THE FATHER is THE GOD. They are not 2 people, BUT ONE PERSON.

Again, this confusion is based on the way you use the words "people" and "person" in relation to God.

6) Who is the "LIVING GOD". See Matthew 16:16. CHRIST is the "Living GOD's Son", so JESUS can't BE THE LIVING GOD. Now. let see who the Apostles said made Heaven, and Earth, etc.
Acts 14:15...and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto THE LIVING GOD, which MADE heaven, and, earth, and the sea, AND ALL THINGS THAT ARE THEREIN:

This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." You assumed the point you are trying to prove when you said that Christ can not be both "The Living God" and the "Son of the Living God." The doctrine of the Trinity states exactly that! The Son is God, but the Son is not the Father. This is standard Trinitarian theololgy. You can not refute it by merely saying "It can't be true."

So Ram, i look forward to your responses on this. I could have stopped at 2 Scriptures, but I listed 6 cases which show unequivocally that the Doctrine that Jesus is THE GOD is not according to THE WORD. JESUS is NOT "THE GOD" nor "THE FATHER" nor THE LIVING GOD.

Again, this is a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity which most emphatically does not state that Jesus is "The Father." Until you take the effort to understand the Trinity, you will not be able to refute it. Nor should you want to. Why would you want to refute something you don't understand?

As always, it is good to be working on these important questions with you,

Many blessings,

Richard

seeking_one

03-27-2009, 07:30 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2009, 08:34 PM

Hi Ram,:yo:
I'm going to take this step by step with you. Do you agree with the following belief from the Trinity? That there is ONE GOD in THREE PERSONS and these persons are identified as
1) Elohim THE FATHER
2) Elohim THE SON
3) Elohim THE HOLY Spirit aka Spirit of Truth

Yes or No?

If you answer is YES, then explain who or how you classify "ONE ELOHIM"?

Blessings,
DB
Hi DB,

Excellent questions! :thumb:

The answer is YES, but I don't know what you mean by "how you classify ONE ELOHIM." Could you clarify please?

Thanks!

Richard

seeking_one

03-27-2009, 09:57 PM

Hi DB,

Excellent questions! :thumb:

The answer is YES, but I don't know what you mean by "how you classify ONE ELOHIM." Could you clarify please?

Thanks!

Richard

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. Is ONE ELOHIM a Person? Is it HE, it, or "spirit", all three?

Explain what that term means to you according to the Scripture?

Peace and Blessings,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2009, 10:31 PM

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. Is ONE ELOHIM a Person? Is it HE, it, or "spirit", all three?

Explain what that term means to you according to the Scripture?

Peace and Blessings,
DB
This is the style of discourse I love the most! Direct question and answer, so that we are talking to each other rather than past each other. It is the fast track to truth. :thumb:

Your question touches upon a problem I have had with the popular apologetic for the Trinity presented by Hank Hanegraaff. He says that it would be a genuine logical contradiction to say that God is both "one what" and "three whats" but that it's not a contradiction to say that God is "one what" and "three whos". The problem I had with this (I even wrote him a letter explaining my view) is that we do actually refer to God as "He" using a singular personal pronoun, and that this is the way that the Bible presents God. This then leads to the logical contradiction he bemoaned since we are saying that God is "one who" and "three whos" at the same time. I did not get a good response from my letter.

That said, I must admit that the Doctrine of the Trinity presents God as a "tri-personal being" who can be correctly referred to by the singular "HE." God is "one who" and "three whos".

It will be very good to dig deep into this with you to see where it leads. Again, let me tell you "thanks" for the new question/answer format. It feels like we are really "talking" - and that's a very good thing! :D

Richard

seeking_one

03-28-2009, 06:30 AM

:yo:Ram,

This is the style of discourse I love the most! Direct question and answer, so that we are talking to each other rather than past each other. It is the fast track to truth. :thumb:
Agree!

Your question touches upon a problem I have had with the popular apologetic for the Trinity presented by Hank Hanegraaff. He says that it would be a genuine logical contradiction to say that God is both "one what" and "three whats" but that it's not a contradiction to say that God is "one what" and "three whos". The problem I had with this (I even wrote him a letter explaining my view) is that we do actually refer to God as "He" using a singular personal pronoun, and that this is the way that the Bible presents God. This then leads to the logical contradiction he bemoaned since we are saying that God is "one who" and "three whos" at the same time. I did not get a good response from my letter.

That said, I must admit that the Doctrine of the Trinity presents God as a "tri-personal being" who can be correctly referred to by the singular "HE." God is "one who" and "three whos".

It will be very good to dig deep into this with you to see where it leads. Again, let me tell you "thanks" for the new question/answer format. It feels like we are really "talking" - and that's a very good thing! :D

Richard

As you can see it is very hard explaining something such as the statement as "ONE ELOHIM in THREE PERSONS".

The "IN" in the statement "one elohim IN 3 persons", implies that "one elohim" MUST BE A PERSON. Why? Because a title can't be in somebody. A title describes a person. This then leads to the conclusion that there are 4 persons involved in that statement. The 4 persons:
1) one elohim
2) elohim the Father
3) elohim the Son
4) elohim the Spirit of Truth.

Question 1: At the minimum #1 MUST BE A SPIRIT in order to dwell in another. Do you agree?

Question 2: At the minimum #1 MUST HAVE LIFE and Power to be able to dwell in another. Do you agree?

Question 3: Show me where the Scripture says that ONE ELOHIM was "IN" "Elohim the Father"? NOTE: This question shows the fallacy of the statement.

Question 4: According to Scripture, who is the ONE that has LIFE and is SPIRIT?

Question 5: Would you agree that if ONE ELOHIM were to be used as a title, then the correct way of wording the trinity should be "one elohim AS 3 Persons"?

Also, my definition of ONE EL means "THE Mighty One". Btw, it is interesting that the Scriptures use "EL" and not "ELOHIM" when the term "one" is used.

BTW, Are you the author of the Bible Wheel Book? I am reading that now.
Peace and Blessing,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-28-2009, 09:28 AM

As you can see it is very hard explaining something such as the statement as "ONE ELOHIM in THREE PERSONS".

The "IN" in the statement "one elohim IN 3 persons", implies that "one elohim" MUST BE A PERSON. Why? Because a title can't be in somebody. A title describes a person. This then leads to the conclusion that there are 4 persons involved in that statement. The 4 persons:
1) one elohim
2) elohim the Father
3) elohim the Son
4) elohim the Spirit of Truth.

Good morning my friend,

Let us walk carefully through these difficult and puzzling words with the full awareness of the limitations of human language and logic. If I follow your logic and treat the word "Elohim" as a "title" then we have three titles in one title, rather than three titles in one person. Is this a logical impossibility? I don't see why. I think some of the confusion may be caused by switching categories from "person" to "title".

I also think there is an error in your counting. We do not have "4 persons" because the "one elohim" is not a separate person distinct from the other three, but rather applies to all three, and so can not be counted separately. Trinitarian theology has never counted the One God as a fourth person in addition to the Three Persons of the Trinity. And on further reflection, it seems that your method of counting directly contradicts that Doctrine of the Trinity which may be stated as follows:

The Father IS God
The Son IS God
The Holy Spirit IS God

The Father IS NOT the Son, etc...

Do you understand this? The Doctrine of the Trinity explicitly states that each Person of the Trinity IS the ONE GOD, which means that you can not count the ONE GOD as a "person" in addition to the Three Persons of the Trinity.

In general, your style of logic does not feel compelling to me because it feels like an attempt to derive truth about Reality from the grammatical structure of the English language. You arguments might reveal something about the nature of our language, but it is not clear at all that they will reveal anything about the nature of God. But I am very glad to be working with you on this, and I think we are making progress. We must continue to strive to fully engage each other's words to come to a real understanding and articulation of the logical challenges that accompany any attempt to describe the God of the Bible. Now I will answer your specific questions:

Question 1: At the minimum #1 MUST BE A SPIRIT in order to dwell in another. Do you agree?
Of course I believe God is Spirit. But when speaking of the Godhead, I do not think "dwelling in another" is sufficiently accurate. The persons of the Godhead do not "dwell in each other" as if they were three separate beings. There is ONE GOD, who manifests himself as three persons. When you say that one person of the Trinity dwells in another, you must be careful not to carry over the logic that applies to finite human persons. We are attempting to describe God using categories that are derived from our everyday experience. Forming syllogisms concerning the ontology of the Godhead based upon the subtlies of words like "title" and "in" just don't seem compelling.

Question 2: At the minimum #1 MUST HAVE LIFE and Power to be able to dwell in another. Do you agree?
No, that's not the way to think of God. The ONE GOD does not "dwell in" the each Person of the Trinity. On the contrary, each Person IS the ONE GOD.

Question 3: Show me where the Scripture says that ONE ELOHIM was "IN" "Elohim the Father"? NOTE: This question shows the fallacy of the statement.
The Doctrine of the Trinity does not say that the ONE ELOHIM was "IN" God the Father or God the Son. But I understand what you are thinking, since Scripture does declare that the ONE ELOHIM dwelt in Jesus Christ. But that is Jesus Christ as the Son of God, which is God the Son in the Incarnation. God the Father does not dwell in God the Son, but rather the Son of God.

Question 4: According to Scripture, who is the ONE that has LIFE and is SPIRIT?
The Father and the Son have "LIFE" in themselves, as it is written:
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
And of course, the Spirit is the Spirit of Life.

Question 5: Would you agree that if ONE ELOHIM were to be used as a title, then the correct way of wording the trinity should be "one elohim AS 3 Persons"?
That is a valid way to word the Doctrine regardless of Elohim being a "title" or not. ONE GOD as THREE PERSONS is a common way to state the doctrine.

BTW, Are you the author of the Bible Wheel Book? I am reading that now.
Peace and Blessing,
DB
Yep! That's me. :)

It would be interested to discuss it with you.

Many blessings,

Richard

seeking_one

03-28-2009, 10:19 AM

:yo: Richard,
Okay. So let's review the facts. The problem is you are thinking from a western standpoint. But nevertheless, this is what you have agreed:

FACTS that Richard say are true.
1) You believe in the statement that ONE elohim IN 3 Persons. NOTE: You contradict yourself in your answer to my question #3. You said the Trinity doesn't say that. Well if it doesn't what does it say.
2) You believe that elohim the Father is a person.
3) You believe that elohim the Son is a a person.
4) You believe that elohim the Spirit of Truth is a person
5) You believe that elohim the Father, who is a person, IS NOT elohim the Son, who is a person.
6) You believe that ONE ELOHIM manifests HIMSELF AS 3 Persons.
7) You believe that Elohim the Father IS ONE ELOHIM.
8) You believe that Elohim the son is ONE ELOHIM
9) You believe that Elohim the Spirit of Truth is ONE ELOHIM.
10) Therefore because of 7-9, ONE ELOHIM is a person.

Are 1-10 an accurate assessment?

if these are TRUE as you say, then you should be able to show Scripture that says #8 and #9. Remember i asked you WHO or WHAT is ONE Elohim? Why didn't you respond and say ONE Elohim is THE FATHER, THE SON, and THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH. You have said in effect from 1-10 that ONE ELOHIM manifest HIMSELF as 3 Persons AND is the 3 Persons, but when HE manifest HIMSELF as these 3 Persons, they are distinct as to their roles, but it is THE SAME ONE ELOHIM.

My friend, this is exactly like the ONENESS believe and that belief is more clear to me than what many give as the definition of the Trinity.

I pulled this from the web and these are the various definitions given:

The Trinity doctrine basically says that there is one God.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Hence God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Three, but they make up one God. Each is co-equal and co-eternal.
God is described as a class or family made up of these three personalities.

Here is another definition:

Jehovah God is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -- three Persons, one God. Tertullian (160-215 AD) explained, "We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

Peace and Blessings,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-28-2009, 01:03 PM

:yo: Richard,
Okay. So let's review the facts. The problem is you are thinking from a western standpoint.

It is odd that you say I am "thinking from a western standpoint." What makes you say that? What does it even mean? If anyone is thinking from a "western standpoint" I would think it was you because of you attempt to base theology on the Aristotelian logic of the excluded middle, namely, "A is either A or not A." It ignores the possibility that A is both A and not A at the same time, something that is strongly implied in the theory of Quantum Mechanics where an electron has the apparently contradictory properties of both a particle and a wave.

But nevertheless, this is what you have agreed:

FACTS that Richard say are true.
1) You believe in the statement that ONE elohim IN 3 Persons. NOTE: You contradict yourself in your answer to my question #3. You said the Trinity doesn't say that. Well if it doesn't what does it say.

I don't see how I "contradicted" myself in any way at all. Here is what I said"
The Doctrine of the Trinity does not say that the ONE ELOHIM was "IN" God the Father or God the Son.
It seems that the problem is that you think that the man Jesus Christ, the Son of God in whom dwelt the "fullness of the Godhead" is to be identified with the Second Person of the Godhead, God the Son. But there is a subtle distinction here. God the Son existed from all eternity, before he became a man and acquired a human nature. Thus, our "logic" becomes confused if we say that the ONE GOD "dwelt in" the Son before the Son was incarnated. Again, this seems a lot like "word games" that depend more upon the grammatical structure of the English language than upon the Biblical revelation of the nature of the Triune God. But that's ok, we are making very good progress towards articulating these truths.

The problem is that you are attempting to force the meaning of "in" into one narrow definition. I don't think this will lead to truth. Language is a one legged blind beggar trying to dance an elegant waltz. We need to seek the truth beyond the mere words which can express. Focusing on one of the many definitions of "in" and then trying to prove a point by western logic will certainly fail in our effort to articulate the nature of God.

2) You believe that elohim the Father is a person.
3) You believe that elohim the Son is a a person.
4) You believe that elohim the Spirit of Truth is a person
5) You believe that elohim the Father, who is a person, IS NOT elohim the Son, who is a person.
6) You believe that ONE ELOHIM manifests HIMSELF AS 3 Persons.
7) You believe that Elohim the Father IS ONE ELOHIM.
8) You believe that Elohim the son is ONE ELOHIM
9) You believe that Elohim the Spirit of Truth is ONE ELOHIM.
10) Therefore because of 7-9, ONE ELOHIM is a person.

Are 1-10 an accurate assessment?

I think that is a pretty accurate description - except your conclusion that ONE ELOHIM IS a Person. It may be that the only accurate way to describe the ONE ELOHIM is as I suggested above, namely, as a TRI-PERSONAL BEING. This encapsulates the two fundamental statements of the Trinity = ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS..

if these are TRUE as you say, then you should be able to show Scripture that says #8 and #9. Remember i asked you WHO or WHAT is ONE Elohim? Why didn't you respond and say ONE Elohim is THE FATHER, THE SON, and THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH. You have said in effect from 1-10 that ONE ELOHIM manifest HIMSELF as 3 Persons AND is the 3 Persons, but when HE manifest HIMSELF as these 3 Persons, they are distinct as to their roles, but it is THE SAME ONE ELOHIM.

My friend, this is exactly like the ONENESS believe and that belief is more clear to me than what many give as the definition of the Trinity.

No, what I said is not at all the same as the "ONENESS" doctrine which is just the ancient doctrine of MODALISM which has long been rejected as a heresy. Don't worry, I'm not calling you a heretic! :lol: I'm just stating an historical fact.

There are many problems with modalism. It makes no sense at all to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three "roles" that God "plays" at different times. The reason this does not work is pretty obvious. The three persons interact with each other, and therefore can not be mere "roles" played out by a single being. There is something else going on here, and it is very important to understand what that "something else" really is.

Another good argument against modalism is John 5 where Christ declares that He and the Father constitute two witnesses. Could this be true from the modalistic perspective?

I pulled this from the web and these are the various definitions given:

Here is another definition:

Peace and Blessings,
DB
Those seem to be fine definitions of the Trinity.

As always, it is very good to be chatting,

Richard

gregoryfl

03-28-2009, 02:13 PM

seeking_one

03-28-2009, 05:24 PM

Man o man Richard, you are about to drive me crazy.:lol:

You keep throwing different meanings and changing words. No Apostle preached what you are saying because it is very confusing. And i do have some intellect, but the way you are explaining it makes my head hurt.:lol:

I do admit, I believe that A is either A or not A. I believe that "A" is THE ONE who created the world all by HIMSELF. That ONE is a Person. That ONE has ALL Power and Authority. That ONE has MANY NAMES as the Scripture proves. That ONE cannot be THE ALMIGHTY and NOT the Almighty. THAT ONE cannot be "a father" AND "a son". THAT ONE is "THE FATHER" who begot THE SON, who was in the bosom of THE FATHER as spoken by the Apostle John. And, THAT SON, who was and STILL IS in the bosom of THE FATHER, did not become flesh and blood UNTIL HE was born of A WOMAN. And as Scripture has declared, THAT ONE, who is THE FATHER, is the source of ALL THINGS and as the Apostle Paul said HE is GOD the FATHER and THE SON, who was and still is IN THE FATHER, is THE LORD. We have 2 distinct people, ONE VISIBLE and ONE INVISIBLE.

You have used man's logic to say that the possibility exist====>V
that A is both A and not A at the same time, something that is strongly implied in the theory of Quantum Mechanics where an electron has the apparently contradictory properties of both a particle and a wave.

Although this may be TRUE, YHWH has left HIS Word to clear that for HIM, this is NOT TRUE.

But there is a subtle distinction here. God the Son existed from all eternity, before he became a man and acquired a human nature. Thus, our "logic" becomes confused if we say that the ONE GOD "dwelt in" the Son before the Son was incarnated. Again, this seems a lot like "word games" that depend more upon the grammatical structure of the English language than upon the Biblical revelation of the nature of the Triune God. But that's ok, we are making very good progress towards articulating these truths.
This is the crux of the matter. You have made a subtle distinction between "GOD the Son", which by the way is NEVER mentioned in Scripture, and the "Son of God". Is GOD the SON a spirit? What is HE.

Tell me where in Scripture do the Apostles of the NT ever refer to GOD the Son. They only refer to THE SON and the Son of God who are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON, but according to you they are different.

The fallacy you present is similar to the following:
1) Premise: YHWH is the Savior
2) Premise: Jesus is the Savior
3) Conclusion: Jesus is YHWH.
The reason why this is a fallacious is just because Jesus and YHWH share a common title, name, or attribute, it does not make them IDENTICAL.

One more thing: What is a "TRI-PERSONAL BEING"? Are saying that ONE ELOHIM is a 3 Personal Being? When HE is not one of the 3 Personal Beings, if that is possible, then what is the ONE ELOHIM?

Blessings & Peace,
DB

Richard Amiel McGough

03-28-2009, 07:48 PM

Hello my friend! It is great to be chatting, :yo:

Man o man Richard, you are about to drive me crazy.:lol:
Ha! I wish I could take credit for that, but I think its the nature of Ultimate Reality that is probably to blame. It's a well known fact that our human words are woefully inadequate to "encompass" the true nature of Ultimate Reality. Quantum Physics is just one example of such limitations. The Triune Creator of Quantum Physics is quite another.

You keep throwing different meanings and changing words. No Apostle preached what you are saying because it is very confusing. And i do have some intellect, but the way you are explaining it makes my head hurt.:lol:

Well, no apostle preached what you are saying either, which is why we are having this discussion. It would have been nice if God had inspired one of His apostles to write an Epistle on the nature of God, but He didn't, so folks like you and me have been going round this merry pole for nearly two millennia.

But I don't think I am changing the meanings of any words. On the contrary, I have been trying to define them with clarity. Case in point, you keep talking about the word "God" as a "title" which I don't think makes any sense at all. In my understanding, the word "God" denotes the ONE who created the Universe. It refers to that BEING. If it is merely a "title" then what bears that title? For example, a man can bear the title "president." The word "president" is the title, the man is the "what." It does not make any sense to say that God bears the title "God." God IS God. The word "God" is not a "title." Do you understand my point here? If "God" is a title, then what bears the title?

I do admit, I believe that A is either A or not A. I believe that "A" is THE ONE who created the world all by HIMSELF. That ONE is a Person. That ONE has ALL Power and Authority. That ONE has MANY NAMES as the Scripture proves. That ONE cannot be THE ALMIGHTY and NOT the Almighty. THAT ONE cannot be "a father" AND "a son". THAT ONE is "THE FATHER" who begot THE SON, who was in the bosom of THE FATHER as spoken by the Apostle John. And, THAT SON, who was and STILL IS in the bosom of THE FATHER, did not become flesh and blood UNTIL HE was born of A WOMAN. And as Scripture has declared, THAT ONE, who is THE FATHER, is the source of ALL THINGS and as the Apostle Paul said HE is GOD the FATHER and THE SON, who was and still is IN THE FATHER, is THE LORD. We have 2 distinct people, ONE VISIBLE and ONE INVISIBLE.

You have used man's logic to say that the possibility exist====>V

That is a very clear expression of why you can not understand the Trinity. Your mind is locked into finite categories of human logic, and so you declare that God can not be both Father and Son, despite the fact that many folks think the Bible declares that as fact. Now its one thing for you to disagree, that is fine. But if you can not even perceive the reasons many folks hold to the Trinity, then you will not be able to formulate any cogent arguments against that position.

that A is both A and not A at the same time, something that is strongly implied in the theory of Quantum Mechanics where an electron has the apparently contradictory properties of both a particle and a wave.
Although this may be TRUE, YHWH has left HIS Word to clear that for HIM, this is NOT TRUE.

If it is true of the physical creation, then it certainly could be true of the Creator. The important thing is to understand the limits of your human logic. You are trying to derive a logical conclusion about the nature of the Creator from the two letter word "in" - such an argument will never be convincing to folks who have thought deeply on these matters.

As the the "clarity" of God's Word - we both seem to think it is very clear, yet we have very different ideas about what it clearly states! How's that for irony? I have explained my point many times, but I don't think you have really appreciated the force of this argument. The Bible proclaims that Jesus Christ bears the attributes of God. Sure, you can explain that all away, but many people are not satisfied with those explanations because they don't seem worthy of the Word of Almighty God. If God did not want us to understand Jesus Christ is God, then He would not have spoken of Him as God, Creator, Lord, Savior - all attributes of God, and God alone.

But there is a subtle distinction here. God the Son existed from all eternity, before he became a man and acquired a human nature. Thus, our "logic" becomes confused if we say that the ONE GOD "dwelt in" the Son before the Son was incarnated. Again, this seems a lot like "word games" that depend more upon the grammatical structure of the English language than upon the Biblical revelation of the nature of the Triune God. But that's ok, we are making very good progress towards articulating these truths.
This is the crux of the matter. You have made a subtle distinction between "GOD the Son", which by the way is NEVER mentioned in Scripture, and the "Son of God". Is GOD the SON a spirit? What is HE.

That's an excellent question. But before I can answer, you need to answer my question: What is God? You have said that the word "God" is a "title" but a "title" does not tell me what God is. I say that the word "God" denotes the being who created the universe. But it seems you can not accept this because if God is God and Christ is God, then your ONENESS doctrine falls apart. Am I understanding you correctly?

Tell me where in Scripture do the Apostles of the NT ever refer to GOD the Son. They only refer to THE SON and the Son of God who are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON, but according to you they are different.

That precise terminology is not in Scripture, but the truth that it encompasses is. We see the same thing with many truths that took time to develop. God's Word is not an encycolpedia with every doctrine defined alphabetically. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? The reason people struggle to understand the Bible is because its truths need to be assembled by reading the whole thing and getting the "Big Picture."

The fallacy you present is similar to the following:
1) Premise: YHWH is the Savior
2) Premise: Jesus is the Savior
3) Conclusion: Jesus is YHWH.
The reason why this is a fallacious is just because Jesus and YHWH share a common title, name, or attribute, it does not make them IDENTICAL.

This is a VERY important point. In the Bible, "The Savior" is NOT a "title" that can be shared by two individuals. We have ONE SAVIOR. We have ONE LORD. We have ONE CREATOR. And the Bible declares that JESUS/YHWH is that ONE SAVIOR, LORD, and CREATOR. This truth transcends the limits of your finite human logic, so you reject it. OK, that's you choice. But it is important that you understand what you are rejecting, and why. It is not because the Bible does not teach the Trinity, it is because the Trinity transcends the limits of you finite human logic. Does that make sense to you?

One more thing: What is a "TRI-PERSONAL BEING"? Are saying that ONE ELOHIM is a 3 Personal Being? When HE is not one of the 3 Personal Beings, if that is possible, then what is the ONE ELOHIM?

Again, you are applying some very strange logic to God. Where did you ever get the idea that there could be a time when "HE is not one of the 3 Personal Beings"? No Trinitarian has ever used such language. The three persons of the Trinity are NOT "3 Personal Beings." That is an absolute misunderstanding of the Trinity. The three persons of the Trinity are NOT "three beings." This is an extremely significant error. It indicates that you have not yet understood the basic definition of the doctrine. Please take no offense, I'm just trying to help you here since you will never be able to refute the doctrine of the Trinity if you don't even know what it is.

As always, it is a joy to be working with you,

Many blessings,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-28-2009, 07:53 PM

I am enjoying as well the discussion you both are having in sharing of the nature of our God.

Richard, perhaps my last response to you got lost in the shuffle, (post #47) but if you wish to continue where we left off with that, I would love to do that. If you would rather just stick to the direction that you and Seeking One have been going in, that's fine too of course. It would perhaps be easier to just stick to the one direction, than to have 2 different convo's going on, each with their own flavor. Anyway, press on brothers. :thumb:

Ron
Brother Ron! You're back! I didn't realize you were waiting for me to pick up on post 47. I'll do that asap. Thanks for reminding me. Its funny, this very morning I was thinking of writing to you to ask why you weren't participating in our conversation. Must be the "communion of the Spirit."

talk more soon,

Richard

seeking_one

04-06-2009, 04:27 PM

Hi Richard,
I have a question for you.

Rev 1 :5,6 And from JESUS CHRIST....And hath made us kings and priest unto THE GOD and Jesus' FATHER...

1) Who is THE GOD and who is Jesus' FATHER in verse 6? Please provide 2 Scriptures that support what the answer is and there is ONLY ONE ANSWER.

Peace
DB

gregoryfl

08-26-2009, 07:44 AM

Brother Ron! You're back! I didn't realize you were waiting for me to pick up on post 47. I'll do that asap. Thanks for reminding me. Its funny, this very morning I was thinking of writing to you to ask why you weren't participating in our conversation. Must be the "communion of the Spirit."

talk more soon,

Richard
Hey Richard, I think this got lost in the shuffle. :)

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2009, 12:59 PM

Hey Richard, I think this got lost in the shuffle. :)

Ron
You are absolutely correct. Thanks for notifying me. I'll look at it right now.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2009, 01:25 PM

The early church struggled to articulate in the doctrine of the Trinity because of things that are taught in Scripture. You say that it was because of compromise with Greek ideas. Do you have an historical basis for this claim? In my studies, I have found that the reason for the Trinity lies entirely in the Biblical testimony that Christ is Creator and Lord, and we have only One Lord, and Christ is the Son, not the Father. In short, the Trinity seems to be a response to this Biblical testimony.

Ron: I do have what I believe could be considered historical basis for the infiltration of pagan thought into much of not only modern Church belief, but also much of modern Church practice. People over the years have surmised as to the motives of such changes, but then anyone could dispute such subjective evidence. Therefore I do not feel it beneficial to try to present those things, as they would only be my speculation as to what happened that led up to the events at Nicea, for example.

I am very glad you see the problem with "subjective evidence." What I was really looking for was objective evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of such things as the pagan trinities like Braham-Vishnu-Shiva which is so often asserted by folks opposed to that doctrine. As far as I know, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that the early church developed the doctrine of the Trinity using pagan sources.

Yes, a thing can be "given" before the recipient exists. And you response does not address the problem that we would never say "O Lord, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the foundation of the world." Christ could say that, but we can not. This seems like a pretty strong demonstration that Christ possessed glory with God before he came to earth, whereas we did not.

Ron: The reason I did not address that is because I agree with you. We did not in any way exist before we were born, but were only in Gods mind, so naturally we could never ask him to glorify us with the glory we had with him before. However, Jesus could because he did exist, as the Word of God. God has been speaking his word for thousands of years before he sent his word to become flesh in the first century. I am not disputing that the Word of God possessed glory. What I am disagreeing with is what I also disagree with regarding other scriptures, namely, that such necessarily have to mean that the Word of God had to have been a person before coming to earth as a man. I know this did not happen, but if God's right arm, which is also said to possess glory, was sent by God to the earth to become a man, and we called that one Jesus, the Right Arm of God, it would be the same thing. Before Jesus was human, he was God's right arm, not a separate person. (As an aside, I do not believe that God necessarily has literal arms, but that he was speaking in ways we can understand...although I am open to the idea that he might).

I think I understand what you are getting at but it seems pretty obscure to my mind. What does it mean for the "Word to become flesh" and the Word to become a true person that speaks of His own glory that He had previously if He was not a person then? This idea seems very odd to me.

I am willing to begin with Genesis if you like, but it seems like we should start with the Christian revelation since that is where the bright light resides. The OT is impossible to understand without the light of Christ, as Paul informed us:
2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ
It's not really a matter of "favorite verses" - there are "foundational" verses that tell us who Christ is. I would think we should start there. But I will follow your lead. There is no rush ...

Ron:I appreciate what you are saying here, but the reason I said this was something i remember hearing a long time ago; that one of the reasons people don't understand the things concerning the jewish old covenant is because they only read the new testament which tells them of the fulfillment of those things, but understanding the shadow by reading the old testament gives a good foundation upon which to later understand the reality given in the new testament. It sounds logical to me, but I can also see what you are saying, so either way is fine to me brother.

I agree completely that much important insight comes from reading the OT in Hebrew, and it would be very interesting if we could read it "as it is" without any influence from the NT. But no one can do that in this modern age, not even the Jew, because the message of the NT has filled the world. For example, much of the Jewish theological commentaries since the first century contain responses to the claims of Christianity, and so no Jew since that time has been completely free of the Christian influence. A good example is how they changed their interpretation of Isaiah 53 - much of the early writings explicitly recognized it as a prophecy of the Messiah but now they often say it was about Hezekiah.

I'm not sure why we should be trying to understand a hypothetical historical development of the private understanding of the early Christians, since we don't have any certain knowledge of their subjective states, and even if we did, it would not really matter. The fundamental thing we need to discern is "What does the Scripture teach?" This is really important, because God revealed a lot of truth that the prophets did not understand at the time they wrote it. It was only understood centuries later. I think the same thing holds for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ron: You seem to be echoing what I mentioned above concerning that which is subjective in nature. I too wish to stick to what the scriptures teach, but I do not understand what you mean by "hypothetical development of the private understanding of the early Christians." Did what I said convey that? If so, I know it would be fruitless to try to speculate about how things developed. I too wish to just go scripture by scripture and share what I understand concerning God and how Christ relates to him, as compared to what I used to teach and understand about him as relates the Trinity teaching.

I know you are busy, so thank you again for being willing to discuss this and challenge me in love.

Ron
Yes, I've been very busy indeed with a full-time (overtime actually) software project. And then when I got a little time Lekh Lekha brought up a very interesting discussion that involved very long posts, so I probably never would have remembered this thread if you had not notified me. But I am glad you did! Let's see if we can make some progress discerning what the Bible actually teaches concerning the Trinity.

Personally, I don't think we need to consider the idea of pagan influence because as far as I know, there is no objective evidence supporting that thesis. If you find some, please share it.

It seems to me that the doctrine was developed directly from the tensions within Scripture. The Bible speaks of Christ as both God and Man. Christians have always believed there is only one God, so the doctrine developed from their effort to understand these apparently contradictory claims.

That's how I see it anyway. I look forward to digging in more with you.

Richard

gregoryfl

08-27-2009, 06:54 PM

I am very glad you see the problem with "subjective evidence." What I was really looking for was objective evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of such things as the pagan trinities like Braham-Vishnu-Shiva which is so often asserted by folks opposed to that doctrine. As far as I know, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that the early church developed the doctrine of the Trinity using pagan sources.I am familiar with most of those attempts to prove that the Trinity doctrine is the result of the copying of various other pagan teachings of God, but I find it subjective, unless it could be found where someone directly ties in such a teaching in their writings, which they do not.

What I was referring to with regard to Greek thought influencing the doctrine has more to do with the fundamental way of Greek thinking, which differed from the way the Hebrew peoples thought.

One such thing I find is that in reading various things about God, about the Father, about the Son, and about the Spirit, as the church became predominantly Gentile the Trinity was an means of fitting everything they could see about God into a box that made sense to them.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of in ways that do indeed appear to make sense scripturally if they are regarded as three separate and distinct individuals, yet somehow all being the one God.

I think I understand what you are getting at but it seems pretty obscure to my mind. What does it mean for the "Word to become flesh" and the Word to become a true person that speaks of His own glory that He had previously if He was not a person then? This idea seems very odd to me.I am not sure I can explain it in a way that will necessarily make any more sense to you, for we are approaching this from different vantage points. Everything concerning God is revealed is glory. The Word of God which became flesh was revealed in glory, for example, on Mt. Sinai, when God spoke and wrote the commandments to Moses. His face shown with it. It was manifest. God's word truly shared his glory, for it was a part of him, but it does not mean it was a person. That is how I believe the Jewish mind would have understood it.

The Talmud and Genesis Rabbah speak of the "Throne of Glory" pre-existing before the world existed. I do not believe that God literally sits on a throne, but uses such language to communicate truths to us. This to me is an indication of a throne being spoken of that is related to glory. Why? Again, anything relating to God that is expressed is glory.

I agree completely that much important insight comes from reading the OT in Hebrew, and it would be very interesting if we could read it "as it is" without any influence from the NT. But no one can do that in this modern age, not even the Jew, because the message of the NT has filled the world. For example, much of the Jewish theological commentaries since the first century contain responses to the claims of Christianity, and so no Jew since that time has been completely free of the Christian influence. A good example is how they changed their interpretation of Isaiah 53 - much of the early writings explicitly recognized it as a prophecy of the Messiah but now they often say it was about Hezekiah.Please don't misunderstand my intent brother. I do not wish to try to go through the OT without any looking at what the NT has to say as it bears on the subject. I just don't want to ignore what I believe to be the foundation upon which the "greater light" is seen. For example, to read about the Word of God becoming flesh, that the Word was with God, and was God, and that through that Word everything was made, without having the foundation found in Genesis 1 and other such places where that Word is found, does not give me as well a rounded out understanding as to what or who that Word is.

It seems to me that the doctrine was developed directly from the tensions within Scripture. The Bible speaks of Christ as both God and Man. Christians have always believed there is only one God, so the doctrine developed from their effort to understand these apparently contradictory claims.I agree. Yet as I said, I believe also that Greek pagan thinking opened the doors for the doctrine to be thought of as a possibility. A reconciling of sorts. Two "Church Fathers" said as much:

Gregory of Nyssa - Oratio Catechetica 3 PG 45, 17 D-20 A

"the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality."

John of Damascus - De Fide Orth. I, 7 PG 94, 808 A

"On the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature, and, on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases, and that only."

I believe that what I have come to understand is another such attempt at fleshing out those tensions.

So where shall we start?

Ron

gregoryfl

09-05-2009, 09:05 AM

I have done some more thinking about your question to me concerning the Word, and perhaps this correlation will make more sense, as to why the Word of God John speaks of in his gospel does not necessarily indicate a person.

He uses as an identifying mark, the phrase "In the beginning." Most believe he has in mind Gen 1:1, and I agree with that. So in looking at that account we find the following:

"In the beginning was the Word..." At the point in time when "the beginning" occurred, the Word was already there. Why? Because God was. His word has existed as long as he has, just as his wisdom has. In that sense, his word, his wisdom, is eternal.

"the Word was with God..." We see this clearly when God speaks his word, the first recorded words being "Let light exist!" That word was certainly with God, in that we see God himself spoken of where it says "And God said..." and his word being spoken, "let light exist," like a master craftsman, doing his desire "and light existed." However, this was not someone else called God speaking to another one called God, as though the Word was only with God in the same was as my word being with you if I am talking to you. (just to be clear, I know you do not believe that they are two separate Gods talking to one another, but am merely using it to lead into the sense in which the word was with God, and was God also) The word was from God himself. It was God's own word.

"the Word was God." God's word came from his mind, his spirit. Words are merely the expression of us in verbal form. My word is me, and your word is you, expressed outwardly for others to know of. Until then they are thoughts, still ours, but not expressed outwardly yet.

As I said earlier, everything of God that is expressed is glory. His word, his right arm, his cloud of presence, his fire, his throne, etc.

Is it miraculous that God's very word, his very expression, by which everything exists and is held together, could be made into a man, by which he would now express himself as the joining of God and man corporately, whereby both us and him are joined, spirit to spirit, and both inhabit the physical and heavenly realms simultaneously? Yes it is, and that is what I see scripture teaching that God has chosen to do in Jesus Christ.

And again I ask, as per my last post, where would you like to start?

Ron

gregoryfl

09-05-2009, 10:34 AM

Wisdom is also described in similar terms as the Word, not only in Pro 8, but other literature of the period. For example, without knowing how the Hebrew mind thought, one could read this statement found in Wisdom chapter 9:

9:9-10 Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes and what is conformable with your commands. Send her forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch her That she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure.

and come away thinking that Wisdom is a person, a woman, who was with God, and knows him intimately. For God to send her from heaven to be with the king sounds just like God sending the Word, which he indeed did. Someone today however, who is not used to such personifications, would likewise consider the idea of wisdom being spoken of in such ways as odd.

As you can see, for Jesus to say he was from above, and that the Father sent him, as I understand it, means the same as God sending his wisdom; only in this case, he sent his wisdom and word in it's final fulfillment of God's communicating with man, as Heb 1:1 brings out.

God's wisdom, God's word, all find their fulfillment in being sent and expressed in fullness in the person of Jesus Christ. Before becoming the man, however, they were just as was believed formerly, God's very nature expressed in what he said and did.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

09-05-2009, 04:16 PM

I am familiar with most of those attempts to prove that the Trinity doctrine is the result of the copying of various other pagan teachings of God, but I find it subjective, unless it could be found where someone directly ties in such a teaching in their writings, which they do not.

What I was referring to with regard to Greek thought influencing the doctrine has more to do with the fundamental way of Greek thinking, which differed from the way the Hebrew peoples thought.

Hi Ron,

It seems that you are suggesting that "Hebrew thought" is superior to "Greek thought." Why is that? God gave us the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, and it is the Greek NT that teaches us the most (by far) about Christ and the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

One such thing I find is that in reading various things about God, about the Father, about the Son, and about the Spirit, as the church became predominantly Gentile the Trinity was an means of fitting everything they could see about God into a box that made sense to them.

Correlation is not causation. Is there any evidence that the transition to "predominantly Gentile" is what caused them to attempt to "put God into a box that made sense to them"? Are you saying that Hebrews would not try to do that? In my readings of Hebrew writings, they have squished God into a very very constrictive box they refer to as "absolute unity" meaning "absolutely simple" with no "attributes" that we can define at all. That's a pretty tight box! It is interesting the the medieval scholastic theologians came to the same conclusion but were still Trinitarian. It was a philosophical thing.

It seems to me that the most likely answer is, again, that the early church was wrestling with difficult texts that present the Son of God as God (Creator, Lord, etc.) while maintaining that there is only One God, and the Son is not the Father. This is a tension that comes straight from Scripture, so I tend to think that Scripture is the source of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of in ways that do indeed appear to make sense scripturally if they are regarded as three separate and distinct individuals, yet somehow all being the one God.

Yes, I think any review of this doctrine requires an admission of that point. But it does not prove that the doctrine is correct. And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it can be proved or if it is something that people just believe because 1) It's what they have been taught that they must believe, and 2) it is the only solution offered to the tensions within the Bible regarding the Father and the Son.

I think I understand what you are getting at but it seems pretty obscure to my mind. What does it mean for the "Word to become flesh" and the Word to become a true person that speaks of His own glory that He had previously if He was not a person then? This idea seems very odd to me.

I am not sure I can explain it in a way that will necessarily make any more sense to you, for we are approaching this from different vantage points. Everything concerning God is revealed is glory. The Word of God which became flesh was revealed in glory, for example, on Mt. Sinai, when God spoke and wrote the commandments to Moses. His face shown with it. It was manifest. God's word truly shared his glory, for it was a part of him, but it does not mean it was a person. That is how I believe the Jewish mind would have understood it.

Yes, but is a "Jewish mind" the standard of Biblical truth? Did not Paul have a "Jewish mind?" What do you think he would have said if we asked him "Did Christ exist before the incarnation?" One possible answer is found in Colossians:
Colossians 1:14-17 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
In this context, is not the "he" the personal pre-incarnate Christ? I think we may have talked about this before, but its been a long time, so please refresh my memory if needed.

The Talmud and Genesis Rabbah speak of the "Throne of Glory" pre-existing before the world existed. I do not believe that God literally sits on a throne, but uses such language to communicate truths to us. This to me is an indication of a throne being spoken of that is related to glory. Why? Again, anything relating to God that is expressed is glory.

Yes, I believe that the "throne of God" is always just a symbol of God's authority over all creation. There is no literal "throne" located somewhere out past Alpha Centauri or even in a supra-natural "heaven." (As an aside, are you familiar with the term "supra-natural" - it clarifies a lot).

Please don't misunderstand my intent brother. I do not wish to try to go through the OT without any looking at what the NT has to say as it bears on the subject. I just don't want to ignore what I believe to be the foundation upon which the "greater light" is seen. For example, to read about the Word of God becoming flesh, that the Word was with God, and was God, and that through that Word everything was made, without having the foundation found in Genesis 1 and other such places where that Word is found, does not give me as well a rounded out understanding as to what or who that Word is.

No worries there my friend. I agree completely and absolutely that the NT can not be understood at all without the OT (except the basic good news, of course - but I'm talking about understanding what God really meant).

As you probably know, I view the entire Bible as a single book. It was revealed in "pieces" - first the Torah, then the history and prophets, and the NT was revealed in pieces too. The final product is the Word of God and I make no fundamental distinction of any kind between the OT and NT.

It seems to me that the doctrine was developed directly from the tensions within Scripture. The Bible speaks of Christ as both God and Man. Christians have always believed there is only one God, so the doctrine developed from their effort to understand these apparently contradictory claims.

I agree. Yet as I said, I believe also that Greek pagan thinking opened the doors for the doctrine to be thought of as a possibility. A reconciling of sorts. Two "Church Fathers" said as much:

Gregory of Nyssa - Oratio Catechetica 3 PG 45, 17 D-20 A

"the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality."

John of Damascus - De Fide Orth. I, 7 PG 94, 808 A

"On the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature, and, on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases, and that only."

I believe that what I have come to understand is another such attempt at fleshing out those tensions.

So where shall we start?

Ron
You said "I believe also that Greek pagan thinking opened the doors for the doctrine to be thought of as a possibility."

On that point, I think it is very important to remember that God used the common Greek language to reveal the NT, so it is impossible to separate the "Greek influence" from the NT revelation any more than we could separate the "Hebrew influence" from the OT revelation.

It is important to remember that the human Hebrew society was every bit as "influenced" by paganism as the Greek. Just read the record in the OT:
Jeremiah 2:28 But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah.
I'm picking up on a rather persistent theme that the "Hebrew influence" and "Hebrew thought" was somehow superior to the "Greek influence" and "Greek thought." It seems to me that God used both to produce His Word. For example, the term "logos" was a prominent Greek philosophical term, and many people assert that John was using it for that reason. I don't agree, but that's not my point. My point is that without the "Greek influence" of the word "logos" the NT would be lacking something very significant.

I think we are moving in a very interesting direction in this conversation.

Richard

gregoryfl

09-06-2009, 09:32 AM

Hi Ron,

It seems that you are suggesting that "Hebrew thought" is superior to "Greek thought." Why is that? God gave us the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, and it is the Greek NT that teaches us the most (by far) about Christ and the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Not at all suggesting one is superior than the other. Merely stating that one must have the mindset of the culture in which something is written in order to understand (on the surface) why certain things were written the way they are.

As an example, the word "face" in Hebrew, is always rendered in the plural. To other cultures aside from Semitic ones, this does not make sense, for no one has "faces." Yet, to the ones who have that mindset, it makes perfect sense to them. The face is always changing expression, never stagnant. While I use a variety of Bible translations, I am in the minority of those who believe that the NT was originally composed either in Hebrew or in Aramaic, then quickly translated into Greek. Thus, when John wrote his prologue, for example, I do not believe he had in mind the Greek way of thinking, but the Hebraic one. Each way of thinking has it's beautiful place, not just the eastern. One of the wonderful benefits of the western way of thinking are the many inventions that benefit mankind, which only came about through deductive trial and reasoning.

Correlation is not causation. Is there any evidence that the transition to "predominantly Gentile" is what caused them to attempt to "put God into a box that made sense to them"? Are you saying that Hebrews would not try to do that? I believe that the Hebrews had boxes as well, but unlike the Greek way of thinking, they felt free to accept what appeared to be contradictions, each going in their own "box", if you will. The western mind would go to great lengths to do away with one or the other contradiction, or to redefine it to fit into their single "box." If the eastern way of thinking was still predominant in Christian thinking, Calvanism and Arminianism would never have come to be, for the eastern mind accepts BOTH that God is the cause of all, including evil, yet man is responsible for making choices, and does in fact make them.

In my readings of Hebrew writings, they have squished God into a very very constrictive box they refer to as "absolute unity" meaning "absolutely simple" with no "attributes" that we can define at all. That's a pretty tight box!Would you mind sharing some examples of what you mean, in particular, the underlined portion?

It seems to me that the most likely answer is, again, that the early church was wrestling with difficult texts that present the Son of God as God (Creator, Lord, etc.) while maintaining that there is only One God, and the Son is not the Father. This is a tension that comes straight from Scripture, so I tend to think that Scripture is the source of the doctrine of the Trinity.Yes Richard, I can understand why you see that. And again I believe, not because it is superior, but simply because it is the mindset in which the scriptures were written, that knowing how the Hebrew peoples thought when they would look at things concerning the word, and wisdom, and Elohiym, and Adon, Adonai, the Angel of Ieue, etc, will help toward a correct understanding.

However, and I know you believe this, I am not saying that merely studying with the human mind will give you all that scripture has to give, for ultimately, the things of God can only be given by revelation. I believe that is one of the reasons the scriptures are written as they are, for the natural mind to miss what only the Spirit can reveal, as he wills.

Yes, but is a "Jewish mind" the standard of Biblical truth? Did not Paul have a "Jewish mind?" What do you think he would have said if we asked him "Did Christ exist before the incarnation?" One possible answer is found in Colossians:[INDENT]Colossians 1:14-17 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.There are a couple of ways I could understand this, in addition to what you just shared. The "all" Paul speaks of here is to be understood within the context it is given. In this case, he defines it first as "in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible." Then, he further defines what these "all" are, when he says "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers." He is not speaking of the creation back in the beginning, but of the new creation, whereby he defeated all and is creating one new man out of the Jew and Gentile, as well as the spiritual behind all authority, thrones, dominions, etc; things needed for his kingdom in which he rules now over all. Although I am more inclined to see it this way, based on the immediate context, I can also understand it somewhat as you do, with of course, one exception.

I also can, in another sense, see it as indeed speaking about Christ with regard to the physical universe, for God did indeed create everything by Jesus, as the word of God, and as the wisdom of God. I just do not see that it necessitates that before he existed as a man, that he could not have existed simply as the very word of God. In the same way, I do not believe that he was a female, since wisdom is spoken of as a she. I see a direct correlation between the Word of God and the Wisdom of God. I believe they are one and the same, now expressed through Jesus Christ.

(As an aside, are you familiar with the term "supra-natural" - it clarifies a lot).I have heard of the term, but will have to look it up, as my memory isn't what it used to be. :)

As you probably know, I view the entire Bible as a single book. It was revealed in "pieces" - first the Torah, then the history and prophets, and the NT was revealed in pieces too. The final product is the Word of God and I make no fundamental distinction of any kind between the OT and NT.I agree wholeheartedly. :thumb:

It is important to remember that the human Hebrew society was every bit as "influenced" by paganism as the Greek. Just read the record in the OT:[INDENT]Jeremiah 2:28 But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah.Yes, and that is the reason they went into captivity. I believe that such influence is where the more complex understanding of Sheol and immortality of the soul came from, and pre-existence, etc, which was prevalent in Jesus' day. That still does not deny the fact that there is a way of thinking that exists that does correspond to the writings of scripture that is important to keep in mind as we read it. I believe that thinking to be uncorrupted Hebraic thinking. Again, not because it is superior, but simply because it is how they thought when they wrote what they wrote.

I'm picking up on a rather persistent theme that the "Hebrew influence" and "Hebrew thought" was somehow superior to the "Greek influence" and "Greek thought." It seems to me that God used both to produce His Word. For example, the term "logos" was a prominent Greek philosophical term, and many people assert that John was using it for that reason. I don't agree, but that's not my point. My point is that without the "Greek influence" of the word "logos" the NT would be lacking something very significant.I am not sold on the idea that God originally used Greek to produce the NT. I believe it is semitic in nature, and those semitisms are translated into Greek, as well as other languages.

Why then do we not find any old Hebrew copies? It is written that the religious leaders went on a mission to destroy all copies of these NT scriptures because they dared to write God's name in them. I believe that is in fact what happened, and that all we have (so far discovered) are Greek manuscripts. Before the 50's, the oldest copies of the OT we had were in Greek, but no one thought that the OT was originally written in Greek. In time the evidence caught up with what was true all along. Not that we need originals. God was very wise in not allowing them to remain, for they would no doubt be turned into another form of idolatry worship. That of course, is just my opinion. :)

One book that I recommend, at least to understand more why I have come to the conclusion that originally the NT was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, is 'The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament' by David Bauscher. Inside you find, not only unique renderings that come from no known Greek manuscript, but also what I believe to be sound reasonings to explain many of the differences found in the Greek texts, which point to a semitic original. You can find and buy the book, or download, on www.lulu.com

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

09-06-2009, 09:28 PM

Hey Ron,

This conversation is leading to a number of fascinating topics!

Not at all suggesting one is superior than the other. Merely stating that one must have the mindset of the culture in which something is written in order to understand (on the surface) why certain things were written the way they are.

I agree completely that the more we know of Greek or Hebrew cultures and languages, the better we will understand the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures.

As an example, the word "face" in Hebrew, is always rendered in the plural. To other cultures aside from Semitic ones, this does not make sense, for no one has "faces." Yet, to the ones who have that mindset, it makes perfect sense to them. The face is always changing expression, never stagnant.

I wonder about the whole range of Hebrew singulars that end in "im" - panim, shamayim, chayim, mayim, etc. When I say "give me a class of mayim" it certainly should not be translated as "give me a glass of waters." So there is much to study here.

Where did you pick up the idea that the plurality of panim is to express the idea of "multiple expressions"? That seems plausible, but it seems more likely that the plurality should be based on some general priniciple that would explain all the plural singulars. Also, I found an alternative explanation in one dictionary that attributed the plurality of panim to the fact that the face is made up of multiple features. It seems like any explanation is speculative.

While researching this, typed hebrew panim singular plural into google and the first link that came up pointed to Yoel Natan's The Jewish Trinity: When Rabbis Believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (http://books.google.com/books?id=CvY-v4YQ1UYC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=hebrew+panim+singular+plural&source=bl&ots=xjiBEm27ox&sig=8h5yx-NCUv8Gd1lGsyUT53MPX58&hl=en&ei=ZF2kSrnXOIzUtgP_pKCNDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=panim&f=false) which is available in toto on google books. What an interesting coincidence! I only glanced at it, but it looks like it might be a very good book for you and I to dig into together. Have you seen it before?

While I use a variety of Bible translations, I am in the minority of those who believe that the NT was originally composed either in Hebrew or in Aramaic, then quickly translated into Greek.

I have many difficulties with that suggestion.

1) If that were true it would mean that God has not given us His Word in its original language. All we have is a translation, and one done "hastily" at that. Not a pretty picture.

2) There is no historical evidence to support it.

3) From my extensive study of the Greek NT, I have become convinced that there is massive evidence of the divine design of that text.

But despite these initial objections (strong as they are), I think it would be excellent to review the reasons for your beliefs.

Thus, when John wrote his prologue, for example, I do not believe he had in mind the Greek way of thinking, but the Hebraic one. Each way of thinking has it's beautiful place, not just the eastern. One of the wonderful benefits of the western way of thinking are the many inventions that benefit mankind, which only came about through deductive trial and reasoning.

When it comes to exalted texts like John 1, I tend to think that any "cultural influence" was simply the means that God used to inspire His Word. I certainly would never want to speculate about the plethora of possible "lost original Hebrew words" that lie hidden under the NT Greek. There's enough confusion in the study of the Bible. Why multiply it by a factor of a million with such speculations?

But don't get me wrong - I know there are many ancient Hebrew concepts that are very important when studying the Greek NT. I just can not diminish the Greek NT to the status of an uninspired translation.

I believe that the Hebrews had boxes as well, but unlike the Greek way of thinking, they felt free to accept what appeared to be contradictions, each going in their own "box", if you will. The western mind would go to great lengths to do away with one or the other contradiction, or to redefine it to fit into their single "box." If the eastern way of thinking was still predominant in Christian thinking, Calvanism and Arminianism would never have come to be, for the eastern mind accepts BOTH that God is the cause of all, including evil, yet man is responsible for making choices, and does in fact make them.

Those are excellent points, and I agree for the most part. But if only the Hebrew thinking were used, we would not have the science that is characteristic of the laser-like precision of the Greek language. Hebrew is an extremely suggestive, poetic language in which multiple overlapping meanings are contained in a single word. And that's why I love the Hebrew so much, and why they are more accepting of apparent contradictions. But without God's inspired Word given in both Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) then His revelation would be incomplete. This is another reason I do not accept the idea that both Testaments were given in Hebrew. To you a poor example, that would be like to woman getting married. God in His infinite wisdom used both Wisdom/Poetry and Law/Facts to express the Divine Truth. Without the two languages, God's revelation would be incomplete in a profound way. Hebrew is like the light of the Moon, Greek like the light of the Sun. It is fitting that the full expression of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, was given in an explicit language like Greek.

Well, I want to get this post out before it gets too late. I'll answer more soon. I'm loving this discussion. There are so many ideas to explore!

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

gregoryfl

09-07-2009, 09:53 AM

I wonder about the whole range of Hebrew singulars that end in "im" - panim, shamayim, chayim, mayim, etc. When I say "give me a class of mayim" it certainly should not be translated as "give me a glass of waters." So there is much to study here.

Where did you pick up the idea that the plurality of panim is to express the idea of "multiple expressions"? That seems plausible, but it seems more likely that the plurality should be based on some general priniciple that would explain all the plural singulars.I do believe that is the general principle. Let us look at the words you mentioned here:

panim, The face is not stagnant, but expresses a variety of emotions. We see movement here.

shamayim, The skies are not stagnant, but constantly changing as well, expressed as rain, snow, heat, cloudy, clearness, darkness with lightning and thunder, etc.

chayim, Life is never stagnant, but in constant action, expressed through growth, movement, etc.

mayim Water too, is seen in a variety of ways expressing action, whether through gentle waves, to being calm, to flowing streams, etc.

Also, I found an alternative explanation in one dictionary that attributed the plurality of panim to the fact that the face is made up of multiple features. It seems like any explanation is speculative.Indeed, it could also be explained as having multiple features, expressing action, since Hebrew is very action oriented, even in most of their nouns. Those multiple features as I understand it, are speaking of what is on the face- eyes, nose, mouth, which gives it multiples expressions. Of course, without actually being able to talk with someone who lived back then, or to read them specifically writing that this or that is the reason why they wrote the way they did, it is indeed speculation, reasoning the best we can.

While researching this, typed hebrew panim singular plural into google and the first link that came up pointed to Yoel Natan's The Jewish Trinity: When Rabbis Believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (http://books.google.com/books?id=CvY-v4YQ1UYC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=hebrew+panim+singular+plural&source=bl&ots=xjiBEm27ox&sig=8h5yx-NCUv8Gd1lGsyUT53MPX58&hl=en&ei=ZF2kSrnXOIzUtgP_pKCNDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=panim&f=false) which is available in toto on google books. What an interesting coincidence! I only glanced at it, but it looks like it might be a very good book for you and I to dig into together. Have you seen it before?I haven't seen it before, no. But I have it saved on my computer and will definitely be digging into it.

I have many difficulties with that suggestion.

1) If that were true it would mean that God has not given us His Word in its original language. All we have is a translation, and one done "hastily" at that. Not a pretty picture.

2) There is no historical evidence to support it.

3) From my extensive study of the Greek NT, I have become convinced that there is massive evidence of the divine design of that text.

But despite these initial objections (strong as they are), I think it would be excellent to review the reasons for your beliefs.

When it comes to exalted texts like John 1, I tend to think that any "cultural influence" was simply the means that God used to inspire His Word. I certainly would never want to speculate about the plethora of possible "lost original Hebrew words" that lie hidden under the NT Greek. There's enough confusion in the study of the Bible. Why multiply it by a factor of a million with such speculations? I would prefer that we save that for another discussion, because I would like to focus on this topic here, regarding the nature of God. I know that from your years of study I would never be able to convince you that even one book in the NT was originally written in Hebrew, not even Matthew or Hebrews, despite the several early sources in the first few centuries claiming such was done. All you would have to do is say, "Where is at least one copy of it?" And I of course, could not produce one, which would mean that either all of those early sources were lying for some reason, or, as in the case of the Hebrew OT example I shared in my previous post, we will have to wait and see if archaeology digs up anything that sheds light on the subject. I still have much to learn on this myself, and still have many questions. Unfortunately, even the "evidences" found oftentimes are subject to the same endless speculation you talked about earlier.

Jeff Benner has done a 6 part series on the Semitic Origins of the New Testament, that you might wish to check out. http://www.youtube.com/user/ancienthebreworg

Those are excellent points, and I agree for the most part. But if only the Hebrew thinking were used, we would not have the science that is characteristic of the laser-like precision of the Greek language. Hebrew is an extremely suggestive, poetic language in which multiple overlapping meanings are contained in a single word. And that's why I love the Hebrew so much, and why they are more accepting of apparent contradictions. But without God's inspired Word given in both Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) then His revelation would be incomplete. This is another reason I do not accept the idea that both Testaments were given in Hebrew. To you a poor example, that would be like to woman getting married. God in His infinite wisdom used both Wisdom/Poetry and Law/Facts to express the Divine Truth. Without the two languages, God's revelation would be incomplete in a profound way. Hebrew is like the light of the Moon, Greek like the light of the Sun. It is fitting that the full expression of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, was given in an explicit language like Greek.You could be right. If he indeed felt the need to use the precise language of Greek to complete his revelation, then I would have to accept it. At this point, I am still studying several views and so am not totally committed to any one. And I do so all the while knowing that what is truly important cannot be found in all this studying, fascinating to the natural mind as it may be. We rest only in Him who breaks through every culture, with the confidence that the good work he has begun in each and every one of us, he will bring to completion.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

09-07-2009, 01:31 PM

I do believe that is the general principle. Let us look at the words you mentioned here:

panim, The face is not stagnant, but expresses a variety of emotions. We see movement here.

shamayim, The skies are not stagnant, but constantly changing as well, expressed as rain, snow, heat, cloudy, clearness, darkness with lightning and thunder, etc.

chayim, Life is never stagnant, but in constant action, expressed through growth, movement, etc.

mayim Water too, is seen in a variety of ways expressing action, whether through gentle waves, to being calm, to flowing streams, etc.

That's a very good explanation. I particularly like it because of its universality.

If you come across any other examples of singulars ending in "im" or "ot" please post them so we can see if the general pattern continues to hold.

I haven't seen it before, no. But I have it saved on my computer and will definitely be digging into it.

Yes, I think his book will provide us with much grist for our mill. I'll try to get a chapter or two read today and let you know what I think.

I would prefer that we save that for another discussion, because I would like to focus on this topic here, regarding the nature of God. I know that from your years of study I would never be able to convince you that even one book in the NT was originally written in Hebrew, not even Matthew or Hebrews, despite the several early sources in the first few centuries claiming such was done. All you would have to do is say, "Where is at least one copy of it?" And I of course, could not produce one, which would mean that either all of those early sources were lying for some reason, or, as in the case of the Hebrew OT example I shared in my previous post, we will have to wait and see if archaeology digs up anything that sheds light on the subject. I still have much to learn on this myself, and still have many questions. Unfortunately, even the "evidences" found oftentimes are subject to the same endless speculation you talked about earlier.

OK - we got plenty to explore on our current topic. But if you feel like starting another thread please do so.

As for Matthew and Hebrews, I am aware that there is some historical evidence that they were originally written in Hebrew. I do not reject that possibility. But I wonder what significance it really has if God did not preserve any copies for us. The Aramaic Matthew is pretty late, and as far as I know, there is no Aramaic or Hebrew Hebrews, only the testimony of an early church father who said that it was translated from Hebrew (by Luke, I believe).

Jeff Benner has done a 6 part series on the Semitic Origins of the New Testament, that you might wish to check out. http://www.youtube.com/user/ancienthebreworg

Thanks for the link. If I have any comments, I will start the new thread to discuss it.

You could be right. If he indeed felt the need to use the precise language of Greek to complete his revelation, then I would have to accept it. At this point, I am still studying several views and so am not totally committed to any one. And I do so all the while knowing that what is truly important cannot be found in all this studying, fascinating to the natural mind as it may be. We rest only in Him who breaks through every culture, with the confidence that the good work he has begun in each and every one of us, he will bring to completion.

Ron
Amen!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-07-2009, 09:03 PM

In my readings of Hebrew writings, they have squished God into a very very constrictive box they refer to as "absolute unity" meaning "absolutely simple" with no "attributes" that we can define at all. That's a pretty tight box!

Would you mind sharing some examples of what you mean, in particular, the underlined portion?

Hey Ron,

It seems like our study is being led by divine synchronicity. When I was researching your comments about panim, the first link pointed to the book on the Jewish Trinity, and when I was reading that this evening, it mentioned the astounding fact that Maimonides used the word yachid in the His fundamental Thirteen Articles of Faith. So when I was researching this, I found an article on the chabad site that attempted to justify using yachid as opposed to the echad of the Shema, and this included an example of the Jewish concept of the "perfect simplicity" of God:
Echad means "one." The Shema proclaims the oneness and unity of G-d, which the people of Israel are charged to reveal in the world, and which will be fully manifest in the era of Moshiach. But is echad the ideal word to express the divine unity? Like its English equivalent, the word does not preclude the existence of other objects (as in the sequence "one, two, three..."), nor does it preclude its object being composed of parts (we speak of "one nation," "one forest," "one person" and "one tree," despite the fact that each of these consists of many units or components). It would seem that the term yachid, which means "singular" and "only one," more clearly expresses the "perfect simplicity" of G-d (which Maimonides atates to be the most fundamental principle of the Jewish faith) and the axiom that "there is none else beside Him" (Deuteronomy 4:35).

Chassidic teaching explains that, on the contrary, echad represents a deeper unity than yachid. Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality -- if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into an harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity.
As seen above, modern Jews, beginning with Maimonides, KNOW that the echad of the Shema fits perfectly with the doctrine of the Trinity. That's why they rejected the WORD that God Himself used in the GREATEST COMMANDMENT when they crafted their articles of faith. I think it is extremly obvious that Maimonides composed the Thirteen Articles as a reaction and polemic against the doctrine of the Trinity. Consider the second and third articles:
2. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is One [yachid]. There is no unity that is in any way like His. He alone is our G-d He was, He is, and He will be.

3. I believe with perfect faith that G-d does not have a body. physical concepts do not apply to Him. There is nothing whatsoever that resembles Him at all.
Consider the depth of anti-biblical ignorance revealed in the statement that "there is nothing whatsoever that resembles him at all." Did Maimonides or his followers never read the first chapter of the first book of the Bible?
Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Now observe the confluence of Trinitarian ideas here. The Jews rejected the WORD that God used in the Shema, the greatest commandment, because it "does not preclude the existence of other objects ... nor does it preclude its object being composed of parts." Thus, the Jewish statement of faith was crafted to refute the Biblical testimony that God is echad, which allows for the Trinity. But there is more, immediately following the Second Article is the Third, which directly contradicts the primary revelation that God created man in His Image. Their errors never seem to end. Yet there is still more. The fact that God made man in His image coheres with the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, Who is Himself called the Image of God, and all these ideas have come pouring out of the text that says "Let us make man in our image."

This is a HUGE eye-opener for me. I had no idea that the Jews were willing to corrupt their fundamental Statement of Faith to the point of denying the very Word of God merely so they can maintain their doctrines against Christ.

I just discovered all this a few minutes ago. I am very interested in your comments.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-07-2009, 09:45 PM

Here is a page from Zeal for God not according to Knowledge (http://books.google.com/books?id=MX7OxoX5XHoC&pg=PA607&lpg=PA607&dq=thirteen+principles+yachid&source=bl&ots=brSH0sURSv&sig=Bt9BVyvqCo8MIjADfrz5yqStdZg&hl=en&ei=esylStT9OpSIsgPMjtTZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=thirteen%20principles%20yachid&f=false), subtitled "A Refutation of Judaism's Arguments against Christianity" by Eric Snow:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/maimonides_yachid.jpg

gregoryfl

09-08-2009, 05:15 AM

Thanks for the find Richard. :thumb:

I too, had no idea that such was done, although I know of several other changes that were made in reaction to those who believed in Jesus as Messiah as well.

I agree that to ascribe to God that type of oneness is to put him in a box that is very much against Hebrew thought. While I do not see that God being echad necessarily has to point to a Trinity, although it is certainly possible, I very much agree that echad accurately describes our God. For he is not limited, but is in fact, manifests himself in echad (unity), and creates in echad as well.

For example, one day is a unity of morning and night. One man is a unity of body and spirit, called a soul. One tree is a unity of roots, trunk, branches, and leaves. One field is a unity of grass, trees, possibly water, etc. One flesh is the union of a man and woman in marriage. I could go on and on, but I believe that is how people back then thought when they thought of echad, as a unity of various expressions all in cohesion.

With God, those expressions are anything but simplistic. He loves and hates. He brings light, and darkness, good and evil. He builds up and tears down.

He manifested himself in a burning bush, a pillar of fire and cloud, as 3 men to Abraham, as one called the Angel of the Lord to Israel. The ultimate expression of himself being reserved for his son, Jesus.

Even in himself, he is indeed a unity of spirit, and his word, now expressed as Father and Son, both one spirit, a oneness we share as well.

Those are my initial thoughts.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

09-08-2009, 06:58 AM

Thanks for the find Richard. :thumb:

I too, had no idea that such was done, although I know of several other changes that were made in reaction to those who believed in Jesus as Messiah as well.

Good morning Ron,

Yes, there are many surprises popping up in our study. And the biggest surprise is that this was a surprise at all since it is common knowledge in many circles and has been sitting prominently in the premier statement of the Jewish Faith since the 12th century!

I agree that to ascribe to God that type of oneness is to put him in a box that is very much against Hebrew thought. While I do not see that God being echad necessarily has to point to a Trinity, although it is certainly possible, I very much agree that echad accurately describes our God. For he is not limited, but is in fact, manifests himself in echad (unity), and creates in echad as well.

If it is "against Hebrew thought" why is it enshrined in the most famous formulation of the Jewish Faith, written by one of the most prominent Jewish scholars in all history? Are the Jews not following Hebrew thought?

What does this say about the moral condition of Jewish Theology?

As for proof - I trust I have been clear that the word "echad" as used in the Shema is not, by itself, a proof of the Trinity but the more I think of it the more it rings true.

For example, one day is a unity of morning and night. One man is a unity of body and spirit, called a soul. One tree is a unity of roots, trunk, branches, and leaves. One field is a unity of grass, trees, possibly water, etc. One flesh is the union of a man and woman in marriage. I could go on and on, but I believe that is how people back then thought when they thought of echad, as a unity of various expressions all in cohesion.

I believe you are absolutely correct. And that has a big impact on our understanding the self-revelation of God. He frequently and emphatically referred to Himself as echad, and never as yachid (except in the specific reference to Himself in the incarnation as the Son of God in Gen 22 and Psa 22).

With God, those expressions are anything but simplistic. He loves and hates. He brings light, and darkness, good and evil. He builds up and tears down.

He manifested himself in a burning bush, a pillar of fire and cloud, as 3 men to Abraham, as one called the Angel of the Lord to Israel. The ultimate expression of himself being reserved for his son, Jesus.

Even in himself, he is indeed a unity of spirit, and his word, now expressed as Father and Son, both one spirit, a oneness we share as well.

Those are my initial thoughts.

Ron
Very interesting thoughts. The revelation as three men is particularly striking relative to our current discussion.

Richard

gregoryfl

09-08-2009, 09:09 AM

Good morning Ron,

If it is "against Hebrew thought" why is it enshrined in the most famous formulation of the Jewish Faith, written by one of the most prominent Jewish scholars in all history? Are the Jews not following Hebrew thought?No they are not. Today's "Jew" is as far from Hebraic ways of thinking as anyone, succumbing to the same tactics that others do, such as changing the text to fit something more to their liking.

What does this say about the moral condition of Jewish Theology?
It is flawed, just as most systems are. The very fact that the Jews in Jesus day, in particular the Pharisees, knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was the Messiah and yet still had him murdered, shows just how flawed it was even in his day.

As for proof - I trust I have been clear that the word "echad" as used in the Shema is not, by itself, a proof of the Trinity but the more I think of it the more it rings true.I understand.

Very interesting thoughts. The revelation as three men is particularly striking relative to our current discussion.I thought that that would be the one example you would pick up on, and I know of some who would avoid it, and also know the scribes changed the text here to avoid any implication of all three being spoken of as Ieue. In my ancient hebrew scriptures, I have restored the original reading.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

09-08-2009, 08:24 PM

gregoryfl

09-09-2009, 04:45 PM

I was reading the Joel Natan's Jewish Trinity and he mentioned a very intriguing fact - it appears that there is no Biblical record of any dispute about the Trinitarian lanuage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It seems as if these terms were commonly understood by the Jews of the first century. No one is recorded as saying "What do you mean by the Son of God?" or "What do you mean by the Father and the Son?" The only disputes were against the claims that Christ was Himself actually that Son, not whether or not there was a "Son of God" who would be Messiah.

Richard

Yes Richard, I am familiar with tha fact, and have brought up that point with others that I have spoken to about this subject, that with the various arguments found throughout the NT, none have to do with anything regarding the idea of God being 3 persons. The Jews were very familiar with the idea of God as a father, one with many sons, and also a special one, alluded to in Proverbs. Yes, their expectation was of the Messiah who would be God's son. Take for example the following:

2 Esdr 7.26-30: "For indeed the time will come, when the signs that I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city that now is not seen shall appear, and the land that now is hidden shall be disclosed. Everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. Then the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, so that no one shall be left."

4QAramaic Apocalypse (4Q246), col. II: "He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the son of the Most High...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom...The earth will be in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease in the earth, and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a great god among the gods... His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom..."

Ron