Another Trinity/Monotheism “Debate”
February 2nd, 2010 by Brian
FYI . . . over at Parchment and Pen, Rob Bowman just announced that he will be having a “debate” with Christadelphian Dave Burke concerning the doctrine of the trinity. The date is a ways off (April). Notice that Kingdom Ready is represented in the resource section of the post. They are limiting themselves to 5,000 words per post–that’s probably less than some of the recent posts on this site. I’m not familiar with Dave Burke. Any one know about him?
Hi Brian,
I guess I’m qualified to answer your question.
I am the co-founder and administrator of an online Christadelphian forum (www.thechristadelphians.org/forums). I’m 37 years old (in a couple of weeks) and I’ve been a Christadelphian all my life.
My role in our community is equivalent to what mainstream Christians call a “pastor.” I’ve studied and debated the Trinity (both formally and informally) for about 17 years now. I’ve also studied early Christian history at university. I possess no professional theological qualifications, but consider myself well read for a layman.
I have debated the Trinity online with Robert Turkel and enjoyed some informal exchanges with Edgar Foster on JW Christology and the history of Arianism. For a couple of years I was also a regular at Matt Slick’s forums (www.carm.org) where I debated his evangelical staff and members alike. I am fairly well known in the British and Australian Christadelphian communities. I believe Sean Finnegan knows my twin brother, Jonathan.
Rob Bowman had originally proposed a word limit of 10,000 each, but I considered that far too lengthy for the average reader. It’s difficult to maintain the focus and force of an argument in a debate context when you have that much material sloshing around on a blog. 5,000 words is long enough to be detailed but short enough to be accessible; this probably works out at 4,000 for argument and 1,000 for rebuttal.
At the end of the sixth week, the word limit will be lifted and we’ll respond to questions and arguments from the audience, so we’ll have a chance to deal with anything which hasn’t been covered by that stage.
I really like what you guys are doing at Kingdom Ready. It’s an excellent site with good quality material. May God bless your work.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
Glad to have you here. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your brother. I didn’t know he had a twin!
grace & peace
Sean,
FYI, Anthony Buzzard will be debating Michael Brown and James White this month:
Check out White’s flippant comments on his blog, his kept tabs on Anthony for some time now:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3739
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3744
Thanks Sean, it’s great to have your support.
:)
Dave,
Thanks for your reply. Look forward to the debate.
Brian
Cheers Brian. Feel free to visit our forums if you ever feel like discussing some fresh Unitarian material!
Well, the Buzzard v. Brown debate is over, who won?
http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/08/february-8-2010/
I am very thankful to Anthony for discussing with people like Brown and White. Anthony is extremely knowledgable in these areas and I believe very capable of articulating the unitarian position with clarity and grace.
I just listened to the exchange he had with Dr. Brown and I must say that Dr. Brown’s method of interaction with others is unsettling to me. For example, he acted as though he could not see the point about the superiority of Christ in a text like John 1:15, 30. Astonishing to say the least.
Anthony, in my opinion, did a much better job here at presenting a position. He was very focused and to the point. Dr. Brown often likes to jump from text to text without really exegeting any text. He did this a few shows ago with James White as well.
Anyhow, I look so forward to the discussion between White and Buzzard!
Just to bring you up to date on the White debate, it will hopefully be later this month [tentative Feb. 28 date] and aired the following week [1st week of March].
Matthew,
I have observed this behavior almost without exception among evangelical or conservative scholars. I guess when you invest many years and money in getting an advanced degree (sometimes many degrees), I can see how it is difficult to admit that you might be wrong, or that there are other legitimate ways to look at a passage.
I am tending to think that the more “liberal” scholars are really closer to the truth than the evangelical types. It is these so-called liberal types that will admit that the trinity is no where found in the Bible and “evolved” over hundreds of years. I have more respect for a liberal that believes in the trinity and that will admit this, than someone like Dr. Brown who is supremely confident in his interpretation, yet is considered conservative or evangelical in his outlook.
I have recently (within the last couple of years) started to really study the scriptures at a deeper level. It can be unsettling at first to see how ambiguous the original text is in a lot of cases. I read a commentary on the book of Job recently and the author admitted that there is a lot in there that people have no idea how to translate or what it means, so they kind of make stuff up.
Many “conservative” interpretations of John 1 are along the same lines. We should take the prologue as axiomatic and not try to fit it into a grid or theological system. But I digress …
Oh, brother, what a debate!
I think that Mr Buzzard by far won this debate! His demeanor, his elegance, his solid presentation of Scripture without using vague language just made a rock-solid case!
Blessed be our God for that!
Jaco
Someone should make a separate thread for the Sir Anthony debate with Dr. Brown so that we can discuss the details of the debate.
Joseph,
Sean has known of the debate for some time now, perhaps he [and the other posters] are busy.
Don’t see why you cannot post your comments here though, would love to know what you thought.
Thanks Xavier for the heads up,
I thought Brown’s “pleading the case”argument was basically a cope-out because of his lack of MSS evidence to prove the contrary. Buzzard, I thought did a great job at bringing up the MSS evidence to support his case, when I don’t believe at one time did Brown cite a specific MSS to support his position. Rather, Brown relied on the Church’s historical majority for his proof of the Trinity, or as he called it, “complex unity.”
On a personal note, I get a feeling that Brown uses his being a Jew as though this gives him more understanding of the Tanakh than someone who is not Jewish. I live in Israel, also have Jewish blood, and speak Hebrew, would disagree with Brown’s apparent demeanor. I also consider myself to be Messianic. I never think that because I can speak Hebrew, and that because I have Jewish blood this somehow makes me more of an expert on Biblical texts.
Overall, I think Buzzard handled himself very well being in a radio format where Dr. Brown controls the format, and has the louder mic.
Thoughts?
Anthony won that debate, hands down. The trinitarians are confusing and make no sense. I am a former trinitarian.
Lori
How did you come to the sound doctrine?
BTW: Anthony will be debating James White today over at premier.org.uk/unbelievable. Taping will be done today and hopefully will be made available on March 6. Look out for it.
Well, the James White v. Anthony Buzzard debate is “in the can” [as they say]. Check out White’s [albeit] brief comments on his blog and follow for it for future posting of the program.
Yeah, “different encounter” because as amazing as it might sound for most of us who hold to a Socinian Christology, people like White or Dr. Michael Brown seem never to have met one.
The feedback I got from “the Buzzard camp” was that White was beffudled by some of Anthony’s responses regarding the readings of Ps 110.1; Heb 1.10.
Can’t wait to listen to this one.
PS: As regards Michael Brown, he has asked Anthony back for a second go around. Can’t wait for this one either:
http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/08/february-8-2010/comment-page-9/#comment-15572
Xavier,
I have not visited the Line of Fire website lately. It doesn’t surprise me. Brown is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Civility doesn’t feel good for the savage. Taking off the gloves is the kind of street fighter style we expect from spiritual terrorists. I have extremely little regard for this charlatan.
Jaco
Jaco
Ok, brother,
I’ll accept your counsel.
Where can I find the recent White vs. Buzzard debate?
Anthony’s discussion with James White on the British radio show “Unbelievable” is scheduled to air March 6. They post the programs on their website after they air. See http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable.
Joseph
For any future news, updates etc., check out his website:
http://focusonthekingdom.org/index.html
The James White v. Anthony Buzzard debate finally online:
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={8D308942-5CE3-4BB8-9039-B8653F819D33}
Who won?
Who won?
I think both (in different areas). John 17 is an example of both.
Anthony: Verse 2 shows that the Father (not Jesus Christ) is the only true God.
White: Verse 5 shows that Jesus existed with the only true God before his incarnation.
The two are not contradictory. Jesus is the God of the universe, having been given that authority by the Father. But he himself is subject to the only true God who SENT him.
The only true God, on the other hand, is subject to no one.
Margaret Collier
So your binitarian? Believe in 2 gods?
How can “the Father” be in anyway “the only true God” if there is another “God” hanging around? Especially one who is as eternal as that “only true God and Father”? As your interpretation of John 17.5 suggests.
Margaret Collier, welcome
I agree with Anthony. The one which is supposed to be God Almighty, according to a teaching which became orthodoxy (Trinity), identifies another One as God Almighty, also using anthropomorphic language to denote their inequality, as well as functional and ontological inequality by requesting that One to give Jesus the glory He intended him to have. I feel that, to harmonise these with the Trinity doctrine, extra-biblical concepts, completely alien to Hebraic thought, as well as linguistic acrobatics have to be superimposed upon Scripture which does not allow for it at all.
Even after receiving “all power,” Jesus remained in subjection with God, thus proving their inequality:
1 Cor. 15:27 “But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”
1 Cor. 11:3 “…the head of every man is the Christ; in thurn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.”
Even at his ultimate exaltation, Christ is still subject, thus unequal to God, whom he calls his Father.
Since Jesus is the sent-out one, or Apostle, (Heb. 3:1) the Hebrew connection is immediately that of sh’liach (Heb. for sent-out one, or representative, or ambassador). To extrapolate this beautiful and perfect Hebrew setting into a doctrine of biblically alien concepts and logical contradictions, would not do the Bible or its message any justice.
Looking forward to discuss this with you further,
In Christ,
Jaco
Thank you so much, Xavier and Jaco.
First: I do not believe in two Gods. I believe in ONE God, the same God that Paul believed in - Yahweh, God Almighty.
I agree with Anthony that the doctrine of Tri-unity (that one God = three persons) a) is contrived b) is unscriptural and c) has done an enormous amount of harm.
The fact is - in all of the trinitarian passages (I think there are about 60 of them) God is always ONE person, not three. He is one of three, not three in one.
I am familiar with the quotations from 1 Corinthians and agree with you: they mean what they say. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:24:28 tells me that he will be subject to his God FOR EVER, just as he has been in the past
I have just finished a discussion with Trinitarians on another site, and learned a lot. I expect to learn something from ANY discussion that is based on the Bible, so I expect to learn from you, and I am grateful for the chance to interact.
“How can “the Father” be in anyway “the only true God” if there is another “God” hanging around?” (Xavier)
Good question. I hope I can answer it.
The word “god” refers to someone who has total control in some area. For example: there are people whose god is their belly (Philippians 3:19). Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). Dagon was the god of the Philistines. And so on. The spheres of all of them were limited.
But Christ has been given dominion over ALL THINGS, and I can say, as Thomas did in John 20:28, that he is “my God”.
But I say that, knowing that his authority was GIVEN to him by the only true God, who is subject to NOBODY. Yahweh is the only true, the only ABSOLUTE God. And Jesus always treated him as that.
That, to my thinking, is where the inequality comes in. It’s like Joseph and Pharaoh. Pharaoh MADE Joseph lord of all Egypt; but in doing so he said, “only in the throne shall I be greater than thou”.
Greater - not better.
I’ll quit, because I hate long posts. But I appreciate criticism. That’s where the learning comes in.
Margaret Collier
Jesus himself defines what the bible means when it refers to others as “gods” in John 10.22f.
Note that ultimately Jesus is to be identified as “the Son of God” and not “god”, even though we may mean it in a secondary sense. Scripture doesn’t explicitly call him “god” [i.e. the god Jesus Christ; Jesus who was god, etc.], so why should we?
Two of the unscriptural titles that trinitarians use are “God the Son” and “God the Spirit”. Those terms are not in the Bible. The scriptural titles are “God the Father,” “Son OF GOD,” and “Spirit OF GOD”. And those three titles are used consistently, about 100 times, so it isn’t just an accident.
On the other hand, Thomas called him, “My God,” and Jesus did not rebuke him for it. That sounds explicit enough for me.
He is called “God” in Hebrews 1:8, too. But it was HIS God who called him that (v. 9).
Actually, the word has a lot of different connotations, and it is just as well to be aware of them.
Margaret
You are correct. Jesus is explicitly [without grammatical or textual contradictions] referred to as “god” [in an obvious secondary sense] at John 20.28; Heb 1.8.
But note, that Heb 1.8 cites Ps 45.6 where the Davidic king [or his throne, as some LXX variants suggest] is also called “god”.
Either way, 2 or 3 verses cannot do away with the thousands of times the Father is referred to or explicitly called “the God” [”only true God” etc.].
We agree, Xavier. In my opinion, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John 17:3 are clear enough to dispel any doubt. And there can’t be any question about the text, because those two verses are translated essentially the same way in every translation.
So I wouldn’t put down the value of “two or three verses”. And maybe “thousands of times” might be a bit of an exaggeration.
The point is, “proof texts” are a valuable way to learn what some one else is saying. And looking into them carefully can EITHER make us change our understanding of the verse, OR ELSE strengthen our own convictions about it. But we need constantly to remember that although God’s Word is infallible, our understanding of it isn’t.
I hope to get back with some questions re the two debates later, but I will be away for a week. In the meantime, I will watch this thread (from another computer) for any other debates which include either Sir Anthony or Dave Burke.
Margaret,
It’s good to discuss these exciting truths.
I do want to mention something - a point the trinitarians often use to sabotage any proper discussion of a matter - and that is regarding John 14:28, where Jesus says that his ‘Father is greater than he is.’
One reply is that Jesus’ Father was greater than he was, since Jesus was a man, and divested himself from his divinity. Well, then trinitarians can unfortunately not have their cake and eat it. See, if Jesus was man, and thus inferior to God, and that is prove for his statement, then they cannot use any of his other “claims” for divinity while he was on earth. Either he was God or he wasn’t.
Another point is that “the Father was greater, but not better.” You see, this is an example of “special pleading.” That is, introducing a factor unrelated to the matter, and argue for that. I’m not concerned over what it doesn’t say - I’m concerned over what it does say. To have someone greater than another person introduces inequality, period. Every argument has to be falsifiable. So, what do trinitarians expect when someone IS better? Whatever they say, if it’s valid, you’ll find something somewhere of the Father being, not only greater, but also better than Jesus.
Then, ultimately, IF (and that is just to give them the benefit of the doubt) these above arguments were indeed valid, we still do not see Jesus reclaiming equality with YHWH when he ascends to heaven and receive his ultimate exaltation, as the 1 Corinthians passages show.
Just a little formal logic for those interested…
Regards,
Jaco
Jaco
Is it true that “nominal” trinis do not accept the kenosis theory?
If so, why do we still hear people like James White and others argue for it?
Xavier,
That’s such a good question. Why on earth? That is the ultimate contradiction! Either Jesus had full kenosis, and he was not God on earth, with no “proof” or “allusion” to divinity, or he had all the “proof” of divinity, but then he could not have had full kenosis. The “fully God fully man” enigma is a logical and scriptural contradiction par excellence. These concepts are mutually exclusive.
That’s when the trinis, as you call them, have to resort to linguistic and logical acrobatics. Vague language (such as “divine,” “nature,” “essence,” etc.) as well as awkward terms fluid in meaning are what ultimately terminate proper dialogue, and the trini escapes through the cracks.
I’m actually looking forward to Robert Bowman and Dave Burke’s debate. Now, Bowman is a different fellow. He creates novel and ad hoc grammatical rules that would make the alchemists blush! He makes classical lexicographical giants look pewney, and he does it in no time! I hope Dave is prepared for Bob’s innovative grammatical manoeuvres, as that creative streak is usually Bob’s trump card…we’ll just have to wait and see.
I’ve not listened to Sir Anthony and James White’s debate yet. I’m planning to do so this weekend.
Cheers, bro.
Jaco
How does one defend the Trinity perspective?
I suppose one could find scriptures that support something about God in Christ, Christ in God, The Holy Spirit being of God, Christ being in the Spirit, The Spirit of God being in Christ, God being present with the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit being with God, Jesus being with God, the Holy Spirit being with Jesus, and such like, but will we ever find the terms, “God the Son”, “The Second Person of The Trinity”, “God the Holy Spirit” (as distinct from God the Father)
or some other Trinitary ways in the scriptures themselves?
I suppose we could make a case about Trinitarians being Christians as they practice these customs, or manners of speech, for those who partake of the Lord’s flesh and blood (John 6:56)
find a connection with him, and have entered into the new covenant.
I see no law written that prohibits a person from entering into Trinitary ways or manners of speech. I believe there is liberty in
the spirit of God. This does not mean that all such speaking is pleasing to the Lord. It does mean that the Lord will be the judge of how we speak and communicate the gospel to others.
If men are presently partaking of the Lord’s flesh and blood, will they argue their own case about such things? This is an interesting
question to consider isn’t it?
We certainly do not have the right to impose our paradigm or worldview on others do we? Nor do we have the authority given by God to coerse anyone into being as we ourselves are in such matters, do we?
We may defend the truth when the truth is being undermined, attacked, twisted, perverted, or distorted, for we ought to be concerned for both the souls of people, and the name of God.
We should also realize that the words uttered by Thomas to Jesus,
“My Lord and my God.” have never appeared in scripture and yet it seemed to be acceptable to Jesus. Let’s keep in mind the liberty we have in Christ, especially in our worship of him and God the Father. It wasn’t robbery for Thomas to put Jesus on the same level spiritually as God is, in my opinion.
If the truth is under assault, I might defend it, but if a certain way of men are under assault, I myself might not go to it’s defence.
The way of God, we may defend if we are in good standing with him. If we can do so legaly, God may permit it. He might also require it of us. These things we will learn of him as we learn to be led by his spirit.
Xavier, Thank you for posting the information about this debate between James White and Anthony Buzzard. (post 24).
I clicked on it and was able to receive some U.K. radio, but I did not get to the debate. Is there something I need to click on to?
Anyone?
Ray
Click on the link Mark C. sent in post 22. That’s how I found it.
Jaco
Some interesting comments from the New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed.
Sounds good for us right? But the article finishes with this [perhaps someone else could also help me understand what it says]
Jaco
Some interesting comments from the New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed.
Sounds good for us right? But the article finishes with this [perhaps someone else could also help me understand what it says]
Ray
Try their home page link: http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
Scroll down to:
You can download James White v. Buzzard here:
http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx
I was able to listen to about 30 minutes of the debate. I left off where the talk was beyond my understanding of Hebrew words and such.
One thing I took notice of was the fact that some external source
(something other than the scripture and the interpretation of it by the holy spirit) if given authority, may shape one’s world view
which would then result in a view that is likely not that of God’s perspective. This would result in something that God would not necessarily agree with.
It seems to me that through the knowledge of the gospel, the Church of old came to receiving words of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message of the gospel, wrote of it, and sang their hymns and spiritual songs. But though the words be right, sound, and good, if we “hear” in a manner that is not according to the interpretation of the holy spirit, we likely would not be receiving the truth as it was given to us, but rather would be receiving something slightly (or greatly) different.
And so it’s the interpetation of the words that is many times of great importance, and often is the cause of misunderstanding.
Have you ever been in worship and been found to be placing Jesus
in a place of equality with God the Father? Now by the letter, if the
words were written down, and someone other than you came to judge it by the letter, they might conclude that you determined all kinds of things that you do not necessarily agree with.
Isn’t it because of the lens or filter we look through? And so we desire the proper lens (given to us by the Holy Spirit) so that we may see more clearly the kingdom and the glory of it.
Xavier,
I wonder why they present the contradictory interpretations. Initially they appear to agree with the first, but then they present as truth the exact opposite interpretation.
I think, to properly understand this section, we have to determine:
‘Have the mental attitude which Christ also had’ - when?
‘who, being in the form of God’ - when?
‘did not regard equality with God something to be grasped’ - how? when?
‘but he emptied himself’ - how? when?
‘and took a slave’s form’ - how? when?
‘and came to be in the likeness of men’ - how? when?
‘while in that fashion, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death by crucifixion’ - this seems additional to the previous statements of emptying himself. Or, in Hebrew parallelism, this could also be an elaborated restatement of a previous point made.
‘Fashion’ and ‘likeness’ - morphe and eikon also appear to be used synonymously. The meaning of these has to be derived, not from classical literature, but from then-current and biblical usage.
Jaco
Jaco
You keep asking “when” all these statements took place. Would you say “on earth” and not in some “time before time”?
Regarding the greek words for “form” [morphe] and “image” [eikon], are synonymous and representative of one another right? As in, they both describe Jesus as “the image of the invisible God” [as per Col 1.15]?
Note Kuschel in his excellent [yet dense] “Born Before all Time”:
I listened to the Buzzard vs. White debate.
My first thoughts are that I think Anthony did a job well done being in a format where the Trinitarian side gets the last word. I do think that Anthony needs to take a more offensive position rather than waiting to defend. For example, he did a great job at defending the difference of Lords in Psalm 110, but he could have taken it a step forward and asked Mr. White to explain how a resurrected bodily Messiah can sit down to the right of a Spirit God and how that can make one God? Another point I saw that was missed is that Psalm 110 does not say Adonai in the Hebrew, it says YHVH, which is replaced with Adonai to keep from saying YHVH…
I have bolded the parts where YHVH and adoni are in the Hebrew…
…אדניליהוהלדוד מזמור נאם
It also seems that the book of Hebrews 1 and the OT parallels to Christ have become a popular debating point among Trinitarians, as Dr. Brown also brought this up as his main argument in a previous Buzzard debate.
Seems as though the blog is not compatible with copy and past for Hebrew. Just pay attention to the bolded words, one is YHVH and one is adoni.
Joseph,
So the Hebrew reads “Adonai said to my adoni…”? Is that correct? And was YHVH in older versions? It was my understanding that the avoidance of writing YHVH was a later development.
Mark,
The Hebrew reads, “YHVH said to my adoni.” But when I hear people debating the verse (such as Buzzard with White) they say Adonai in place of YHVH. This only creates confusion between what the text says about who is Adonai and who is Adoni. There is confusion because we know that Adonai and Adoni share the same Hebrew letters (aleph, delet, vav, nun, yud), so this creates a false sense that the two are saying the same thing. But really the only debate is about the word adoni (my lord) which clearly is not a reference to YHVH.
Joseph,
I think you may have misunderstood Anthony. He says it reads “YHVH said to my adoni” but most people wrongly say that it is “YHVH said to my Adonai” and that calling the one who is addressed “Adonai” proves that Messiah is God.
It seems to me that Jesus can be spoken of as being” in the form of God”, and the interpretation of it’s meaning can be mulitple things, depending on what the speaker or writer is attempting to convey.
This leaves us with the knowledge of our need for the holy spirit’s guidance.
I suppose this is why some ask, “When?” as time pertains to a certain verse.
I myself trust that Jesus was in the form of God from everlasting,
having been dwelling in God from eternity. In this condition, he was in the form of God. He was a spirit being. I think of him at such a time as being similar to an angel of God but being more than any angel of God.
This reminds me of Paul’s (I trust he is the writer) comparison of him with Melchisedec in the book of Hebrews. There some similarites are made so that we may receive a view of Christ that is a bit more than we previously held.
Paul was known as a man that would come to visions and revelations of the Lord. He also knew other men who also experienced those things as well.
When God gives a vision, dream, or other revelation, the result is often that the scriptures are made more clear to us as our vision is improved through what we have received.
When such men share their vision, dream, or revelation, and tell it
correctly we should gain more understanding of spiritual things and the scriptures themselves. The revelation and the scripture should work together.
That’s one reason why I am interested in such things. I want to have an accurate perception of the kingdom of heaven, one that
is both accurate in what I now have received, and one that will grow into something greater.
As a man Jesus was “in God’s form”, in a sense. I believe we may speak of him in such manner.
Have you ever heard someone say about another, “He’s not in his best form today.” , or something similar?
So a thing said may have different interpretations and communicate
different ideas. The same sentence or phraze can have multiple meanings. I’ve seen this before and I’ve remarked about how “Full
Filling it is” (as if I can not presently eat any more)
Joseph
A number of commentaries misstate the facts about Ps 110:1. They assert that the second lord is Adonai and not the first “LORD”.
Even Calvin seems to have misread the verse as “YHWH said to Adonai”:
Note that the author actually corrects Adonai with .
Too true. John 20.28 and Heb 1.10 really are the only texts trinis can resort to when debating the age old topic of whether Jesus is called “god” in the bible or not. Even though Jesus himself defines the meaning at f.
Mark,
I wasn’t sure exactly what Anthony said, I just remember the debating of Psalm 110. The main point I was making is that YHVH in Psalm 110 is read out by many with the traditional replacement of the name as ‘Adonai.’ I have been in debates where Trinitarians have been mistaken of the Hebrew texts, and actually thought that the passage said, “Adonai… to my adoni.” So, they actually thought that the Hebrew had two occurrences of the the same Hebrew letters, aleph, delet, vav, nun, yud. There argument was that there was two people called Adonai.
Both Peter (Acts 2:34) and Jesus (Matthew 22:44) quoted it as “THE LORD (adonai) said to MY LORD (adoni)”.
Sir Anthony made that point in his debate with Brown, but he used the Greek translation, which didn’t seem to register.
I think if Jesus understood it to be “adoni,” that should settle the matter.
Toady,
Good point. Anthony knew that White would not accept the masoretic text vowel pointing, so he pointed to the Greek texts which show that “my lord” and not “LORD” is used in place of adoni.
I did also notice that White seemed to concur by silence on that subject, as he had no defense. Either way, both the Hebrew and the Greek point in favor of ‘adoni’ in reference to the second Lord.
Toady
The Septuagint version (LXX) supports the Hebrew MT, from which the NT writers based most of their OT citations.
Psalm 110:1 is quoted by Jesus: Matt. 22:44; Matt. 26:64; Mark 12:36; Mark 14:62; Mark 16:19; Luke 20:42, 43; Luke 22:69; Rev 3:21; by Peter: Acts 2:33-34, Acts 5:31. I Pet. 3:22; by Stephen: Acts 7:55-56; and by Paul: Rom 8:34; I Cor. 15:25; Eph 1:20; Eph 2:6 Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; Heb 1:13 Heb 8:1; Heb. 10:12-13; Heb. 12:2.
Following are comments from Anthony Buzzard in his “The LORD said to my lord” study:
Full article here: http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/articles/BD86.htm
Dr. Brown Continues His Debate with Sir Anthony Buzzard on the Deity of Jesus and the Trinity:
http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/03/23/march-23-2010/
Don’t forget to leave your comments. Support the faith once received and you proclaimed in public!!
The debate begins this Sunday (11th). Details will be announced at Bowman’s blog: http://tinyurl.com/yz9etoz
Updated link for Trinity debate: http://tinyurl.com/y25akpo
I posted a few responses to the Anthony Buzzard - Dr. Brown debate on Dr. Brown’s website. They are currently awaiting moderation.
Anthony did much much better this time around. He didn’t let Dr. Brown use his position as radio host to his advantage. I noticed that Dr. Brown likes to get the last word in before a commercial break and then change the subject after returning back to the show to give the illusion that the point of debate is over. Anthony was more on the offensive this time around and handled the issues at hand. He made sure to speak up immediately when Dr. Brown would sneak in a misrepresentation of the points being made.
The pace of the debate eventually ended in Dr. Brown having to explain his own contradictions and special pleading.
Well done Anthony!
That’s the problem with radio debates: they favour the host, particularly if he’s unscrupulous.
I listened to the debate and I didn’t get the impression that Dr. Brown was unscrupulous. I thought he was respectful toward Sir Anthony who presented the Unitarian position quite well. Dr. Brown just honestly disagrees with the Unitarian position and was obviously speaking from his heart (what he believed).
My opinion is of course not neutral, but I thought Sir Anthony sounded like the more convincing of the two. But your preconceptions do effect your judgment in these kind of debates…
Doubting
Agreed. Same goes for when we read the scriptures, preconceptions should not be brought into the text [eisegesis]. As my good friend Greg Deuble says, we should strive to read “the Bible with new eyes”.
I often hear that these types of debates do not serve any purpose, since each camp is stuck to their own theological views.
Anyone want to comment?
Xavier, never underestimate the power of a compelling argument in the minds of the uncertain and/or undecided. I have personal experience of Trinitarians rejecting Trinitarianism after witnessing a debate between a Trinitarian and a Biblical Unitarian.
Remember Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night!
Xavier
You said, “Agreed. Same goes for when we read the scriptures, preconceptions should not be brought into the text (eisegesis). As my good friend Greg Deuble says, we should strive to read “the Bible with new eyes”.
The problem is that preconceptions are (more often than not) subconscious in nature. If ever since you were a young child your heard that something was true (example - the bible is infallible) than it becomes ingrained in your subconscious and will effect how you read and interpret scripture.
It’s the same with the Trinitarians who have their ideas ingrained in their subconscious causing them to interpret scriptures in a certain way.
You also said, “I often hear these type of debates do not serve any purpose, since each camp is stuck to their own theological views.”
I believe the search for truth is a noble endeavor. We must however realize it is impossible to reach the ultimate goal of knowing all there is to know. Some people are close minded others are open minded. Debating what you believe with others very often leads to a stronger understanding of exactly what it is that you actually believe.
I can’t see these type of debates being harmful as long as people are gentle and reverent of the other person’s beliefs…
Dave Burke
First time I hear someone say that such debates has swayed some of the listening audience. How about convincing your opponent as such? Ever happened in your experience?
Doubting
I don’t know if our worldview comes via “nature” as you suggest. I think its a combination of nurture and nature. Then again, this is why it is so important to come to the scriptures “with new eyes”.
For example in my case, being an agnostic, the first thing I heard regarding life after death was that your soul escaped your body. When I finally came to search and examine the scriptures I slowly came to realise that was not the biblical view at all.
Xavier,
If you look in the book of Acts you’ll find the apostles preaching and debting throughout the cities of Asia Minor, with great success. The Jewish Christian Apollos also convinced his audience through the power of debate:
Yes, I have had experience of my opponent being convinced by my arguments. I run an online discussion forum (www.thechristadelphians.org/forums) where a number of people have been turned from Trinitarianism to Biblical Unitarianism through courteous, well-reasoned discussion and debate. It’s not a method that works for everyone, but it does work.
Xavier
You said, “Then again, this is why it is so important to come to the scriptures ‘with new eyes’.”
I agree. I try to keep an open mind (as best I can).
You also said, “When I finally came to search and examine the scriptures I slowly came to realize that was not the biblical view at all.”
I also use to believe that your soul immediately went to heaven immediately after death (exposed to this since childhood). But since coming to this website I’ve come to understand the true message about the Kingdom of Heaven and how it will be here on earth.
I didn’t get this realization on my own. It came from reading articles and posts here on this blog and going back and re-examining what the bible actually says on the subject.
I find parts of the bible hard to understand that’s why I like to read a few pages and then stop and contemplate what it is I read and try to digest it. I find the Synoptics and some of the letters are the easiest to understand. I find the Old Testament the hardest to understand…
Dave
Clearly we are not in the “power of the spirit” Apostolic days as recounted in the Book of Acts where thousands were converted by simply preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and the things concerning the name of Messiah Jesus.
But I am glad your site and technique has found great success. Keep it up!
Doubting
I agree, their pretty straight forward in their account.
Hello, Dave Burke.
I’m glad you are following this thread. I have been trying to find your introductory post in the debate with Bowman - without success. Would you please give me a link to it?
I confess that I am a dunce when it comes to finding things on the internet. I’m inclined to agree with somebody’s explanation that in order to use modern technology, you have to be able to find the right wrench to pound in the correct screw. I seldom find it.
In the meantime - and now my request goes to anybody who has the time to respond - I have been listening, carefully, to Sir Anthony Buzzard’s debates referred to earlier. I am impressed with his knowledge of the Bible.
I rejected tri-unism some years ago as being unscriptural; but I have some trouble following the argument that the Son did not exist until the Word became flesh. Maybe someone who has time could give me a link to an explanation of this. I understand the Word and the Son to be identical.
“I understand the Word and the Son to be identical.”
Margaret
They are the same. What most people do not understand is in 2nd temple judaism the Word of God was refered to as the Son of God.
So You see the Word-Son did prexist before coming Flesh in the Person Jesus at his baptism through the Holy Spirit. Jesus was annointed with the title of the Word because of His perfection in God’s ways. This Word was manifested in Jesus by God’s Spirit and Spoke through Jesus as it was done through many prophets before Him.
Hi Margaret,
The following link takes you to a very informative article by Anthony Buzzard, which describes the meaning of God’s “word”.
http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/john1.htm
Basically, the Biblical Unitarian doctrine holds that God’s word is actually his “will”, or “plan”. As a result, Jesus “existed” in God’s plan, before the creation of the world - just like we existed in his plan before the creation of the world. (Eph 1:3-5).
Brian
Margaret
Let me give you my impression. First of all note that the prologue to the Gospel of John is written in what most call a poetic/prose style. It is figurative/metaphorical speech not to be taken wholly literal.
The other thing that many err on is the misappropiation of the “word” [Greek logos, lower case and not capital “W”, as if we were talking about a person] as one to one equal with the Son, Jesus. The “word” is not some preexistent person who “took on flesh” [as the Catholic/Protestant dogma states] and “became” [transformed itself] into the man Jesus. Buzzard and others make an excellent observation when they point out that prior to the biased KJV version of the Bible, all previous English version from the Greek and not the Lantin Vulgate render the first 3 verses as follows:
This means that the subject in question, the “word”, is God’s self-expression of Himself, the creating force by which He brought everything into being. As the Bible tells us in many other places:
So what I think the writer is trying to communicate to the reader, in poetic prose if you will, is how His creative word [which itself is synonymous with “light” and “light”, cp. 1Jn 1.1-5] was coming into the world and “pitching its tent” [tabernacling, dwelling, v.14] in a unique human creation. The man Jesus of Nazareth.
I would add that the translator’s insistence on keeping the logos as somehow a preexistent male due to a logos having a masculine grammatical gender in the Greek, extends to vv.9-12. The subject of these verses remains the “word” which is now synonymous with the “light” by which the world and its inhabitants exist and which was coming into the world. Again, the writer seems to be talking about an “it” and not a “he”. Then again, it is acceptable within the anthromorphic biblical precedent of personifying God’s invisible attributes [qualities] to call them “he” or “she” as in the case of Wisdom in Pro 8. This point is best seen in the way other languages translate the prologue, for example in Spanish, where the “word” and “light” are femenine gender nouns, it is translated thus:
In either case we are talking not about preexistent beings, for in that case Wisdom, Prudence, Glory etc., would have to be identified as such. But within the Hebreaic worldview and expressions, it is a way to describe God Himeelf.
Hope this helps…
Margaret:
Thanks for your interest in the debate. I can help you with the links:
My opening statement to Bowman is here: http://tinyurl.com/y69wc6d
Bowman’s opening statement to me is here: http://tinyurl.com/y5expt5
Those are the two introductory arguments.
Margaret, see below for links to the rebuttals and counter-rebuttals:
Bowman’s rebuttal to my opening statement is here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-1-david-burke-on-god-and-scripture/#comment-30351
My response to Bowman’s rebuttal is here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-1-david-burke-on-god-and-scripture/#comment-30402
My rebuttal to Bowman’s opening statement is here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-1-rob-bowman-on-god-and-scripture/#comment-30403
You will find our rebuttals and counter-rebuttals in the “Comments” section at the bottom of each opening statement.
Brian
In this instance [John 1.1-14] it makes more sense to think of logos as “God’s self-expression” not so much as His “plan”. Although I do agree with the second part of your statement above.
Good point Xavier.
Hi, everyone
I think the first week of the Great Trinity Debate on Robert Bowman’s blog, Parchment and Pen, has gone down on a good start. I’d like to share with you a few observations from both sides of the debate. Obviously there will be many more crucial points that could be highlighted, and these should definitely be shared.
I’ll start with David Burke’s turn first. He says:
This is an essential point I hope David will lean on heavily. Scripture will determine what the meaning and interpretation of other texts will be. No philosophical, extra-biblical superimposition of concepts and meanings to defend a stance; no, Scripture will determine meanings to a text (cp. Gal. 1:8, 9)
In Critical Reasoning one has to remember that, not only content, but also context determine whether an argument ex silentio is indeed such. Granted, if Alexander the Great never claimed to have conquered Pasargadae in Persia that would not prove that he didn’t, would it? Hardly! But - and this is where the context tips the log – if Alexander were known to boast over his conquests, especially ones that had him deified, having scribes write down in detail what he said and did, with lists of cities he conquered, complete with dates and heavenly phenomena…and his great conquest of Pasargadae was lacking in every one of those accounts then the argument from silence is admissible. It either implies that Pasargadae was not conquered, or that someone else conquered it.
Now, in this debate, Bowman claims that Jesus is Yahweh. It is only fair to expect that the Yahweh in the OT will be identical to the Yahweh in the NT (one of Whom or Which (philosophical confusion, see?) is Jesus). We should expect the same bold expressions of sovereignty and deity as we see from Him in the OT. We should expect to see “Almighty” in all that Jesus did and said. Its absence would attest to incongruence, precisely because the claim is that the two characters are said to be identical. Granted, Jesus never boldly claimed to be the Messiah, but this is a different matter altogether. The expectation of what the Messiah would do and say did not include bold expressions of his being that (cp. Isa. 53:7). Jesus fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies perfectly. The Gospel accounts and the testimonies in Acts point to Jesus as the Messiah. To say that we expect Jesus to be identified as Yahweh is an understatement…to see it would be a requirement. With all we have in the OT regarding Yahweh, His Sovereignty and expressions thereof, His omnipotence and bold claims to be the Almighty of the Universe, it is devastating to see that the one asserted to be identical to the Yahweh of the OT says nothing thereof. Not only that, but to be preached as being the Messiah exclusively and never directly as God Almighty or Yahweh where one would expect exactly that, are all matters of serious concern. Whatever reason we can put forth for Jesus’ silence as regards his Messiahship, cannot be advanced for the reasons regarding the silence of his “Yahwehship” since he was never silent about the identity and glory of the One who is truly Yahweh, namely, his Father.
I contend, thus, from a logical point of view, that the absence of Jesus’ claim to be God is a valid concern and not an argument ex silentio.
Burke goes on:
This is a good point – one which Bowman agrees with. Bowman says, “In general, I agree with what you wrote about exegetical method, with the qualifications I expressed in my opening statement about being open to possible paradoxes or apparent contradictions in Scripture.” I hope Dave will call Bowman to task if he dares to use John 2:19 as final proof that Jesus (and not Yahweh his Father) literally and actively raised Jesus from the dead, while ignoring all other proofs to the contrary.
I’m glad David referenced the issue regarding Sam Shamoun’s misuse of the Shema. Dave is perfectly correct when he says that echad is occasionally used to modify a collective noun, but its actual meaning never changes (e.g, one bunch, one pair, one herd). One is still one. It is troubling to see that Shamoun, a Jewish Christian, would site the “one flesh” of Genesis 2:24 as proof of echad’s “plurality.” It is troubling because, of all, Shamoun should know that the very same “one flesh” were said to have “made loin coverings” from fig-leaves. The verb for “make” is not asah’ (singular) but asoh’ (plural). So, even though they were one flesh, they were still consistently depicted as plural (in grammar and concord). By the way, they were one flesh and not one being. Yahweh, on the other hand, is always described in singular pronouns confirming Him to be singular or one, the true meaning of echad. This “one flesh” argument is such a fallacious analogy which, in my mind, calls to question the honesty of otherwise knowledgeable Hebrew speakers.
It will be good to see how Dave will use the listed attributes ascribed to God alone as proof of Yahweh’s distinctness from and sovereignty over even Jesus.
Bowman’s reply was no surprise to me. He states nothing new which other trinitarians have not attempted to explain (away) themselves. I also think that Dave handles the syllogistic and logical aspects of Bowman exceptionally well. Especially Bowman’s objection to Dave’s bold statement where Dave said:
See, Bowman and the other trinitarians cannot afford having nothing added to the concept of God form outside the Jewish paradigm. I have a problem with the vagueness with which Bowman handles the issue. He has not given an explicit definition and conceptual boundaries of “God.” His reference to “adding” is very arbitrary, and he misrepresents the issues somewhat, in that adding (to Bowman) means adding anything. Not only that, but Bowman calls the Jewish concept of God - the concept within which Jesus and the apostles preached the Gospel - unqualified monotheism! Wow, that borders on blasphemy in my books. But Dave clarified it perfectly by quoting Albert Barnes:
Interestingly enough, it is Bowman who finally resorts to evasive arguments ex silentio and from ignorance where Dave asks him the following questions:
Not only that, but Bowman creates a false dilemma, in that plural suggestions or references to others as being “god” can only mean literal plurality. We’re all waiting in high anticipation for the positive statements by Bowman regarding the above questions. It will be good to work with explicit and clear falsifiable statements and not evasive rhetorical remarks.
Something Dave did not reply to was Bowman’s familiar analogy to light’s dualistic nature (particle/wave).
I have a few qualms with this. Firstly, and I hope Bowman will not make this rather amateurish mistake, this analogy sounds like “proof by illustration.” If, indeed, he is not trying to prove the validity of different “natures” in one “being” by using this example, it still does not do much for Bowman’s argument, and it brings me to my next qualm: Why use an illustration in which different natures of light has been confirmed, to prove the plurality of another (God), when this is exactly what has to be determined? The analogy is also false in that, (and I hope Dave will point this out) God, Elohim, ho Theos, Yahweh, are all proper names. These nouns are never presented as abstract or qualitative attributes but as identities. How Bowman can see a correlation between inanimate light (noun) having different attributes or behaviors (particle/wave) and the personal Yahweh (proper name) subsisting of different persons is more an allusion to Modalism than trinitarianism. Syllogistically, Bowman’s reasoning goes like this:
Premise 1: The Bible presents Yahweh to be one
Premise 2: As with light, being one does not deny having plurality
Conclusion: The Bible presents Yahweh to be a plurality.
Not only does it smack in the face of logic (structural fallacy of affirmative conclusion from negative premise(s)) and exegesis (conceptual range of Yahweh, Elohim, ho Theos), but, to me, is rather demeaning. The quantum physicists he referenced would easily tell us what we could expect if light were a particle alone or a wave alone and they would be honoured for their openhearted honesty. We see, however, that Bowman evades the question of what to expect if the Bible presented Yahweh to be a Unitarian God, or God being one person and one being.
Finally, I’d like to see explicit proof, presented within the cognitive range of ancient Judaism, that the faithful Jews clearly distinguished between the concepts of “being” and “person.” Hebrew words confirming these meanings and concepts would be much appreciated. Sola Scriptura, remember?
I will give my take on Bowman’s presentation a little later.
Dave, super job!
Your brother,
Jaco
Jaco,
Thanks for your detailed analysis. I am grateful for the support.
Bowman’s “light” analogy seemed hasty and confused, as if he was still trying to iron out the wrinkles even as he posted it. I left it alone because it was not particularly well structured and added nothing to his position.
Syllogistic reasoning is a hallmark of Trinitarian exegesis, particularly among those who profess Sola Scriptura. In Week 2 I predict that he’ll roll out some variation of the “here’s-a-list-of-attributes-unique-to-God that-are-clearly-shared-by-Jesus” argument.
“My dog has four legs; my cat has four legs; ergo, my cat is a dog!”
Dave & Jaco
Could I get your views on John 1.10-12:
Who are the personal pronouns referring to here?
What translation would you give to the Greek autos as used throughout vv.1-12?
Xavier:
Jesus. I have no problem reading autos as “he” throughout this passage and agreeing that Christ is referred to.
My interpretation looks like this:
My interpretation of “egeneto” in verse 10 as “divided” is still a work in progress, and I’m not entirely sure that it’s valid. But it does make sense to me and seems to fit the context.
I’m consulting a couple of friends who are fluent in Koine Greek, and will see what they have to say.
Sorry, verse 10 should be:
Dave
You seem to agree with most BUs when they interpret the autos at vv.1-3 as “it” instead of the traditional [trini induced] “he/him”.
Wouldn’t it make sense to keep this translational standard throughout the rest of the prologue to v.12, since the subject remains the logos which [and not “who”, as you suggest] is referred to as “the light”? Cp. 1John 1.1-5
In other words, the subject down to v.14 [when I believe Jesus is finally introduced as “the flesh/human being” in which those impersonal qualities come to “tabernacle/dwell? in] remains the logos of vv.1-3.
Xavier:
Yes.
Not to me. I see no evidence that the subject remains the logos throughout. We are explicitly told that the light was in the logos and that John the Baptist testified about that light. This immediately tells us that the light is Jesus. We don’t even hear about the logos again until much later.
John says that the light entered the world, was not recognised by the world, came to his own, was not accepted by his people, but gives the right to become God’s children to all those who believe in him. Does that sound like Jesus to you? It sure sounds like Jesus to me!
Of course, none of this implies or requires that Jesus pre-existed, nor does it imply or require that Jesus is God. Yet it must surely be a description of Jesus.
See above. I agree that there is no connection between the logos and Jesus until verse 14, when the logos becomes Jesus.
Dave
Are you suggesting that “the light” described [in the same way as “life” at v.4; cp. “word of life” 1Jn 1.1-4] is the “person” of Jesus?
If so, how is this different from the trini view that Jesus is the preexistent “person” of the logos? That is, if we agree that all these terms are synonymous. If not, how can we tell if their not? They sure sound like they are.
Xavier:
Yes.
It is different because I believe that Jesus did not actually pre-exist and there is nothing in John 1:1-14 which suggests that he did. To say that the light was in the logos is not to say that Jesus literally pre-existed, but only that he was part of the greater scheme. We cannot speak of the light (Jesus) personally and literally existing until verse 7, when John testifies about the light (Jesus). Until then, we are merely told that the light was in the logos. And since the logos is simply God’s word, this does not require Jesus’ pre-existence.
They are not synonymous and we know this because of the way they are juxtaposed. The light is said to be in the logos. This automatically differentiates the light from the logos. To say that the light is in the logos is no different to saying that Jeremiah was in the mind of God before he was born:
Here Jeremiah was known by God, set apart by God and appointed as a prophet by God - all before he existed! This does not require literal pre-existence. Like Jesus, Jeremiah was in the mind of God; in His plan; part of His purpose. “In his Word”, if you like.
Dave
The “light” metaphor is introduced in conjunction with the “life” in vv.4-5. These are different terms talking about the same subject of vv.1-3, namely the logos.
How and why would you differentiate the terms?
If that’s the case “Who” is the “life”?
And where does the text say that “the light was in the logos“?! This is weird, almost Gnostic-trini.
Xavier:
That’s an interesting perspective. How do you arrive at it?
I differentiate the terms for reasons and by methods which should be obvious. They are different words, they are described differently and they are differentiated.
The life is also Jesus. He is both the light and the life, just as he said:
Settle down mate, there’s no need for that kind of language. It’s not Gnostic-trini at all. It’s just good old fashioned exegesis. I’ve already posted John 1:1-12 and it was all there in plain English. Shall we take another look?
So the life was IN the Word, and the life IS the light of the world. Thus we know that the light and life are the same thing, and thus we know that the light (which is also the life) was in the Word.
Now, what does John tell us about that light which was also the life?
Are you honestly going to tell me that “the light” in these verses is not Jesus? Seriously?
Well, it’s unfortunate that we can’t edit our posts, because I’ve just made a mess of that one. Still, you get the general idea.
Dave
From the text itself. The creative quality that is the “word of God” is the “light” of all things that in turn gives “life”. Sounds like its all synonymous with the creative act of the logos. If not, and it is as you say the “light”=the “person” of Jesus, then are we to assume that this is a “second person in the Godhead”?
What do you make between the clear contrast of the Johannine prologue with the Genesis account when it comes to that same “light”? Again, are we to assume it is “the person of Jesus”? This would be problematic for our BU perspective wouldn’t it?
Are you suggesting that the “what” of 1John 1.1-3 should be a “who”? In other words, Jesus? If so, how can we not say he literally preexisted if that’s what both texts are alluding to, “someone” [and not something] that was there before the known creation?
Sorry bro, didn’t mean it as a personal attack. It just simply sounds a bit like the Gnostic Reedemer Myth which Bultmann made popular. I apologize.
I do not see why it can’t be God Himself being introduced in v.10 with the personal pronoun of auton as opposed to autos. But it could be alluding to the coming human being [flesh] of v.14. Why? Simply because the subject of the prologue is the logos as the “life” as the “light” Who [God] was “coming into the world” when it “tabernacled” in the human Jesus.
No worries Xavier, it’s cool.
I am currently writing some counter-rebuttals to Bowman, but I’ll get back to this thread as soon as I have time. Until then, you might be interested in my articles here: http://tinyurl.com/qssj9m
Dave
No worries if your interested let me know if you want to get in touch outside of this forum. Interested to know what your answers are.
Xavier,
You can contact me through my own forum (see the link I’ve posted in #92). Feel free to get in touch.
My curent debate workload will keep me busy until Monday. I’ll come back to this thread then, if I can.
Xavier,
I have a different approach. I don’t like the ‘it’ option for John 1:1-3 and would agree that ‘he’ is needed as in vv.10-12. My argument is that the Greek of ‘with God’ is pros ton theon and a concordance search on this expression reveals a number of texts about mediators/priests who were ministering ‘towards’ God. This would suggest to me that a person is implied in the title Logos and that it is Jesus. I read 1 John 1:1 as a close parallel indicating Jesus.
Andrew
If you took the time to search the origin of logos in hebrew you would find parallels with the word for wisdom in which you would find it possess the feminine personification not male.
I am enjoying this conversation tremendously. I appreciate Dave’s taking the time to try to explain his position when he must be extremely busy with the debate.
I intend to read Dave’s articles on this subject, because after reading John 1:1-18 in several different translations (as well as a Greek Interlinear), I find myself still understanding logos, light and life all as alluding to Jesus.
On the other hand, I think Dave’s first post is excellent. It took me several years of studying to discover all the evidence he has already introduced for the fact that God is one person, not three.
I am looking forward to the next round.
Does anyone here see Genesis 1:3 as a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus, or as a promise of what was to come to be born of a woman?
I see this as a promise of eternal life which God has promised.(Titus 1:2)
andrewneileen
You may not like it but English grammar itself dictates that we are dealing with a common/abstract noun when it comes to “word”. I mean would you say “the car…he was in the beginning, through him…” etc? Also note that this was not always the case, as all early English translations did not use personal noun or pronouns.
Margaret
I agree but not from “In the beginning”…where all these creative qualities [and not “persons” or “person”] were the means through which God first created and then expressed His very Person. That these things later came to “dwell, tabernacle…in the flesh [human person]” of Jesus is another matter.
Note that as we often say, these are Hebraic ways of explaining the invisible God’s activities through creation. There is nothing to suggest in this prologue or in the OT that we are dealing with preexistent, personal beings as such. But simply God Himself expressing His creative and powerful Person.
You may be right, Xavier. I haven’t been able to find a translation that uses “it,” but that doesn’t prove anything. I will wait and see what Dave has to say about it in his next posts.
Your statement ‘That these things later came to “dwell, tabernacle…in the flesh [human person]” of Jesus …’ is a bit bewildering. What translation are you quoting? Any translation I have says that the word BECAME flesh, and took up residence among US.
In the meantime, the words of verse 15 seem to support the idea that Jesus, though he was BORN after John, nevertheless PRECEDED him.
It’s hard to imagine that John considered Jesus to have existed previously as an “it”.
Margaret,
a little bit of context for the language John uses in his prologue would probably be appropriate to understand where he is coming from.
I personally think this is the most important thing to “get” before trying to figure out what he might have meant. Please see http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/03/28/two-different-unitarian-doctrines/#comment-62480
One surely cannot ignore the things that were believed about the “logos” in the Judaism of those times, in favor of today’s anachronistic view of biblical harmony. If God is the source of John’s prologue, is God a 1st century Jew? He surely wouldn’t borrow from Philo or from Philo’s source(s), would he?
It seems to me that if God is the source of John’s prologue, He would use the word “word” the way He used it throughout the Old Testament.
Hello Xavier,
That logos is an abstract noun is not to the point. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. You mention ‘cars’, a nice common noun, and indeed in colloquial English cars are feminine and referred to with ’she’. The grammatical agreement of the pronoun and the noun in John is also accepted here by me. The argument made by me was that the abstract noun is used as a term of reference for Jesus because the Greek ‘pros ton theon’ (’with’ in most versions) is used of the relationship between priests/mediators and God.
Your grammar does not counter this argument.
My second argument for ‘he’ not ‘it’ would be the predicate ‘was God’ in v. 1; this makes ready sense for Jesus in the light of Thomas’ confession but not something abstract. My argument is that John has an inclusio here: saying Jesus was God in the beginning and having Thomas make this confession at the end of his book.
And don’t forget the 1 John 1:1 parallel for identifying Jesus in John 1:1.
So translations seem to be right for ‘him’ in John 1:3. I recommend the RV.
Andrew
Mark C.:
I totally agree.
Mark and Dave,
I would agree on God as the source of the OT.
But you will have to show a common way of using the word ‘word’ between your OT examples and John 1. For example, suppose someone says Ps 33:6, 9 or Isa 55:11 are the way God uses ‘word’ in the OT. This is one way but not the same way as John 1. We should not make the mistake of thinking God uses ‘word’ in one way. There are various ways.
The case for ‘him’ in John 1:3 is still standing.
Andrew
Andrew, I see no reason to believe that the word “word” is being used differently in Psalm 33:6, 9 & the Johannine prologue. They sure look like the same thing to me.
Dave,
Psa 33:6 juxtaposes ‘word’ and ‘breath of his mouth’ in parallel to show that we have a reference to God speaking as in Gen 1. This descriptive language is not even close to John 1 where we need a concept for ‘word’ which will sustain ‘towards God’ and ‘was God’. In Psa 33, we don’t even have a personification. We might say that Psa 33 uses an attributive hypostatization for ’speaking’ in its use of ‘word’. John 1:1 is not this because of the priestly/mediator overtones of ‘pros ton theon’.
I notice the suggestions of ‘plan, purpose’ for ‘word’ in this thread. We are not even in the ballpark for those ideas with Psa 33.
There are other things to say, but I don’t want to multiply the case for seeing a reference to Jesus in John 1:1. Take things one point at a time is my motto. You must be busy with your debate, so don’t get side-tracked by me. Someone else on this blog may be able to reply.
Andrew
^^ Yes, fair point Andrew.
Ray (msg. 98)
Your knowledge of the OT is better than mine but I just read Gen. 1:3 and Titus 1:2 and I don’t see Gen. 1:3 as a promise of eternal life or as a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus. Of course I could be wrong…
Mark,
And that’s exactly the problem, most of the time John doesn’t use “logos” the way it is used in the OT, but rather the way Philo does - that’s the point I was making. Just like Philo, John’s logos was “a god”, was “with God”, is the image of God; this logos is also God’s partner in creation and is God’s offspring. Where in the OT do you read these things about the “word”?
Thomas, I’ve heard that God speaks in many ways and that one reason so many people at times don’t hear from God, or think they don’t hear from God is that they don’t know how he speaks.
I’ve heard men talk about how God tells them things through their body, their feelings, what they can sense, and other ways. Sometimes it’s just a thought.
I’ve seen God speak through patterns. I think many of us have.
Could Genesis 1:2,3 be a pattern of things?
Margaret
Alot of emphasis has been given to the word “become” as opposed to the following word of “dwell/tabernable”. It is not a becoming as in transformation since “the word” is not some preexistent being but simply God’s self-expression of Himself. Also due to the fact that, as you say, it “toop up residence among US [human beings]” in the human person of Jesus, the unique [one-of-a-kind, monogenes] Son of God.
andrewneileen
Your using a common, trini argument here. The whole purpose and reason for the Gospel of John is found in 20.31 and not 20.28. This is supported by the rest of the Gospels.
The other mistake your making is to misread Jn 1.1 in the same way that trinis do. It is not saying: “In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus is God.” The continous subject of the prologue relates to the logos, variously personified in Jewish writings as God Himself.
In poetic prose the writer lays out how God finally came to “dwell” with humanity again through His uniquely created Son.
Now let me ask you this…why don’t translators give personal pronouns to the logos in the same way they do in the opening of the Gospel?
This is eisegesis at its best. Why would this simple phrase have such connotations as the ones your suggesting here? Where is this preexistent “pre-human”[?] Person, High Priest, mediator in the OT?
Looking at Psalm 33:6&9, I begin to wonder who did the speaking in the beginning, Jesus or God. After all, the Bible is a prophetic book. When it says “God said”, we are not told all the details.
Here is Psalm 33, we see that it was by the breath of his mouth that he spoke.
That’s why I wonder if he spoke through Jesus. Jesus could have been his mouth, as Aaron was Moses’ mouth piece, the breath of God being the Holy Spirit.
If Jesus did the speaking, the speaking of the word of God, and it was done, I suppose that God did the works.
And isn’t this a pattern of things that we see in the new testament?
I suppose we could say that in the beginning was the word, and the word had communication with the word, who received the word from the word, and the word did as the word was commanded, by the word, for the word, and of the word, and produced the good things of the word.
Psalm 33:7
He gathered the waters of the sea together as a heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
God must have done this by himself, by his word alone, by nothing
other than that which is of himself.
Is it that from heaven’s perspective that there is only one in heaven, that everything is of one, that God and Jesus together are one?
Is it that when God looks at Jesus, that there are times when all he sees is himself?
Isn’t it that this mystery was hidden in God?
If we consider that Jesus was with God in the beginning and that all was created by God as Jesus gave the word which he received of God, and God did the works of creation, we can say that God created all by himself, that Jesus simply spoke the creation into being by God doing all the work and all of this was done by the word and will of God.
Ray
If Jesus was not a second God, alongside the One God YHWH of the Shema, and if he is not an angel as per Heb 1, What/Who was it/he? And where in the OT?
Ray (msg. 111)
You said, “I’ve heard it said that God speaks in many ways.”
I agree. Some people might think I’m a bit crazy but I have found that when I was going through various crisis’s in my life that God spoke to me through lyrics of songs. Of course he can speak to me in other ways as well.
You also said, “Could Gen. 1:2,3 be a pattern of things?”
Of course it could. Like you said God speaks to each of us in his own way. I have to go out now I will answer your other msg. (113) later…
Xavier, in answer to your question (#114) I believe Jesus has always been the Son of God. (Psalm 2, Proverbs 8, Proverbs 30:4)
I believe he has been dwelling in God from eternity as his Son (Micah 5:2)
As he has received the word of God, I believe he qualifies as being referred to as a “god”(John 10:35, Psalm 82:6). Being as he is, as the very name of God, God’s very character, having his very qualities, being so much better than any of the “gods” (those who have received the word of God - John 10:35, Psalm 82:6), that we may also refer to him as a “God” or as “The Mighty God”, on such basis, even as there is to us but one God (the Father) and one Lord. (the Lord Jesus)
I do not believe these things to be a contradicion in any way, nor in conflict with each other.
Ray
I understand you believe in a pre-existing Jesus but some of what your saying just doesn’t make any sense to me.
You said, “That Jesus simply spoke the creation into being by God doing all the work and all of this was done by the word and will of God.”
Why would God have to speak a word to Jesus who repeats the word back to God and than God do all the work? It sounds like your portraying Jesus like he was some sort of “echo chamber” that God spoke to. I think it makes a lot more sense to believe that Jesus came into existence at his birth in Bethlehem.
Sorry but I just don’t see it the way you see it…
I am quoting this out of an article i read. this article was not promoting unitarianism or trinitarianism. the facts of this is whats important
“Unfortunately, we don’t know where or when the first Jewish (or Hellenistic-Jewish) thinker rose up from a perusal of the sacred writings and declared that here was the truth: the Messiah was not a future ruler and human agent of God, a priest or warrior, but his own divine Son, a spiritual figure who was pre-existent with the Father. Moreover, he had, within the spiritual realm, descended from the highest sphere of heaven, suffered, died and been exalted in order to bring about the believers’ own exaltation. We don’t know who first applied the name “Yeshua” (Jesus), meaning “deliverer, savior,” to such a spiritual Son and Christ. Indeed, we don’t know if any one individual can be accredited with such innovations. In fact, that is highly unlikely.
What we do know is that such innovators were building on contemporary religious philosophy, both Jewish and Greek. They had antecedents. Only if the fundamental concept of a heavenly intermediary between God and humanity was already part of the philosophical fabric of the time can we understand the genesis of the Christian movement, or the success which apostles like Paul achieved. The creation of Christian ideas out of this fabric was a process which undoubtedly took place at more than one location around the eastern Mediterranean, with various communities and individuals interacting on each other over the course of an unknown number of years. A record of such seminal evolutionary processes has been lost to us, but we can see early manifestations of them in such things as the christological hymns of Philippians (2:6-11), Colossians (1:15-20) and 1 Timothy (3:16), in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Wisdom-Word-Son mysticism of the Odes of Solomon . And we can glean something of Paul’s own application and rethinking of the fledgling ideas he embraced at various points in his letters.
That it was all the product of personal study and pondering over the sacred writings, envisioned as the action of the Spirit in revelation from God, is clear from many passages in the epistles. Paul knows of the Son because God has revealed such an entity directly to him (Galatians 1:16); the Son is the subject of God’s gospel found in the prophets (Romans 1:1-4); and that he died and rose from death is knowledge Paul has received by revelation through a reading of scripture (1 Corinthians 15:3-4:. At the hands of thinkers like Paul, the intermediary Son and his role in salvation was taking new shape.
Consciously or unconsciously, Paul and his contemporaries were fitting their spiritual Son into the thought patterns of the time. And these patterns can be discerned. Perhaps they are nowhere so clear as in Alexandria around the turn of the era, especially in the writings of Philo Judaeus. Philo might be styled a “grandfather” to Christianity, for some of his genes have been passed down to Paul and others, genes he himself had drawn from his own progenitors, the world of Platonic philosophy and Jewish Wisdom theology. Jesus’ genetic makeup was richly endowed.
Philo of Alexandria
The city of Alexandria was founded in the year 331 BCE by Alexander the Great in his march of conquest across the Persian empire. It was home to the largest Jewish community in the Diaspora. Here flourished the most prominent center of Jewish learning outside Palestine, the place where the Hebrew bible had been translated into Greek in the third century BCE. It was arguably the most important point of entry for Greek philosophy in its absorption by the Jews.
The foremost philosopher-theologian of Hellenistic Judaism was born around 25 BCE and lived until some time after the year 41 CE. Philo believed that the Platonic philosophy of his day (now called Middle Platonism) represented a true picture of God and the universe, supplemented by elements of the Stoic and Pythagorean systems. But Philo was first and foremost a Jew, and so he maintained that Judaism lay at the center of this picture, that the Jewish scriptures, as well as Jewish religious observance, embodied the very reality all this Greek philosophy pointed to. His extensive writings set out to illustrate this.
Such an outlook had been developing in Jewish apologetics even before Philo. One of the principal ways of interpreting scripture to make it reflect Greek philosophy was through the use of allegory and symbolism. The text itself could on the surface seem primitive and uninspiring and even be seen to contain unacceptable ideas, but by applying allegory, the literal meaning of the words could be swept aside, or at least supplemented, by deeper meaning. Thus the text could be made to say almost anything the interpreter wanted it to say. Moreover, once the Pentateuch was seen to embody the principles of Platonism, Moses as their author could then be trumpeted as the original promulgator of the truths of the universe—under God’s inspiration. Plato and his fellow Greek thinkers were declared to have gotten their ideas from Moses, through the Jewish scriptures, which they must have read (in Greek translation prior to the Septuagint!) before forming their own philosophies. The first prominent exponent of this audacious piece of chutzpah was Aristobolus of Alexandria, who seems to have flourished around the middle of the first century BCE.
Philo’s relationship to Christianity has over the centuries posed a problem for Christian apologists. On the one hand, he shows not the slightest knowledge of Jesus or the Christian movement, even though he would have survived the crucifixion by more than a decade. And yet his ideas (which would have predated Jesus’ career) have an undeniable affinity with Christian doctrine. The solution, of course, is that Philo represents an expression of the current philosophy of his day, a syncretism between Jewish and Greek, while Christianity was formed from a similar amalgamation of contemporary concepts. Whether any of the ideas in the early Christian catalogue were directly derived from Philo is unknown, but both lines of thought can be reduced to the concept of the Son, the spiritual intermediary between God and the world.”
There was a light that shined in darkness before the sun was made manifest. I believe there is manna hidden in the scriptures.
This light shined in darkness before the world was. God made that light and gave it to the world not so that he could see what he was doing, but for our sakes, no doubt. By this we should see what God was up to, what God was doing, what God was saying by this.
God didn’t need to speak to Jesus with words. I don’t know if he even did at certain times. God is able to communicate without speaking. Sometimes God does use words.
Sometimes God speaks by what he does.
What he has created tells us of his glory. (Psalm 19)
Hello, everyone
Xavier, I saw your question on John 1:10-12. I’ll get to it as soon as I can. I’ve also noted Dave’s answer. Would like to ask him a few things on it as well. But now over to my take on the Great Trinity Debate…
First of all; anyone who read through Bowman’s post, with only little training in formal logic, would see one huge, elaborate argument from ignorance. It goes like this: I make a claim or a statement. I have no direct, positive proof of it - it’s nevertheless my statement. Unless you prove that my statement is false, it will stand as truth.
Bowman starts off by elaborately and exhaustively defending which approaches would not be appropriate in determining the veracity of his heresy-turned-orthodoxy Doctrine. One strawman follows the other. See, no one argued for strictly biblical words (biblicism) no one argued against using modern-day corresponding concepts for those found in the Bible. What is more, Bowman goes as far as saying:
Doesn’t Bowman know that Jesus is called an Apostle (Heb. 3:1), from the Hebrew, sh’liach, carrying the concepts of sent-out one, representative, ambassador? Doesn’t Bowman know what Jesus said about his acting on God’s behalf in John chapters 5 and 6? How on earth can he object, saying that the terms used by Buzzard and Zarley “never applies to Jesus?” The terms and the concept conveyed by Scripture are in perfect agreement.
He even goes as far as saying,
Well, this is as absurd as saying, ‘Nowhere in the Qur’an do we find a denial of the crucifixion.”
In discussing systematic theology, he says:
Our understanding of physics, especially energy and matter, obviously left us thinking about these things from a biblical perspective. One can even say that modern developments necessitate discussing at least some of these matters as they relate to what the Bible tells us. But what do these things have to do with the identity of God? The Bible is all about the identity and activity of God! He then cites the Rev. 20 prophecy and mentions certain interpretations. How does that relate to the discussion of God’s and Jesus’ identities? A symbolic prophecy compared to the central biblical theme?…Bowman’s comparisons are nothing less than misrepresentations of matters par excellence
Finally, almost as an aside, dwindling in comparison with his defending what he anticipates to do (using semantic acrobatics in concocting a logical chaos-cube), he says,
I couldn’t agree with him more…I’d like to see how he derives his concepts and doctrine solely from scripture…
Bowman continues, referring to the Shema:
Well, Bowman is surely negotiating the conceptual boundaries of possibilities in the Shema’s meaning. But what Bowman seems to miss is that an explicit statement may have derived or implied meanings. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. What is more, other texts should allow these implications, and these implications cannot contradict the explicit statement.
Very subtly Bowman tries to put the Biblical Unitarian concept in such a light as to suggest that we are the ones at odds with the central tenet of our faith. He refers, for instance, to the “doctrine of the Trinity” and then mentions “Unitarian forms of non-trinitarian theology…” It reminded me of Sigmund Freud’s postulate of projection, where he shows that the individual who is subconsciously so distressed about something which disagrees with what he holds dear, that he projects or seeks to highlight that very shortcoming in others. I say this because, if I had the time and energy to list all the various forms and versions and explanations and illustrations of the Trinity (not Biblical Unitarianism), I’d end up with a pantheon of trinities close to the number of Hindu gods…I think Bowman knows it…and I think he is quite distressed about it…not us.
Central to Bowman’s semantic acrobatics in wrestling with Deut. 6:4, he distinguishes between person and being. So, to Bowman, Yahweh is one Being but many (three) persons. Now, remember, he said that “all doctrine must derive from the teachings of Scripture, not that we are restricted to using words found in the Bible or to using concepts that one or more biblical writers explicitly formulated.”
I would like to see how and where the bible explicitly distinguishes between being and person, and how this distinction immediately and explicitly derived from the Shema.
If there was one tenet of Judaism by which a faithful Hebrew would live or die, it was the Shema. Are you interested in seeing how important the Shema is to Bowman? This is how:
Telling, isn’t it?
He repeatedly commits the fallacy of arguing from ignorance:
Well, Bowman has to prove that singularity in being is different from singularity in person. He will also have to prove that a plurality of persons can necessarily allow them to be regarded as a singular being. If not, his argument from ignorance cannot be excepted as logical truth.
In reading the section on the incomprehensibility of God, I anticipated Bowman to present our understanding of God as a kind of “blank cheque,” as many have done, to reason that, since it involves God, well, it is so…Well, I was wrong. Bowman did not undertake such a reductionistic course. He did mention things, however, that seem to contradict what he had written elsewhere. He says:
Then why did Bowman compare God’s nature with that of light (particle/wave duality)? I do not agree with this statement completely. The Bible did compare God to different things so as to explain God to us (albeit only limitedly). Central and overwhelmingly numerous in describing God, was the usage of anthropomorphisms. Since God is explained in human terms, it is no surprise that he is presented as a singular person or being (no difference between the two) as in the case of humans.
Bowman then appears to confuse matters again. After referring to concepts such as God’s omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, he says:
What Bowman seems to miss is that these concepts, although hard to grasp, are still explicitly stated in the Bible. Dave beautifully outlined different scriptures showing that God existed from eternity to eternity, that he is Almighty, that he knows everything, that He is everywhere. These are explicitly stated. We just called these explicitly stated concepts omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. But, sorry for Bowman, this is not the case for either the premises, or the assumptions of the trinity; not even closely.
To my relief Bowman states that incomprehensibility is not the same as contradiction. I hope Dave takes note of this. The Bible does provide mutually exclusive, and thus contradictory aspects surrounding what God is and what man is. These should be shown in challenging the biblically articulated absurdity of a God-man.
Finally Bowman says something which again sounded like the kettle calling the pot black:
I’m glad he says that. And I hope Dave will argue against a priori objections that amount to saying that the Trinity should be regardless of what the Bible may say.
Dave’s reply to Bowman’s first post was superbly done. He is very sharp in pointing out logical fallacies of a man extremely capable of subtly importing these. Dave made a great point in highlighting Bowman’s a priori rejecting solid biblical articulation of singularity of God’s Being and Person, and he calls Bowman to task for it.
An atheist professor in Philosophy once said that Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion would have red scribbles all over the place for all the logical errors and fallacies he commits in it. I wonder what he would say of Bowman’s introductory piece. All in all, after reflecting upon this post, I realise that Bowman elegantly introduces us to his trinitarian god of the gaps.
Ray
RE: Micah 5.2, following are comments from the ESV Study Bible, a trini commentary to be sure:
Nothing do with an already “eternal” existing “Son of God” in heaven before his human birth. Heb 1 explicitly says that Jesus is not an angel and only angels are said to dwell in the heavenly places.
True, the same as Moses at Ex 4.16; 7.1 and the Davidic king at Psa 45.6. But this does not mean they were already existing before their respective human births.
So again, if Jesus is not another “God” or an angel, what was he before his birth? What is his name? Where is he in the OT?
I believe Micah 5:2 is saying that Jesus existed with God from eternity. Other scriptures also tell me that it’s so.
Ray
Again I ask…what was he before his birth? What is his name? Where is he in the OT?
I have looked up all the references containing the word “logos,” and you are right. Almost all of them refer to an utterance, or a communication of some kind. An “it” in other words. Thank you to whoever made me look it up.
However, John speaks in Revelation 19:11-16 of a white horse coming out of heaven, and the rider has two names. One is blazoned on his clothes for everyone to see: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (v. 16). (Not an “it”.)
But in verse 13 John gives this person a name that is NOT written on his clothes for men to see. “His name is called THE WORD OF GOD (ho logos tou theou).”
That name fits Hebrews 1:1. God in these last days has spoken to us in his Son. The Son communicates God perfectly, because he is the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is God’s last “word” to man - the one in whom we see what God is really like.
The name also fits John 1:1. “In the beginning (or at the start) ho logos was with ho theos”. Two names - two persons - one WITH the other. But only ONE of the two was “ho theos”.
All in all, I think the evidence favors the pronoun “he” in John 1:1.
But that does not make God tri-une. Jaco’s critique of Bowman’s first post is pretty well right on, I think.
Margaret
Yes, as the writer of Hebrews puts it, “in these last days God has spoken through a Son”. Same idea the writer of John connotes, until the birth of the human Messiah can we speak about him as “the word of God” [] and given some of the YHWH-titles associated with such a figure. But it is clear this does not mean the Son was there before his birth as some unnamed, preexistent “word”!
SO you agree the logos at Jn 1.1 is an “it” yet also a “he”, Jesus?
Xavier:
- “the word” is not some preexistent being but simply God’s self-expression of Himself.
So “In the beginning God’s self-expression of himself was WITH (pros) God.” That would hardly be worth saying.
I like Andrew’s reference to 1 John 1:1-3. The “word of life” was something (someone?) the disciples had seen and heard and handled. It was the same eternal life that was WITH (pros) the Father and was manifested to them.
And eternal life is to know the only true God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, whom the only true God SENT (John 17:3).
Thanks, Andrew. That fits a few more pieces into the picture.
Margaret
Yes, I agree, it is odd if we read it as prose. But the passage is obviously figurative, poetic language. The equivalent of which would be: “I give you my word.”
Remember, we are dealing with a 2 000 year old Jewish text with Ancient Rome/Greek elements for its Jewish-Gentile audience. And not some modern English text.
Note that most English translators render “the word of life” of 1Jn 1.1-4 as a “what” and not a “who/he”.
RE: Christians are “sent into the world”
Xavier,
I am not good at formating in blogs.
So, whether I use trinitarian arguments or not is not to the point - just the validity or otherwise of the arguments.
My inclusio with 20:28 is not affected by any claims as to the purpose of the book; I can agree 20:31.
I do not like the paraphrase…
“In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus is God.”
since the text does not have the proper name ‘Jesus’. My argument is about the reference of ‘logos’ and not anything else. And to keep things on track the argument is about the justification of ‘him’ in v. 3 and this i the most common translation.
So, onto the attribution of “eisegesis at its best”. It isn’t because it is a claim based on a computer concordance search of the phrase, a bringing together of the relevant texts, and observing a priestly/mediator pattern.
Eisegesis would be less textually based.
So, why does the phrase pros ton theon have this implication? The translators go for ‘with’ but ‘towards’ is better. The implication is there because scriptural usage is interpreting scriptural usage. But it is also there because of the way it fits a reading of John 1 that I have not presented.
You will note I haven’t mentioned pre-existence; I don’t think John 1 requires that reading. Also, I haven’t excluded the relevance of Ps 33. The reason why logos is used as a title to refer to Jesus can be grounded in Ps 33 and Gen 1, and for that matter, it could be counter-rhetoric towards Jewish ideas of the Logos. These are matters to do with the sense and tone of the expression.
My argument is about reference and what it is that is appropriate as the subject of the predicates ‘was God’ and ‘was towards God’. This is Jesus.
I believe in short posts.
Andrew
Jaco,
Thanks for your analysis. I appreciate the fact that you’re critiquing both sides of the argument and I hope you’ll point out any errors or omissions in my posts.
It is if you keep thinking that the one God of Israel somehow is His own Son. Prima facie!
Yeah up until the Catholic induced Protestant KJV of 1602. If the logos is to be identified with anyone Person, is it God Himself.
Again, I agree that for the Western mind it is an odd saying. But like I told Margaret above, we first have to understand that the passage should not be read as prose but as a piece of poetry/figurative language. Second, the closest approximation that our Western eyes can understand is in the colloquial saying: “I give you my word.”
Sounds like typical trini preexistence argument to me Andrew. Since you have the one God speaking to Jesus.
JohnE,
The point we’re debating is whether John is using it that way or the way Hebrews used it. His prologue doesn’t say it was “A god,” it says “the word was God.” And it doesn’t say it was “the image of God,” that was in II Cor. 4:4. As for being “with God,” see below. It isn’t a being who is God’s partner in creation, but an extension of God Himself.
************************************************
andrewneileen,
As Dave said, there is no problem with the “word” being used in the same way in Psalm 33:6, 9 and Isa. 55:11 as it is in John. If we understand God’s Word as His will, or self-expression, which is communicated in various ways, and eventually became flesh.
The following excerpt from Anthony Buzzard’s article, “John 1:1 Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)” explains it better than I ever could.
The Meaning of “Word”
Sensible Bible study would require that we attempt to understand what “word” would mean in the background of John’s thinking. Commentators have long recognized that John is thoroughly Hebrew in his approach to theology. He is steeped in the Hebrew Bible. “Word” had appeared some 1,450 times (plus the verb “to speak” 1,140 times) in the Hebrew Bible known so well to John and Jesus. The standard meaning of “word” is utterance, promise, command, etc. It never meant a personal being — never “the Son of God.” Never did it mean a spokesman. Rather, word generally signified the index of the mind — an expression, a word. There is a wide range of meanings for “word” according to a standard source. “Person,” however, is not among these meanings.
We might add that “As a man thinks in his heart [and speaks] so is he” (Prov. 23:7). A person “is” his word. “In the beginning there was the word,” that is, the word of God. Clearly John did not say that the word was a spokesperson. Word had never meant that. Of course the word can become a spokesperson, and it did when God expressed Himself in a Son by bringing Jesus onto the scene of history. So then Hebrews 1:2 says: “God, after He had spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, at the end of these days has spoken in a Son.” The implication is that God did not earlier speak through His unique Son, but later He did. There is an important chronological distinction between the time before the Son and the time after the Son. There was a time when the Son was not yet.
It would be a serious mistake of interpretation to discard the massively attested meaning of “word” in the Hebrew matrix from which John wrote and attach to it a meaning it never had — a “person,” second member of a divine Trinity. No lexicon of the Hebrew Bible ever listed davar (Hebrew for “word”) as a person, God, angel or man.
The Word “With God”
John’s prologue continues: “And the word was with God.” So read our versions. And so the Greek might be rendered, if one has already decided, against all the evidence, that by “word” John meant a person, the Son of God, alive before his birth.
Allowance must be made for Hebrew idiom. Without a feel for the Hebrew background, as so often in the New Testament, we are deprived of a vital key to understanding. We might ask of an English speaker, “When was your word last ‘with you’?” The plain fact is that in English, which is not the language of the Bible, a “word” is never “with” you. A person can be “with you,” certainly, but not a word.
But in the wisdom literature of the Bible a “word” certainly can be “with” a person. And the meaning is that a plan or purpose — a word — is kept in one’s heart ready for execution. For example Job says to God (10:13): “Yet these things you have concealed in your heart; I know that this is with you.” The NASV gives a more intelligible sense in English by reading, “ I know that this is within you.” The NIV reads “in your mind.” But the Hebrew literally reads “with you.” Again in Job 23:13, 14 it is said of God, “What his soul desires, that he does, for he performs what is appointed for me, and many such decrees are with him,” meaning, of course, that God’s plans are stored up in His mind. God’s word is His intention, held in His heart as plans to be carried out in the world He has created. Sometimes what God has “with Him” is the decree He has planned. With this we may compare similar thoughts: “This is the portion of a wicked man with God and the inheritance which tyrants receive from Him” (Job 27:13). “I will instruct you in the power of God; what is with the Almighty I will not conceal” (Job 27:11).
We should also consider the related concept of “Wisdom.” In Job we find this: “The deep says ‘It [Wisdom] is not in me.’ And the sea says, ‘It is not with me’ ” (Job 28:14). To have wisdom or word “with” one is to have them in one’s mind and heart. “With him is wisdom and strength. To him belong counsel and understanding” (Job 12:13). And of course Wisdom, that is Lady Wisdom, was with (Hebrew, etzel; LXX, para) God at the beginning (Prov. 8:22, 30).
In Genesis 40:14 we read “Keep me in mind when it goes well with you,” and the text reads literally “Remember me with yourself…” From all these examples it is clear that if something is “with” a person, it is lodged in the mind, often as a decreed purpose or plan. Paul remarked in Galatians 2:5 that the Gospel might continue “with [pros] them,” in their thinking. John in his Gospel elsewhere uses para, not pros to express the proximity of one person to another (John 1:39; 4:40; 8:38; 14:17, 23, 25; 19:25; cp. 14:23. Note also meta in John 3:22, 25ff, etc. See New Int. Dict. of NT Theology, Vol. 3, p. 1205).
Thus also in John 1:1, “In the beginning God had a plan and that plan was within God’s heart and was itself ‘God’ ” — that is, God in His self-revelation. The plan was the very expression of God’s will. It was a divine Plan, reflective of His inner being, close to the heart of God. John is fond of the word “is.” But it is not always an “is” of strict identity. Jesus “is” the resurrection (“I am the resurrection”). God “is” spirit. God “is” love and light (cp. “All flesh is grass”). In fact, God is not actually one-to-one identical with light and love, and Jesus is not literally the resurrection. “The word was God” means that the word was fully expressive of God’s mind. A person “is” his mind, metaphorically speaking. Jesus is the one who can bring about our resurrection. God communicates through His spirit (John 4:24). The word is the index of God’s intention and purpose. It was in His heart, expressive of His very being. As the Translators’ Translation senses the meaning, “the Word was with God and shared his nature,” “the Word was divine.”[4] The word, then, is the divine expression, the divine Plan, the very self of God revealed. The Greek phrase “theos een o logos”[5] (“the word was God”) can be rendered in different ways. The subject is “word” (logos) but the emphasis falls on what the word was: “God” (theos, with no definite article), which stands at the head of the sentence. “God” here is the predicate. It has a slightly adjectival sense which is very hard to put exactly into English. John can say that God is love or light. This is not an exact equivalence. God is full of light and love, characterized by light and love. The word is similarly a perfect expression of God and His mind. The word, we might say, is the mind and heart of God Himself. John therefore wrote: “In the beginning God expressed Himself.” Not “In the beginning God begat a Son.” That imposition of later creeds on the text has been responsible for all sorts of confusion and even mischief — when some actually killed others over the issue of the so-called “eternal Son.”
Mark C.
Great post, lots to disgest. Let me ask you also…
What do you make of the word translated as “him/he” [autos] throughout vv.1-12. Who is it referring to, especially when it comes to vv.9-12?
Good point, Xavier. “As the Father sent me, so send I you.” That doesn’t specify the time the Father sent the Son, but it could easily fit his anointing for service as a man.
Getting back to John 1:1, though, the fact that THE WORD OF GOD (ho logos tou theou) is the NAME of a PERSON (Rev. 19:13) justifies the conclusion that THE WORD (ho logos) in John 1:1 is the same NAME of the same PERSON. That person is WITH the person of GOD (ho theos).
And please - let’s not fall into the trap of excusing something that sounds irrational by appealing to figurative language. The sentence “ho logos was WITH ho theos” cannot be dismissed as “I give you my word.” The whole passage is too profound for that.
I really appreciated Dave’s point that ordinary people should be able to understand what the Bible says, even though nobody can possibly grasp all that it means.
In other words, I don’t consider it necessary to learn everything that Greek philosphers taught. The Word of God is enough.
Margaret
Yes, I see what your doing. I think your jumping ahead of the text here and more than that, reading into the prologue of John something that is still in the eschatological [end days] future of what is later written in the book of Revelation. Also, keep in mind that the significance of the name [”word of God”] bestowed upon Jesus is symbolic:
See: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=72
Sure, in a “perfect world”. Remember though, as John warns in his letters, the spirit of the antichrist has been running rampant trying to confuse and lose the flock. It wasn’t for nothing that Jesus himself dispenses the “spirit of truth” to guide anyone who is seeking the truth [John 14]. Not only that, but teachers as well:
Jesus is what the Word became. Thus “his name is called the Word” in Revelation. But it was never used to refer to a person before that.
MarkC,
You quoted Buzzard…
“John’s prologue continues: “And the word was with God.” So read our versions. And so the Greek might be rendered, if one has already decided, against all the evidence, that by “word” John meant a person, the Son of God, alive before his birth.”
… and as I said, I am not assuming any pre-existence of the Son. I have not defended the view that the Word refers to the Son of God alive before his birth. The problem with your quote is that Buzzard is not discriminating aspects of meaning and in particular the sense and reference of an expression. And so, I accept the database of usage for ‘word’ in the Hebrew and that it is used for (sic) words, for speech and utterances, and for for what is said. But this Hebrew database does not constrain the reference of ‘logos’ in John - it (or rather the relevant OT texts) are however informing the sense of ‘logos’.
So, in the same way as we have a hypostatizing use of ‘word’ in Isa 55:11, so we have a personifying use of ‘word’ in John. This personifying use is indicated by a) ‘was towards God’ and b) ‘was God’. Along with the Hebraic sense of ‘dabar’ you need to factor in these personifying predicates to see the reference to Jesus. This is why the ‘plan, purpose’ reference proposal fails. (Theological Aside: John wants us to think of Jesus as the word of the new creation - the antitype to the word that God spoke to bring about the Genesis creation. So we need the ordinary Hebraic sense of dabar but a reference to Jesus.)
I note that Buzzard’s Job references do not use dabar and his Proverbs wisdom texts do not do so either. When arguing the case for ‘plan, purpose’ it would be better to use dabar texts. Texts about ‘what’s in the mind’ or ‘wisdom’ are going to be weaker for your purpose than dabar texts if you want to defend a ‘plan, purpose’ view of John 1.
So, Margaret is right to retain a reference to Jesus in v. 1, the pronoun ‘him’ is right for v. 3, but we have nothing in the resources of these opening 3 verses to generate ideas of pre-existence, and I will argue against that reading.
There are other arguments to support this line but its best to keep things short. The ‘pros ton theon’ is holding up well. As Buzzard says, “A person can be “with you,” certainly, but not a word”.
So far, I have not mentioned v. 14, although MarkC does in reply to Margaret. I prefer ‘was’ to ‘became’ in v. 14 and would suggest that v. 14 is not about what follows v. 1 but it is about what has happened before v. 1. But I would prefer not to open up a second area around v. 14. I am just pointing out the pervasive nature of our reading assumptions with regard to John 1.
Andrew
Andrew
If Jesus is being referred to why are you against the reading I alluded to earlier: “In the beginning was Jesus…” etc.
As many of us have said before and I will say again:
* In the OT logos [dabar] appears 1500 times as “utterance, promise, command, decree”, etc.
* For Jews this term referred to “the word of the Lord God”, an expression of His wisdom and creative power. And not some seperate, independent “person”!
* Which means that the logos [”word”] is an idea that finds concrete expression; a single word, a command; a line of reasoning; a summary of a person’s thought, etc.
* In English, “word”=abstract noun; a thing; abstract idea. It is never a person!
* In other languages [Spanish, French] “word” is a noun with gender, accompanied by gender-specific pronouns [“him, her”] but not in English; it still does not make it a person!
* All 8 English translations from the original Greek prior to KJV [1611] and 30 after have “it” instead of “he”.
Am I missing something here?
Let me repeat: “The word of God” (ho logos tou theou) is used by John as the name of a PERSON (Rev. 19:13). This is the name that men don’t know, but HE knows (v. 12).
I greatly appreciate what I learn from teachers; but Paul cautions us to “test all things,” and your suggestion that the name of “ho logos tou theou” is confined to a future time is just as contrived as some of the arguments that trinitarians have been pushing at me for years.
This person is the Word of God. He isn’t going to BECOME the Word of God at some future date. He has ALWAYS been the ultimate expression of God.
Margaret, there’s a difference between a name and who (or what) someone actually is.
Jesus is called “God with us” in Isaiah 7:14. Was he truly God with us, or was that just a name signifying one aspect of his life and mission?
Xavier,
Well, yes, I suppose you are missing something. First, the easy bit. You can’t substitute co-referential expressions without affecting the sense of a sentence. This is standard philosophical logic. So, ‘Elizabeth Regina is over eighty’ has less information than ‘The Queen of England is over eighty’ although the name and the title are co-referential. So, if you have ‘In the beginning was Jesus…’ you are taking away from the sentence everything that ‘logos’ is bringing to the sentence to determine its reference - its sense. Hence, my objection.
Onto dabar. It’s very common. So I look to restrict the database and the echo of Genesis 1 with ‘In the beginning’ makes me associate logos with the series of ‘And God saids’ there with Ps 33 and Isa 55 to help the exegesis. Here we have dabar as utterance (or better, words) and we are using Ps 33 to interpret Gen 1, and this does not give us ‘plan, purpose’.
To try a different tack: Suppose someone says the word of God in the OT is an expression of God’s purpose; in this case, there is a concrete and an abstract reference to take into account: the utterance/word as well as the purpose (x of y). The mistake you are making is to ignore the concrete (x) and go for the abstract (y). The echo with Genesis 1 directs us to make a concrete connection: Jesus is the antitype to the word God spoke in the beginning.
John is personifying the word that was spoken and thereby creating a reference to Jesus.
A last point: Suppose I say, ‘Our mission is to secure economic growth’ - I have used words to express a plan or purpose. The ‘And God saids’ are nothing like these words and so plan and purpose are not in view.
I venture to suggest, somewhat controversially, that Biblical Unitarianism has not sufficiently de-coupled from church thinking. It is still working with an incarnational framework except that it is now the plan and purpose of God that has become incarnate in Jesus rather than God the Son. I am proposing a more radical reading of John 1. One less easy to defend in the Bowman-Burke debate but closer to the intertexts of John 1.
Andrew
“I venture to suggest, somewhat controversially, that Biblical Unitarianism has not sufficiently de-coupled from church thinking. It is still working with an incarnational framework except that it is now the plan and purpose of God that has become incarnate in Jesus rather than God the Son.”
Andrew
This is a very true statement, I have watched, listened and read these debates and the first thing that comes to mind is who is this binitarian posing as a unitarian. where is the unitarian that understands that Jesus was 100% human and 100% possessed by God’s Holy spirit. Where is the unitarian that understands when Jesus spoke and when the Spirit spoke, Where is the unitarian that understands that Jesus could die but the Holy spirit had to leave first and where is the unitarian that sees why Jesus felt he was forsaking by God when the Spirit was taken back By God.
Who or what Jesus is now is not defined completly but we do know it is a highly exalted position as the first begotten of the dead. This gives him the priesthood as being the (elder) head of the family and the Kingship from his earthy birthright as the Son of David
Jesus, being as God is, truly is the Word of God, and we learn from John that the Word was God in the beginning.
To me that means that the word of God had dominion, power and glory, just as God did. Having come from the Father, the Word declared what was to be, and it became by the power of God.
There is a sense in which Jesus is God just as there is a sense in which people can be salt or light.
It’s not robbery if Jesus says that he is God.
I believe Jesus dwelt in the Father and that the Father dwelt in Jesus in the beginning, before the world was made. The light of life was in God, having the power of the Father. Being in the throne of God, the life that was given unto us, (Jesus) was with the Father.
Joseph was in many ways equal with the Pharaoh of Egypt but I don’t know if the Pharaoh ever let Joseph sit in his throne.
Ray, are you aware that faithful believers will sit with Jesus in his throne?
Margaret
Well, you seem to know it so how can it be hidden or unknown?
Are you an Arian then? Who or What was this preexistent “word of God”?
Andrew
This isn’t about “philosophy” but about Biblical exegesis, theology!
Seems we agree. But then you say it is referring to a person at Jn 1.1, namely Jesus?
Not at all. He is keeping within the OT understanding of dabar [logos, LXX] as God’s self-expression and not as relating to a second person. The Messiah is throughout the Hebrew scripture represented as a future, yet to be created [Ps 2.7] human representative of God. And not as yet an existing one, either in archetypcal form or not.
Whilst that may be true, I personally do not see a literal incarnation here as most of Catholic/Protestanism does. The prologue is simply speaking, in poetical form, how God Himself has come to “dwell, tabernacle” amongs humanity in the person of His “one-of-a-kind” Son.
Technically speaking, as noted Bible scholar R. E. Brown writes, ““Incarnation means that at his human conception on the Son of God did not come into existence; rather he was a previously existing agent in the divine sphere who took on flesh in the womb of Mary. Technically incarnation does not tell us whether this agent was created (as were the angels who exist in the divine sphere) or existed with God before any creation. A fortiori, it does not tell us whether the agent was God or equal to God…many scholars, influenced by the Prologue to John’s Gospel where the Word who becomes flesh does exist before creation, join the two ideas.” [An Introduction to New Testament Christology, p 34-35]
A footnote to this quote shows just how thousands of Catholic orthodoxy has clouded even modern scholarship to the simple biblical teaching of a “Conception Christology” as opposed to this “Precreational Christology”, as termed by Brown:
The epistles of Ignatius are shockingly interpolated and need to be approached with care. Nevertheless I believe that it is possible to winnow the wheat from the chaff and arrive at a clear view of Ignatius’ beliefs, which were, in my opinion, perfectly sound.
Dave: “Margaret, there’s a difference between a name and who (or what) someone actually is.”
I see your point, Dave.
Nevertheless, wouldn’t you agree that the person whose name is “the Word of God” is, indeed, the ultimate expression of God?
It is in THAT sense (I think) that the Son of God is “God with us.” He is fully God - fully divine - and expresses to us all that God is. So anyone who knows the Son knows the Father ALSO (John 14:7).
To be honest, I am not convinced that the logos of John 1:1 does not refer to a person. I am withholding judgement on that until I see the rest of the debate.
By the way, your first post is excellent. Poor Rob really doesn’t have much material with which to build a case for a God who is three. The next round may be a bit more challenging.
And if I have trouble locating it, I’ll ask for a link.
Margaret:
Well, “ultimate expression of God” is an odd sort of expression and I’m not really sure what you mean by it. But perhaps we can find some common ground by saying that Jesus gave us the most accurate possible representation of God while he was on earth. If that’s what you mean by “the ultimate expression of God”, then I agree.
I think that’s fair enough. It’s unreasonable to expect everyone here to agree, let alone on the basis of one week’s debate!
Thanks Margaret, I appreciate the compliment. I think Rob will find my next post rather interesting.
Hello
I don’t think I am a binatarian, Robert, but don’t know if you were saying I was one. I take the counter point about incarnation, Xavier; it’s a question of definition - if you define incarnation to be person related, then you exclude the notion of the incarnation of a plan or purpose.
So, since logic is a description of reasoning, as best we can construct it, and God invites us to reason together, I don’t see a problem with my argument about co-referentiality.
I think an issue here might be ‘in the beginning’. I propose this is a time reference to the ministry of Jesus so that what we have is: in this beginning was the Word and the Word was towards God. My first argument is that v. 2 is a parallel to v. 7: “the same was in the beginning” versus “the same came for a witness”. There is a contrast between John’s ministry and Jesus’ ministry going on in John 1. It’s all very historical and not at all before the mists of time. There is no threat of a pre-existence reading on this score and we don’t need a plan or purpose to become flesh to avoid an icarnational reading.
I should say, I don’t mind the theology of the purpose of God being made flesh; its just that it doesn’t fit the use of logos/dabar in John 1 which is really about words or the word of God personified in Jesus.
Andrew
Dave
Ignatius Christology, whilst sometimes unclear, was indicative of the other early “Church Fathers” who saw Jesus as “the true God”. Following are just some examples from his Letter to the Ephesians:
Andrew
This is an interpretation that the so-called Adoptionist heresy is said to have held in the early Church.
To be consistent, there is nothing to say that “when the word became flesh” is not related to the virgin birth as recounted in Matthew and Luke.
Xavier:
I have conducted a study of every single letter that Ignatius wrote, and I have concluded that the very few places where he appears to display binitarian or Trinitarian tendencies can be rejected as later interpolations. My analysis is online and you can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/yd3tvg4
“I don’t think I am a binatarian, Robert, but don’t know if you were saying I was one. I take the counter point about incarnation.”
Andrew
I was keying off your counter point, If you believe in incarnation at Jesus’ conception then at least you have half God. If you look at the birth narrative and see the declaration of a future king(son of God) then you have a human who through perfection received the Word in the Flesh by the Holy spirit dwelling in him after his baptism. this is unitarianism.
No matter what you call the other you have Jesus as a lessor God while he walked the earth.
Xavier,
I wasn’t presenting an adoptionist view of the union of the Logos with Jesus of Nazerath. This is what F. Watson does in the essay you cite (p. 114). I would take the view that v. 14 is about the virgin birth. I was saying v. 1 is about the beginning of the ministry and that there is no sequence in time moving forward between v. 1 and v. 14.
To add a further detail…
There is no prologue in John 1 that extends from v. 1 to v. 14 or v. 18; rather there is a set of paragraphs, with vv. 1-5 being the obvious first paragraph. People are misled in connecting v. 1 and v. 14 as a sequence implying pre-existence by the use of ‘became’ but the Greek egeneto features in vv. 3, 6 and 10 as simply ‘was’ or ‘was made’. V. 14 begins a new paragraph unrelated sequentially with the paragraph vv. 1-5.
Thanks for pointing out the Watson essay.
Andrew
This has certainly made me do a lot of studying that I did not do before. For that, I am grateful. I don’t mind learning something that proves me wrong, and I’m happy to learn something that confirms what I believe.
I’ve been thinking about “en arche” (in the beginning, or at the start).
These exact words appear in the Septuagint version of Genesis 1:1. The parallel is striking, I think. [I wish I knew how to format here, but you will recognize the mixture of Greek and English.]
Genesis 1:1 - “En arche” created “ho theos” the heaven and the earth.
John 1:1 - “En arche” the Word was with “ho theos”.
My FIRST impression is that the two verses refer to the same time, and involve the same person (God). John simply adds a detail that is not DIRECTLY stated in Genesis.
First impressions can be wrong, of course. I’m prepared to look at all the evidence.
Hello Margaret
The beginning of the Gospel can echo the beginning of Genesis because John is introducing a new creation theme in v. 3. Compare here Mark 1:1 or 1 John 1:1 for the right beginning. The RV gets the Greek right for v. 3-4 when it defines ‘that which was made was life in him’ - new life in Christ, the new creation. Its not the same time as Genesis.
Robert, ‘incarnation’ is not right as a description of v. 14 - this is an affirmation that Jesus Christ “came” in the flesh whuch was a concern for John - see his letters.
I obviously accept traditional authorship ascriptions.
Andrew
“Robert, ‘incarnation’ is not right as a description of v. 14 - this is an affirmation that Jesus Christ “came” in the flesh whuch was a concern for John - see his letters.”
Andrew
I agree, but state it is not even close. I dont find any concept of incarnation within the covers of the bible. I dont see any birth account within John’s writings. What i see is a 2nd temple mindset describing the receiving of the holy spirit in fulness as was promised by God in the prophets. I see John comparing Moses’ purpose when he received it thru the staff of God and the way Jesus received it in His flesh because of the purity of it caused by perfect obidience to Gods ways. His flesh becoming a temple for God thru His Spirit to dwell amongst his children. He was chosen because he was without spot of his own freewill to be the pure sacrifice for all mankind. Jesus being called the Son of God in birth narrative was in reference to His future reign as King not a reference to God fathering him. God just caused the conception to happen as he had many times before.Whether Mary was a virgin before or after has no bearing. She could of just been a surrogate to carry the seed of Joseph which the Holy spirit placed in her without intercourse. I just dont find any evidence of a birth narrative in John 1 , I see an act of God that John the baptist was to witness and did at Jesus’s baptism not birth. Whether Jesus could be called a son of God after this I find irrelevant because the phrase has so many uses. As far as First Beggotten we find that it was used to explain The Word of God many centuries before Jesus and was figurative not literal and was the mindset of many of the time of Jesus.
Can anyone tell me where in the NT we see more personifying of an aspect of God.
Its there!!
Dave
Are you sure of that Dave? Have never heard that before. Got any scholars to back that up with?
Margaret
Of course their the same, neither is alluding to some preexistent Son as “the word”. The “word” is the means by which God creates all things and His self-expression. Period.
Hello Robert,
That position would be a different thread to mine which is just about the reference of the Word in v. 1. Can’t deflect onto that topic area without leaving behind my thread on the blog.
Andrew
Andrew
your right this doesnt fit your discussion because it makes it irrelevant because what you are discussion is a mindset of that time not a literal belief.
there is a literal belief found within John and that is what John the Baptist was to witness literally at the baptism.
But i will let you continue with your topic.
Xavier:
Yes, I’m sure. Yes, I do have scholars to back that up. Read my article.
Only seven of the letters are authentic. These seven letters contain a total of only nine proto-Binitarian statements, none of which are distinctly Trinitarian. At least six of these statements can be dismissed by (a) an appeal to the alternate rescension, (b) an appeal to the Biblical standard which pervades Ignatius’ works, and (c) an appeal to mainstream commentators and standard authorities.
This leaves only two or three proto-Binitarian statements common to both rescensions, which must be weight against the greater body of evidence. Even Trinitarian scholars have agreed that this presents serious problems for their case.
Robert,
That is correct. It is the nature of radical alternatives to cancel each other out - but the evaluation of the strengths of one is not faciltated by a jump to another. Maybe discussion of the plan/purpose reading of John 1:1 is at an end.
Andrew
Hi, Andrew. You may be right, but I can’t see a new creation in verse 3. “All things were made by him” sounds more like Genesis to me. Mark’s introduction has a completely different flavor.
John gets to the subject of the gospel in v. 6, it seems to me - as Mark does in v. 2.
In any case, I appreciate hearing your viewpoint, and I appreciate the way you express it.
By the way, your references to the preposition “pros” made me look up all the passages where John uses the word (108 of them!) and then check a lexicon for more. It’s fascinating. I’m not quite ready to put it all together, but thank you for making me look.
Dave, in answer to your question in #143, Yes. In heaven there is a great throne which is made up of many thrones. Everyone who is seated in Christ is a part of it. God is over all those seated there and so is Jesus. In Christ, the saints are already seated there.
(Ephesians 2:6)
The first few verses in John are interesting.
If we don’t interpret verse 3 to say that all things were made by Christ, John gives us another chance in verse 10.
Hi, Andrew.
I can’t go into everything I’ve learned about the word “pros,” or this post would be a mile long, and most of it off topic. It is used MANY times; and as you have pointed out, it usually has the meaning of “toward” - whether it’s toward a place, or a person, or a goal (as in Mt. 23:5).
That is particularly true of verbs that imply motion or speech. So the idea that is prominent in such passages is DIRECTION.
But with a verb like “to be,” the idea of direction takes second place to PROXIMITY. So the word is translated “with”. Examples are:
Matthew 13:56 (and Mark 6:3)) - “And his sisters, are they not all WITH us?”
Mark 9:19 - “O faithless generation, how long shall I be WITH you?
Mark 14:49 - “I was WITH you daily in the temple teaching …”
2 Corinthians 11:9 - “And being present WITH you, … I did not burden anyone.”
Philippians 1:26 - “that your boasting may abound through my presence WITH you again.”
1 Thessalonians 3:4 - “When we were WITH you, we told you …”
So John 1:1 & 2 are properly translated, “In the beginning the Word was WITH God … This one was in the beginning WITH God.” Proximity, rather than direction, is in view.
Both Thayer’s Lexicon and BAG are tremendously interesting. Reading all the passages is interesting, too, but there are so MANY.
Ray, post 142 suggests that Jesus said he was God. Did he ever say that?
While I think of it, the title “God the Son” is not in the Bible. The title is always, “Son OF GOD”.
There is no “God the Spirit,” either. The title is “Spirit OF GOD”.
On the other hand, “God the Father” appears often, while “Father of God” appears never.
Dave
That’s interesting Dave, I always saw these early “Church Fathers” as binitarian anyways. The fact is though they all seem to have been influenced by Gnostic ideas.
We must be careful not to misunderstand the facts and confuse the authenticity concerning which letters Ignatius wrote and the authenticity of the content. If we conclude that it is true that Ignatius only wrote seven letters, it does not necessarily follow that the Short Recension copies of the seven letters we have are uncorrupted.
Ray
You may be right but it can also refer back to God at v.10. But this is my question regarding the translation of “him/he” [autos, auton] I think consistency is a must when it comes to translation. If your of the camp that thinks its Jesus throughout the prologue, then you hold to the traditional translations of “”him/he”. But if your of the BU camp makes more sense to be consistent and keep the common/abstract nouns of “light, life, light” as “it”.
But as you pointed Ray, v.10 is the only instance in this passage that the personal pronoun of “him” [auton] is used. As referring either to God [BU view] or Jesus [trini view].
Xavier:
Gnosticism was a later development of the 2nd Century and some of the early church fathers actively fought against it, so we must be careful not to throw the Gnostic accusation at all and sundry.
The earliest early church fathers were perfectly kosher. Papias, Polycarp and Clement of Rome give no indication of Binitarian or Trinitarian tendencies. On the contrary, they are strictly and explicitly Unitarian. I believe Ignatius follows in this Christological tradition and I believe this can be proved by carefully dividing the truth from the interpolated error in his epistles.
I totally agree. This is an argument I make in my article. The Short Rescension is traditionally identified as the “correct one”, but this conclusion is weakened by the negative evidence against Trinitarianism that we find within it.
Dave
As far as I can tell scholarship is divided on whether Gnosticism predated Christianity or not. From the historical evidence I have personally delved through it appears that it may have predated it not as the [Christian influenced] Gnosticism it came to be known as, but as a mix of pagan/philosophical ideas going back to Ancient Middle Eastern religions like Zoroaster etc.
As Bart Ehrman contends in his book The lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot [dated c.140-150AD] that such Gnostic works “will not tell us much about whether Gnosticism predated Christianity, sprang up as a sister religion at about the same time, or posdated Christianity as a heretical version of the Christian religion. At the same time, this text may lend some support to the view that Gnosticism–at least the form embodied here–probably did not begin as a reaction to Christianity–or as an offshoot–but that it had its beginnings in non-Christian Judaism.
Dave
Interestingly enough though Dave none of these “Early Church Fathers” that have come down to us were actual Jewish Christians. Most, if not all, were of Gentiles origin, which is where the problem lies. They all strayed pretty early on it seems from the Hebraic roots of the Greek NT books.
I agree with your assesment that the early ones we know of are either strangely silent on binitarian or trini ideas, or jus ambigious about it. Certainly the evidence for their works is scant to say the least, thus making it hard to come to a general concesus [as the point you made with Ignatius shows]. Since even later full blown trinis like Origen and Athanasius would agree with unitarians that God is the Father, “the Almighty,” and Jesus his only-begotten Son.
Xavier:
The academic consensus is that Gnosticism was at the very most a 2nd Century belief system. It simply did not exist in the 1st Century. Some of the ideas that it drew on certainly existed before that time, but Gnosticism itself was a much later development.
Your quote from Ehrman is largely speculative; he is simply thinking out loud here, not making concrete claims about evidence for the early existence of Gnosticism.
Xavier, have you read the works of Papias, Polycarp and Clement of Rome? I have, and I can tell you that there’s not a single word of Binitarian or proto-Trinitarian ideology in them. If you can find me even half a dozen such references from each man, I’ll eat my hat.
All very true, though we must be careful not to overstate the case. Origen denied that Jesus was autotheos (ie. inherently God) but still believed he possessed some form of deity. This makes him an ongological subordinationist, along the lines of Lucian and Justin Martyr. Athanasius certainly confessed the Father as “the Almighty”, but he did not confess the Son as less than the Father in an ontological sense. He was no subordinationist.
“Gnosticism was a later development of the 2nd Century and some of the early church fathers actively fought against it, so we must be careful not to throw the Gnostic accusation at all and sundry.”
Dave
No matter what you call it , it predated christianity.
Fact is you wont find any of the early church fathers speak against Philo who they followed
Some here might not like the source of this article but facts are facts
http://www.jesushistory.info/philo_of_alexandria_laid_foundations.htm
Here is a little easier to digest source
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-78825733/gospel-memra-jewish-binitarianism.html
this is what happens when we take literal that wasnt literal
Dave
Isn’t this what historians do, think out loud? Its part of the profession bro, we’re dealing with scant to almost non-existent, 3rd to 4th hand accounts.
Bro, I agreed. Even soi, when simply making the point that the second hand evidnece we have when it comes to Papias or Polycarp certainly does not make it a clean cut closed and shut case.
Semantics and fancy terminologies aside, can we at least agree none of these people held to a BU view?
Xavier:
That’s true, but keep in mind that Ehrman is not arguing against the academic consensus. He does not claim that Gnosticism existed any earlier than the 2nd Century.
Actually I believe that it does. We have even less than second hand evidence for the Gospel record, but would you reject it on that basis? The point is that Trinitarians have been completely unable to find any evidence that Papias, Polycarp and Clement of Rome believed what they do, whether implicitly or explicitly. (Eusebius even mocked Polycarp for what he considered to be Polycarp’s heretical beliefs, particularly the 1,000 year kingdom on Earth!)
These men were held in great esteem by the earliest post-first-century Christians and Trinitarians would love to claim them as their own. However, the evidence is all against Trinitarianism; Papias, Polycarp and Clement of Rome were BU to the core.
Oh, absolutely. There is no question about that.
Dave
Not a fair comparison bro, as you well know, considering that there are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the NT. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.
No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.
Dave,
Good point. One of the things I enjoy the most when looking at the historical evidence is seeing how all these groups counter each other with heretical cliams. Yet none of them held a pure BU view.
Xavier,
Yes the comparison is a little unfair. But the basic points holds true. We can’t dismiss these accounts just bcause they’re second- third- or fourth-hand. The very fact that they remain stridently BU despite centuries of Trinitarian interpolations throughout other documents, is itslf a vindication of their original content.
The simpler Christology is invariably the closest to the truth.
Dave
Would you agree with the term “Conception Christology” termed by R.E. Brown in his An introduction to New Testament Christology [p 126f]?
Xavier:
I might if I knew how he defines the term. What does it mean?
Dave
Basically a Christology based on the virgin birth account as recounted in Matthew and Luke’s gospel. Interesting term I had not come to before that’s all.
Well, a Christology based on the virgin accounts in Matthew & Luke would surely be a BU Christology, yes?
I mean, it’s pretty hard to get anything else out of them.
:P
Margaret,
You said,
“But with a verb like “to be,” the idea of direction takes second place to PROXIMITY.”
There is often a first and second place in matters to do with meaning. You could translate Jn 1:1 as ‘with’ but there is no rule that where we have a verb ‘to be’ collocated with the ‘pros’ then we have to go with ‘with’. There are cases where this is right and cases where this is wrong. Examples where the verb ‘to be’ and ‘pros’ are collocated and aren’t given a ‘with’ include Gen 31:2; Judith 13:6; 1 Macc 14:34.
There are 29 verses in the Greek Bible and the NT that show a collocation of the verb ‘to be’and ‘pros’ and some translations go for ‘with’; most have differing English prepositions. When you look at the verses you quickly start to align the ‘pros’ with the sense of what is being said, so Judith 13:6 is about a post which ‘was above’ the person’s head. Here ‘pros’ is rendered ‘above’. You can do the same analysis for each verse.
So, where we have two or more people in a situation, we might read ‘with you’ or ‘with each other’, ‘with one another’ (Mk 14:49; Lk 9:41; 23:41). But this begs the question for John 1:1 as to where the Word is and here the pattern of usage ‘pros ton theon’ shows a mediator/priestly pattern such that God is in heaven and the priest/mediator is on earth.
A good example is Exod 4:16 which has the verb ‘to be’ and ‘pros’ to describe Moses’ relation to Aaron as the one who is towards God. This connection is important repeats ‘pros ton theon’ in contrast with v. 7 and John the Baptist: JB is ‘the one’ who came for a witness; Jesus is the one who was towards God.
Andrew
Robert (msg. 170)
Thanks for the link Jewish Memra Binatarianism. Your right it was easy to read but even after reading it I’m still not sure what Memra means???
Memra is the Aramaic word for “word” (equivalent to “dabar” in the Hebrew) which is used in the Targumim, where it is occasaionally personified.
Good article here: http://tinyurl.com/266nsuy
Thomas
Memra is aramic for word, logos in greek. dabar in hebrew and it used to descibe God communicating with man.
Wisdom is also used the same way.
It is the personification of this aspect of God that brought about the Misconception of it being a person within the Godhead. Amongst its titles we find mother,sister, first begotten, angel, priest and son.
this mindet exist 6 centuries before Jesus and was a current mindset of the times of Jesus and the NT writings. John and Paul were just making the gospel relatable not trying to created a Godman. as you see it got out of hand later.
The lexicons point out several different ways that pros is translated. They are all interesting, but not all relevant to the subject at hand - which is why I didn’t mention them.
My study was limited to the New Testament, because it’s NT Greek that I am particularly interested in. I wanted to see whether there is any grammatical justification for translating “pros” as “with” in John 1:1, where the verb is “TO BE”.
There is.
In fact, in every case I could find, where the verb “to be” is followed by “pros” the latter is translated as “with”.
I am not suggesting that it MUST be translated as “with” in John 1:1. I am saying that the translation is JUSTIFIED.
Margaret
Robert/Dave
Thanks…
Thomas
Your welcome
Margaret, in response to your question of #165, I haven’t seen him do so in the scriptures, but I have read of a vison of a man who
told of how Jesus said that he is the Lord God Almighty at the end of the encounter.
In the vision, he identified himself as the Lord Jesus.
Now the interpretation of the thing is important. A man might say for example, “I am salt and light.”
If we ever do experience the Lord Jesus saying that he is God, I hope we will be ready to receive it as we should. That’s one reason why I like to remind people that if he ever does, it’s not robbery.
As I thought upon what I had read of Jesus saying what he did, I later thought that “he’s taking names.” He can do that. He’s our judge.
The vision is written of in a book called “Snakes In The Lobby” by Scott McLeod. It’s been sold through MorningStar Ministries.
Margaret
As long as you do not accept the Hebraic meaning behind the use of these words in relation to the logos you fall victim to misinterpretation.
As robert succintly explains at post #182, these are personifications of God’s qualities. An OT usage that is extended in the NT.
Furthermore, too much emphasis is placed on the word “become” at v.14 and not on “dwell/tabernacle”, which is another Hebraic way of explaining how the one, invisible God of Israel has “came down from heaven and dwells” [as He did in the OT in tents later in the Temple] in a human being [”flesh”]. The logos remains God’s self-expression of Himself in His “one-of-a-kind” Son. It did not cease to be the word of God and somehow transformed itself to take on another form of being.
I think the point being made by John’s use of the word “tabernacle” is that Jesus’ time on earth was temporary. It’s not referring to the way in which he came.
Margaret,
If you just want NT examples fo the verb ‘to be’ collocated with ‘pros’ that translators do not translate with ‘with’ see Jn 4:35, 11:4; 1 Cor 12:2 and 2 Tim 2:24.
Standard scholarship would collect LXX examples as well and any 1c. examples like those in the Greek Papyri.
Dave,
Tabernacle = temporary is lame. You are inserting temporary into v. 14 and asking us to believe that John wanted to say, ‘Jesus was temporarily with us’.
Xavier,
Self-expression seems your preferred rubric for ‘logos’. This is very abstract and hardly Hebraic. Split it up and ask: i) how do I get ’self’ into the semantics of ‘dabar’; ii) how do I get ‘expression’ into the same semantics.
Here is a word: ‘word’. I will now comment upon this word and say it is an expression. This comment is not part of the semantics of the word but my linguistic and grammatical analysis.
Or again, I said ‘Here is a word: word’. I expressed myself. This is a comment about me and not the semantics of the word ‘word’.
The Hebraic notion is to see the word of the Lord in concrete terms as the words and/or what is said. Jesus is the personification of this.
Andrew
Andrew, the verse says “the Word was made flesh, and skēnoō among us.” This is clearly being used as a verb, describing the manner of his residence. If a tabernacle isn’t a temporary dwelling, what is it? Certainly not a permanent dwelling!
I am aware that the term can be used in a permanent sense (see Revelation 7:15, 12:12, 13:6, 21:3) but we know Jesus’ time on Earth was only of a limited duration, so to my mind John is bringing out the idea of transience in verse 14.
Hello Dave,
The tabernacle was in use in David’s day, so transcience is not part of the typology of the tabernacle. Unless you can find a text with transcience built in to the symbology of the tabernacle, that is. So, it is more likely that the Moses + Angel of the Lord typology of vv. 6-13 is being merged with the logos theology of v. 1 in the new paragraphy of vv. 14-18. The Angel of the Lord inhabiting the tabernacle in Moses’ day and Jesus tabernacling with the disciples in his day.
Andrew
Dave
this is speaking as a temporary dwelling because it indwelled a human. But returned to indwell many others.
Jesus did not indwell Jesus ,the truth and understanding of God which is God SPIRIT indwelled a man without measure.
Jesus wasnt THE Christ he was one of many annointed with the Holy spirit to bring God’s Words to man
Andrew
Seems we agree, the logos is until now personified in Jesus but it never was in and of it self another being apart from the one God, Who alone created all things through His word.
Dave
I would have to agree with you that whilst Jesus was here on earth, he was the physical walking temple of God [John 2.21]. Just as Christians are also said to be [1Cor 6.19]. Note also that they have the “word of life/spirit” [logos] in them [1Jn 2.14, 27].
This typifies my argument that the logos remains God expressing Himself through His “one-of-a-kind” Son. Which in turn is now manifested through His church, figuratively spoken of as the body of Jesus.
In other words, for a brief period in human history [c.33 years] humanity beheld the actual Person of the Creator in His Son [John 10.38; 14.7-11, 20; 15.17, 20, 23-24; 16.13-15, 32; 17.21-23].
Post-resurrection the Son has literally become “the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by the word of God” [Heb 1.3]. So that the Son is in the “form [and] image” of his heavenly Father [Phil 2:6; Col 1:15].
“In other words, for a brief period in human history [c.33 years] humanity beheld the actual Person of the Creator in His Son ”
Xavier
In a way i agree but not with your overall picture.
Yes humanity beheld but not the actual person, but the Spirit indwelling a person and also not 33 years because Jesus was not anointed with God’s spirit till his baptism. if you claim different then provide the references to Jesus being anointed before his baptism. But dont think you can use the declaration of the future King of Israel(Son of God) as proof because there is no anointing within it, just the statement SHALL.
as we see in these verses this anointing came after His baptism.
Acts 10
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Also we see in this verse that Matthews statement in birth narrative is shown to be false by the statement “for God was with him”
What Jesus now has authority over has nothing to do with his time while on earth as long as you see it is giving authority after he was exalted at his resurrection. I would say nothing goes from God now to man without going through Jesus or viceversa but that still dont make Jesus the Word of God but just the mediator of it between God and man. The word of God in Revelation that comes on a white horse is not Jesus it is just what it says it is.
Xavier,
In response to your question in #123, I believe Jesus was the Son of God. That’s who he is, even from the beginning before the world was, being hid in God, the eternal truth and life. (That’s a bit about what he is)
Jesus at this time was an eternal being with God, being as God is,
Being the Son of God, his goings forth have been of old even everlasting. (Micah 5:2)
having been brought up with him. (Proverbs
Jesus going forth of God as a spiritual being, having come forth of God, reminds me of a spiritual birth.
I also consider Jesus as coming forth of God during the divine conception. This also reminds me of a spiritual birth.
I believe Jesus was with God, in God, and by God in the beginning
before the world was.
When the spirit of God moved upon the waters in the beginning, I wonder if he was there in the spirit of God. I had wondered if he was in fact that spirit of God. The spirit of God may have been dwelling in Jesus at the time. Maybe Jesus moved over the waters
along with the Holy Spirit. Maybe God and Jesus both did so at the same time.
This reminds me of Mary’s conception, like a pattern, type, shadow, or promise of God.
I haven’t seen his name revealed prior to his birth, though he may have shown up at divers times in the OT scripture. He might have been manifest as the Captain of the Lord’s host, when he met Joshua at the entrance to the promised land.
I wondered too if he was seen by Manoah in Judges.
Ray (msg. 186)
You said, “I have read of a vision of a man who told of how Jesus said that he is the Lord God Almighty at the end of the encounter.”
Just because someone has a vision does not mean that the vision came from God. The bible calls Satan the deceiver and Mathew 24:24 says, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (ESV)
You also said, “If ever we do experience the Lord Jesus saying that he is God, I hope we will be ready to receive it as we should.”
Jesus is the only human to live his entire life without sin. I believe he is still without sin to this day and as such Jesus is not going to contradict both the 1st. and the 2nd. Commandments given to Moses and written with God’s own finger.
If someone claiming to be Jesus were to appear to me claiming to also be God (the father) I would immediately know that this person in not telling the truth. Jesus would not ever break the two most important Commandments that God has given to us…
1. “You shall have no other gods before me.”
2. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or ANY LIKENESS OF ANYTHING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…”
Jesus would never say I am God! Jesus always humbled himself to his Father and put his Father’s will and his Father’s plans before his own. You don’t bow down or serve Jesus because he is God but because he is at God’s right hand and is our King, Lord and Saviour…
robert
Ps 2.7 is used throught the NT to denote Jesus as Son of God from birth [Acts 13.33; Heb 1.5; 5.5]. Matthew and Luke relate how he was created directly by the Spirit of God. To suggest that Jesus was somehow not “anointed before his baptism” is far-fetched since the man was generated [begotten] by that same spirit that moved across the waters of Genesis and anointed every other person in the OT.
As the baptism account suggests, his baptism served two purposes. It was a public demonstration that signaled him to everyone else [who did not know he was the Son of God via birth] as the Anointed One of God. And as Jesus himself says, it was also an act to fulfill what was already written about him.
Ray
Heb 1 contradicts your believe system. Nowhere does it say that the Son was a preexistent, pre-human[?], person before his birth. You are reading into those OT texts someone who is not there. These are prophetic utterances of someone who would come to exist at a future date. Just as Gen 3.15; Deut 18.15-18 and others clearly say.
Thomas, I don’t believe Jesus broke any of the commandments through what he said in the man’s encounter with him.
It’s only right that the Lord Jesus said what he said. It’s for our salvation that he tell us what he’s like, and who he’s like. It’s not robbery at all. In so doing I believe he was giving God the glory, for to look at his life, who and what he is, is to see God more clearly
in godliness and truth. Jesus was in that manner making known God as he is and showing us that he is as the Father himself is.
Isn’t this the foundation of our faith, seeing Jesus as he is?
Xavier, I believe Hebrews supports what I’ve said about Jesus being with God, in God, and by God in the beginning.
“Ps 2.7 is used throught the NT to denote Jesus as Son of God from birth”
Xavier
No its the anointing of David as THE KING OF ISRAEL, CHRIST or SON OF GOD. ALL 3 mean HUMAN KING OF ISRAEL.
“”"Matthew and Luke relate how he was created directly by the Spirit of God. To suggest that Jesus was somehow not “anointed before his baptism” is far-fetched since the man was generated [begotten] by that same spirit that moved across the waters of Genesis and anointed every other person in the OT”
.Xavier
How many times I here “BY” when it is not even there, It was caused “OF” the Holy spirit
These verse are just proclaiming the future King.
Son of God is the title all kings of israel were giving at their being made the Anointed (Christ) King by God.
How stupid would God be to give His son something he would be certainly born with if he was BY GOD. Read the birth narrative with the right understanding and you will SEE it Doesnt say what you think it does
robert
Bro, as a rule of thumb, prophecies have a past, present and future component to them. Yes, these Messianic Psalms are relating to the Davidic king of the time, but NT texts like Hebrews 1:5 brings Ps. 2:7 together with 2 Sam. 7:14 to show that Jesus is the messianic heir of David (the Son of God), into whom God has also folded the priestly office.
I don’t really follow your line of reasoning here friend. Jesus is the Son of God from birth and as such the Anointed One of God. Period.
Xavier
First thing is this ISNT a prophesy , this is speaking only of David who It was spoke to when he was anointed King. If you read all of it and dont let some church father dictate what is says you will understand. There not the slightest hint it is a prophesy but was a standard for any anointed King even Jesus when he was anointed King of the Jews at his baptism by the prophet and when he was Anointed King of Israel at his death by GOD Himself
robert
Scripture interprets scripture. What “church father” am I quoting to try and explain to you the meaning of the Messianic Psalms?
I am simply reiterating what the NT writers are citing. Are you having problems underatanding my posts? Please go over them again before making false accusations!
Ray (msg. 198)
You said, “It’s for our salvation that he tells us what he’s like and who he’s like.”
I have no problem with Jesus saying that he’s like God, because I think it is crystal clear that he IS like God in so many different ways, but I have a big problem with someone claiming to be Jesus saying that they ARE ALSO God Almighty himself.
You also said, “Isn’t this the foundation of our faith, seeing Jesus as he is?”
The foundation of my faith lies in God being our father as well as the father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How we see Jesus depends very much on how we might interpret various scriptures and shouldn’t be the foundation of anyone’s faith (in my opinion anywaze).
We shouldn’t base our faith on something that is relative like how we think we might see Jesus as he is (when it’s open to interpretation). We should base our faith on something concrete like the fact that God is our father and creator and is also the father and creator of our Lord/King and Savior Jesus Christ…
Xavier
What accusations???
No have no problem with seeing the way you understand, i was just stating it was unbiblical.
Dont start acussiing me of acussing you. this is a discussion because we disagree not because we agree.
Now since you made it personal we need to agree to disagree.
anyone else want to discuss this more, just ask
“If you just want NT examples fo the verb ‘to be’ collocated with ‘pros’ that translators do not translate with ‘with’ see Jn 4:35, 11:4; 1 Cor 12:2 and 2 Tim 2:24.”
Thank you for the correction, Andrew. I worded my statement poorly.
Notice, though, that in none of your examples is there a NOUN which is “toward” something.
John 4:35 - the fields are WHITE toward the harvest (an adjective)
2 Tim 2:24 - A servant is to be GENTLE toward all (an adjective)
1 Cor 12:2 - You were LED AWAY to dumb idols (an action verb)
In any case, there is grammatical justification for the translation “with”.
I am a unitarian by default. That’s because every evidence for a tri-une God that I have tested turned out to be fallacious, and I think I have tested them all.
I still see the person of the Son in John 1:1; but that has not yet been PROVED. I like Dave’s principle that one verse which apparently supports an idea is not enough. There should be consistency.
So I have been looking critically at verses I once took for granted. Hebrews 1:2 has produced the first surprise.
I have several translations, all of which render the word “aionas” as “world” or “worlds”. But it’s actually the word for “ages”. It refers to periods of TIME. But it also includes the things that characterize those periods of time.
It can refer to ages that are past (Colossians 1:26), the present age (Mark 4:19), or future ages (Hebrews 13:21).
It usually follows a preposition; but in Hebrews 1:2 it follows a transitive verb: “… a Son, through whom God MADE the ages …”
The question is, WHAT ages did God make through the Son?
If they are past ages, involving the “all things” which he “upholds by the word of his power” (v 3) then that would be an additional reason to see the Son in John 1:1.
Margaret,
If you are looking for nouns with the verb ‘to be; and ‘pros’ rather than adjectives and verbs.
Gen 31:2, face was towards him
Gen 31:5, face is not towards me
2kgs 7:13 [horses] left to Israel
Judith 13:6 post which was towards Holofernes’ heads
John 11:4 sickness is not unto death
These texts do no thave the lexical verbal and adjectival factors that you note.
Andrew
Margaret
Try reading Heb 1.2, 10 in the context of Heb 2.5. Anthony Buzzard, a professor of Hebrew and Greek lanugages, has this to say regarding Jesus involvement in the “world/ages/universe” to come:
See: http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/92.htm
The same applies for Col 1.15f. where it speaks of the New Creation and not the Genesis creation. Remember that Jesus himself, if it is true that he is already introduced at John 1.1, does not say anything regarding his participation in the Genesis creation. If anything he speaks against this erroneous interpretation:
One final note regarding Heb 1.3 where Jesus is said to uphold all things by “the mighty power of his command” (literally his powerful word). Referring to God’s word and not Jesus since this is “the powerful, dynamic force that created and governs the world.” [NLT Study Bible]
Xavier,
I see you think Col 1:15 is about the new creation, which is correct. In this case, the use of “all things” in Colossians and in John 1:3 should alert you to the subject in John, viz. the new creation. This is confirmed in the RV reading of v. 4 which is supported by Aland, “that which was made through him was life”. Thus, the beginning of v. 1 is the ministry as per 1 Jn 1:1.
I note that when commenting on the tabernacled of v. 14 you slip into temple language - this puzzle is to justify tabernacled in a typological way and not templed.
Margaret,
You are impressed by the parallel between Jn 1:1 and 1 Jn 1:1 and this is right. But 1 Jn 1 has “eternal life which was with the father” mentioned second after the handling of and seeing of the “word of life”. This is different to Jn 1 insofar as the Word is with/towards God. In 1 Jn 1, we have the abstract eternal life with the father before being manifested in the Word of Life. The Word was then towards God on earth.
Andrew
Andrew
Are you going just by Greek lexicons and translations or can you read the koine Greek? Because most scholars agree that John 1.1-3 is a clear reference to Gen 1 and not to the New Creation of the Colossians or Hebrew passages.
Where most of these Bible commentaries err is in thinking that the Son is the preexistent [impersonal yet personal, “being”] logos through whom God made the world.
If we’re reading the opening language of the prologue as a poetical/figurative piece and not as straight prose there is no problem in seeing “dwell/tabernacle” as a clear typological way of expressing how God comes to “dwell” with humanity in the human body [”flesh”] of His son. As Jesus himself later makes emphasis of this fact when he speaks of his body as God’s temple and how he can tear it down [by willingly giving his life for all believers] and raise it up again.
How else can we underatand what Jesus later says to Nathaniel of how the heavens will open “and the angels of God ascending and descending” on his person if not to recall [in a clear typological/figurative way] the story of Jacob in Genesis 28 (see esp. v. 12).
Andrew
Again I disagree purely on textual grounds. How can you say both passages are not talking about the same thing: logos as “word, life and light”?
Its clear from the text that these are all synonymous and expressive of the same creative quality that is “the word of God”.
These things were eventually embodied, “made flesh” or “manifested” [cp. John 1.14; 1 John 1.2-3] in the man Jesus.
Xavier,
I did NT Greek in year 1 and year 2 at university, so I guess I can read it to an average standard. Not the best.
If the scholars and versions are making mistakes in regard to logos, I would not be surprised if they were equally astray regarding v. 3. An echo with Genesis doesn’t establish a reference to that creation. The use of ‘all things’ establishes a new creation pattern, and John naturally echoes the Genesis creation.
On the new creation reading, pre-existence issues fall away.
What you say on the temple or Jacob’s ladder is not wrong, its just not the first step in the exegesis of Jn 1:14. It’s like this: you talk of God, but the first step is the Angel of the Lord who tabernacled with Israel in the wilderness, i.e. the Angel of the Presence. Of course, Yahweh was with the people but his presence was mediated through the Angel of the Lord. This is the first point of comparision for understanding the typology of v. 14.
If the text had wanted to say God came to dwell in the body of Jesus, it could have done so. But we need to exegete the text as it stands and know why ‘the word’ was made flesh. Not how God came to dwell.
When you factor in the Angel of the Lord typological allusion implicit in ‘tabernacled’, you will see how this explains why Jesus is ‘the Light’ in v. 7 and how the world was made by him in v. 10. There are a lot of gains to be had from seeing Exodus typology in John 1. The Buzzard approach is too tied to traditional church thinking.
And so it is the same with 1 Jn 1:1. Our exegesis needs to respect the differences. The life that was manifested is about the character of the father manifested in the Son and this is how we are to understand the predicate ‘was God’ in Jn 1:1. If we equate word=life=God, we don’t explain why word, why life, why God in either John or 1 John.
Lots to say, but I like short posts.
Andrew
Andrew
I do not quite follow you here bro. I agree with your second statement but not the first. Where is it a precedence that “ta panta” [all things] “establishes a new creation pattern” and is not just a general way of phrasing the whole of creation?
No I do not quite see 2 Creators here just the One God of Israel, YHWH, Who is said thousand and thousands of times to be the sole creator of the OT.
Again, I do not see New Creation in view in the opening prologue of John. No one does!
Did you hear the recent debates Buzzard had with Dr. Brown and White? They vehemently denied his reading of Heb 1.10 to the point of making personal attacks. So how can this in anyway be “tied to traditional church thinking”?
Why what?
Sorry you lost me yet again bro.
Xavier,
I do not wish to lose you and haven’t read the Buzzard treatment of Heb 1:10. I have come across some Christadelphian material that sees the new creation in John 1, a person called Harry Whittaker has a book on the Gospels and it is on one of their websites. A google search should get it - its a free download. Apparently, the suggestion has been made in the past; a friend once told me that he had dug up material written by the Socinians - but he never gave me the references.
Still, that doesn’t matter. Check out Whittaker’s prose and see if its better than mine.
Andrew
Andrew: “The life that was manifested is about the character of the father manifested in the Son and this is how we are to understand the predicate ‘was God’ in Jn 1:1.”
I agree. Thank you for saying it so well.
I do not see two Creators, Xavier. I see one Creator who created all things by (through the instrumentality of) his Son (Hebrews 1:2).
Hebrews 11:3 says something similar. The ages were formed through the instrumentality of God’s word. That doesn’t make two Creators. Or three.
As for Hebrews 1:10, I listened to the two debates and was troubled by Buzzard’s treatment of this verse. He seemed to be saying that it should not be taken as it is written, because it is based on a wrong translation of the Hebrew text.
Does that mean the Epistle to the Hebrews is not inspired by God?
I am well aware that my UNDERSTANDING of any passage may be wrong, and I am seriously testing the new ideas I am hearing here; but the suggestion that some of the Bible is inaccurate makes me wonder if it’s worth while.
“One final note regarding Heb 1.3 where Jesus is said to uphold all things by “the mighty power of his command” (literally his powerful word). Referring to God’s word and not Jesus …”
I agree with you, Xavier, and thank you. I hadn’t noticed that.
The modifying phrases have a kind of double parallelism:
Who (the SON)
being the effulgence of his (GOD’s) glory,
and the exact expression of his (GOD’s) substance
and upholding all things by his (GOD’s) powerful word -
this same one (the SON)
having by himself made purification of our sins
sat down on the right hand of the greatness on high (GOD).
So Jesus - the Son - is the one who is described as upholding all things by the power of God’s word.
That, again, fits Hebrews 11:3, as well as John 1:1.
It also fits John 10:18. He made purification for our sins by laying down his life and taking it up again, because that was the commandment he had received from his Father.
Andrew
Lose me bro? You know where to find me if you wana argue.
Provided you with the link to Buzzard’s take on Heb 1.10.
Margaret
No. You misheard and misread. General consensus is that the writer of Hebrews is citing the Septuagint [Greek text of the Hebrew canon, aka. LXX] and not the Masoteric Hebrew.
Maybe you do not know this but more often than not the NT writers used this Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures more often than the Hebrew Masoteric text.
Margaret
Yes, as long as we do not confuse the “word” [logos] of Jn 1.1 as being one to one equal with the Son. In other words, the logos remains God’s self-expression in and through the Son, who is not literally that same word as such, but the one who manifests it, personifies it and reveals it to his brethren [cp. Jn 1.18]. As per your excellent little diagram.
Xavier,
You haven’t shown how you get ’self’ and ‘expression’ associated with ‘logos’. For example: My words express my point of view, but they are just words. Or: I have given my word on the matter, but they are still words.
You are at least abstract level 3 with the ideas of ’self’ and ‘expression’ for ‘logos’. If level 1 is the concrete spoken or written words like ‘You are a rebellious people’ and level 2 is what is said by such words, e.g. God said that Israel were a rebelious people, level 3 could be an expression of self, but equally they could be criticism of Israel. So, if God created the Genesis creation by his word, there is nothing wrong with the theology that God is creating the new creation by his word which in this case is Jesus.
Margaret,
If ‘was God’ picks up on character, it does so as opposed to role and function as well as nature or naming. That is, if we ask what does the predicate ‘was God’ mean? It depends on context. It could mean; someone has the role of God; it could mean someone is called God; it could mean someone has the nature of God - but here we are opting for manifesting character - which would be in keeping with John.
My argument, which the debater Dave Burke suggested to me in an email, and which he got from someone else, is that Thomas’ confession ‘My God’ is something that Jesus then says he has ’seen’. This comment by Jesus picks up what he expects his disciples to ’see’, namely, the father (Jn 14:9). When they ’see’ the father in Jesus, they see character. And so, this is why ‘was God’ in 1:1 is an inclusio with 20:28 - the two texts bookend a major feature of the gospel - the display of God’s character.
And all this is why it is important to see Jesus as the reference of ‘logos’ in v.1
Andrew
Andrew
Too much philosophizing and not enough proper theology bro. Alls I am simply saying is that “the word of God” is not the person of Jesus, it is God Himself. In Hebraic thinking this is shown throughout the scriptures. I feel like you have me running in circles here friend.
I am aware that the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, Xavier. My point is that the quotation in Hebrews 1:10, if taken at face value, agrees with the idea that the Son (the Word of God) was in the beginning WITH God, that God made the ages (and the things that appeared in them) by MEANS of the Son, and that the Son upholds all things by the word of God’s power.
Saying that the quotation is from the Septuagint doesn’t change that - unless the Septuagint is seriously flawed, and the letter to the Hebrews along with it.
That’s what I find troubling.
As for Thomas’s statement, I understand that the Son has been given authority over all things. He is God’s Messiah, Yahweh’s representative. That makes him Thomas’s God and my God and your God. But HE HIMSELF is subject to HIS God.
The only true God (the Father) is the only one who is subject to NOBODY. His authority is absolute, without exception.
That relationship is seen quite clearly in 1 Co. 15:24-28, which tells us God is putting all things under the Son’s feet.
But Paul points out that there is one obvious exception. God did not put HIMSELF under the Son’s control. And in v. 28, the Son, though Lord of all, is totally subject to the only true God, as he has always been.
Margaret
You said, “He is God’s Messiah, Yahweh’s representative. That makes him Thomas’ God and my God and your God.”
Yahweh’s representative is not Yahweh no more than President Obama’s representative is President Obama. There is only ONE God the first Commandment is very clear on this…
I believe God made the light that first appeared (Gen 1:3) by Jesus.
(Heb 1:2) Jesus upheld the word of God and sustained the world by the power of God his Father.
He left that glory which he had with God to come to be born into this world to be our saviour.
It seems to me that God sustained it all without Jesus (except for that which Jesus did by God while he ministered on this earth in the days of his flesh) while Jesus was in the days of his flesh on this earth which he had been the maker of.
Margaret
I will go over it again with you.
First, the writer of Hebrews cites a Messianic Psalm that has to do with the future, Millenial Kingdom since it refers to “a generation to come…a people yet to be created” [v.18]. Please re-read the Psalm in its entirety if you haven’t already.
Second, the Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew text into Greek some 300-400 years before Jesus actually understood vv.23-27 differently. Since they introduced a second “lord” at v.25. Someone the writer of Hebrews interprets as referring to the Son. Again, I implore to study the text in full.
I know this may be hard to understand but remember that Heb 1 is about how the Son is so much greater than angels. So much so that he is given a co-creator role “in the world to come of which we speak” [Heb 2.5].
Even though we understand that others may be called “gods” in a secondary sense [cp. Jn 10.30f.], I do not think Jesus claimed that title for his own. Neither do any of the NT writers. The one time he is called “god” in the absolute sense is at Heb 1.8, which again quotes the OT Ps 45.6, taking a Davidic title and applying it to the promised Messiah.
As Christians it is only fair to recognize Jesus as he tells us to do. As the Messiah, Son of the Living God [Mat 16.16].
Here’s something I just now saw in my 1599 Geneva Bible. I’ll give the verse and the footnote that caught my attention.
I John 5:20
But we know that that Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind to know him, which is true, and we are in him that is true, that is, in that his Son Jesus Christ, the same is that very 1 God, and that eternal life.
5:20 1 The divinity of Christ is most plainly proved by this place.
Now in the 1599 Geneva, in the forward of it, I found talk about the “defininate article”. I believe this is why we see so much of the word “that” in the above verse of scriputure. It’s their way of leaving the “definate article” in the verse, or their way of communicating that defininite article of the Greek.
Now if I will comment on this verse I will say much of what I have often said, such as Jesus being the very Christ, the certain God who is the Son of God as no other being of God is, though many angels and men may be referred to as sons of God. Jesus is very much the distinction, different from all others, being the Christ, being as God is. Even as many men who have received the word of God may at times be referred to as “gods”, Jesus is by far and away the distinction, the special example, “That” one that is different among all others, who shows us what it is to be like God.
Guys, I’m going to make a suggestion here: let’s spend more time exchanging ideas and less time trying to convert each other. We’re united against Trinitarianism, so we should keep that fact in mind as we debate.
Every one of us is passionate about his or her belief, and keen to help others share it with us. But we can’t expect to turn each other around just by hammering out some issues on a blog. People need time to reflect on the things they’ve read, turn them over in their minds and look at them in a new light. Don’t expect too much from the person you’re talking to.
Let’s give each other a little space and concentrate on sharing our perspectives instead of trying to make others believe as we do. I’m sure we’re all here to learn and nobody wants to leave empty handed, so just contribute what you can and enjoy the exchange.
:D
Good idea, Dave. My goal is to learn. I hope everyone else feels the same way.
Thomas: Just for clarification, I DO believe that the only true God (that is, the God who is subject to NO ONE - is the Father. All other gods/Gods are either appointed by Yahweh to represent him (and therefore rule in the NAME of Yahweh and deserve the title “God”), or else are usurping the authority of Yahweh.
For example, Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), and “their belly” is the god of some who live “as enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3:19). Neither of those was appointed by Yahweh, and neither of those should be “my God”.
I do NOT believe that Yahweh’s representative is Yahweh himself.
Xavier - thank you for your explanation. I have been reading Psalm 102 in the Septuagint (English translation), and in every other translation I have. I am also reading Hebrews 1 for the manieth time, with your explanation in mind. I will continue to explore the possibilities.
SO FAR, I can see no TEXTUAL reason to understand that the heavens and the earth referred to are anything other than the heavens and the earth that were created “in the beginning”.
But I’m happy to leave that question unresolved for the moment, unless someone has more evidence to contribute.
I want to go on looking for passages which will either support or else falsify my impression that “The Word” in John 1:1 was (or at least included) the Son. Help on that score would be appreciated.
Dave
You said, “Let’s give each other a little space and concentrate on sharing our perspectives instead of trying to make others believe as we do.”
There is a lot of wisdom in what you are saying. I apologize to Margaret and anyone else if I was being too aggressive in stating my beliefs. I was simply trying to share my beliefs with others and listen to the feedback.
Margaret
You said, “All other gods/Gods are either appointed by Yahweh to represent him (and therefore rule in the name of Yahweh and deserve the title “God”), or else are usurping the authority of Yahweh.”
I realize that is the majority view. Unfortunately I do not agree. Maybe I’m simple minded but I like to refer to God as God and believe that he likes it that way. The Lord’s prayer and other parts of the bible talk about God’s name being “Hallowed” or “Holy” to me that means his name should not be used to describe anyone else except him.
(That’s the way I see it anywaze…)
Margaret:
I’ll be talking about John 1:1-14 very soon in the debate. I hope that what I have to say will be helpful.
“The Lord’s prayer and other parts of the bible talk about God’s name being “Hallowed” or “Holy” to me that means his name should not be used to describe anyone else except him.”
Thomas
God is just a title for YHWH,Yahweh is the name that should be Hallowed.
Margaret
Perhaps it would help to contrast this phraseology of the new “heavens and the earth” with Rev 21.
Hope the following helps in your search:
How about the simple fact that the common/abstract noun “word” is not a person? This is like saying that a “table, car”, might in anyway be a person. I guess 2000+ years of Catholic dogma have subbconsiously ingrained this erroneous understanding into the Christian thinking.
Doubting
The word “god” in Hebrew [elohim] or the Greek [theos] is not a name as such, but used as a title. When combined with Divine attributes such as “Almighty”, “Father”, etc., let alone the “Divine Name” YHWH, it certainly is not to be used for anyone else but the one God of Israel.
Robert
I realize that but I tried praying using the name Yahweh and it just didn’t feel right. I guess it comes down to familiarity. Ever since I was a child I heard God being referred to as God and not Yahweh.
Since coming to this website I’ve seen articles (like Jaco’s) and many posts talking about God’s real name being Yahweh. Maybe I should try again praying to God as Yahweh but referring to God as God just seems more natural/comfortable (familiar)…
Thomas
When you send a letter do you just address to Mr., No
Should you then just address your prayers to a common title like God, Father or both without identifying. Can you be sure that Yahweh accepts these titles that are used commonly.
This is just my view and the use of Gods name in my relationship with him is a statement there is only one God for me.
there is nothing wrong with using a title amongst people who have no doubt who God is and i perfer others who dont know just who Yahweh is to use the title.
Thanks Everybody for showing me that God is not a name but a title for Yahweh. It still doesn’t feel right to me to be calling Jesus or anybody else representing Yahweh God but I can’t argue with your logic…
To Jesus belongs the name of God. It’s not robbery to him to have it and use it. That power was given to him by God and he has shown us that he is worthy of it. I trust he has used it and will use it to show us who he is. I think we should expect that.`
Also, let’s suppose there are three men. One of them lives a godly life giving praise to God in all the does in word and deed being an example of Christ to all who see him. He speaks of God as his Father in heaven and Jesus as his Son, his Lord and saviour.
The second man lives a sinful life and always calls God Jehovah.
The third man lives likewise always being a stumbling block to others on the path of life, and refers to God as YAHWEH.
Which of the three do you think God will choose to honor or have respect to their prayers or offernings?
We could also turn things around and give the character of the first to the last, but do we see how it is that people can either honor God or not?
Doubting
I do not think it makes any difference. If anything, the most intimate of titles attributed to the one God of Israel by both Jesus and his apostles is that of abba, Father.
But as Jesus’ example to the Samaritan woman at well regarding where we should pray to shows, it does not have a modicum of difference I think if you call on the name of YHWH or God the Father. As long as we pray to Him in the holy, wonderful name of His “one-of-a-kind” Son, Jesus the Messiah!
My latest responses to Bowman at the Trinity debate:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-2-dave-burke-on-jesus-christ/#comment-30794
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-2-rob-bowman-on-jesus-christ/#comment-30797
:)
Xavier
For several months now I’ve been asking God to show me any beliefs I have that might be wrong. I do not want to start an argument with anybody I just want to express what I believe and listen to the feedback I get. I know almost all Christians say we should pray to Jesus who is our intercessor but I’ve always prayed to God.
There have been times that I have prayed to Jesus thanking him for giving himself up to be our Savior and dieing on the cross or to thank him for being our teacher and teaching us what God wants us to know. But 90% of the time I pray to God directly and try to have an intimate relationship with him through my prayers.
Jesus said in Mathew 6:6-10, “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father who is in secret. And your father who sees in secret will reward you…..Pray then like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done’ etc…”
Jesus taught us to pray directly to the Father and that is what I do…
Thomas
AMEN
We as a people have almost translated all the truth out of the bible. we have made Christ a proper name instead of a descibing word. 39 times the word is used in the greek OT to descibe the call to office of priest,prophet or king of which Jesus holds all 3 as so did his Father David. these 2 are the only 3 fold christ, while also being of 3 that have held the 2 fold office of priest and king. Jesus, David and Shem . and thousands have held it 1 fold as priest,prophets and kings of which some were not even kings of Israel. if we were to understand the word christ and its usage we would come to a better understanding of the truth.
I believe we are to pray to God as Jesus did and also taught us.
I also believe we may call upon him and that he will hear us.
I always wondered who it was that the apostle Paul talked to about his thorn in the flesh. (the messenger of satan given permission to buffet him) I wondered if he had besought the Lord Jesus on this matter.
I too pray to God 90% or more of the time. I have also found myself praying to Jesus thanking him too at times. I don’t believe it’s wrong to do so from time to time.
I was attending a Bible study once and found it odd that one of the married couples prayed so differently, one praying always to “Father God”, and the other always praying to “Lord Jesus”.
They got along fine. They just prayed differently.
I had never seen that before.
Doubting
Don’t know what this has to do with my recent posts regarding Jn 1.1 but sure, I agree. Pray to the Father in the name of the Son.
But, I do not have a problem with people asking the Son directly for something they want his God and Father to do. As Jesus himself attested to:
I am encouraged by the things we agree on.
I, too, usually pray to God, addressing him as “Father,” or “O God”.
But the disciples in Acts often prayed to the Lord Jesus. Stephen’s prayer is quite specific: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And we can be sure that whatever Jesus gives comes ultimately from the Father, because the Son never does anything on his own initiative.
The one thing we should NOT do is stop praying for fear of making a mistake. A Father wants to HEAR from his child, whether his speech is perfect or not.
And who claims to be perfect, anyway?
Here’s an excellent study on whether or not we can pray to Jesus from the CES people over at that other excellent site Biblicalunitarian.com [aka. Truthortradition.com]: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=83
Xavier
I can find thousands of studies on how the trinity exist and there are millions people who think they see the logic in it. I dont put my faith in studies or articles unless i can prove using the scriptures, Nt writings, history and common sense.
By these 4 i dont see a case for this study to even exist, but as with the trinity there might be billions who believe every study like this.
robert
These are studies based on the scriptures. Are you saying they are of little value to you?
“These are studies based on the scriptures.”
there are no studies based purely on scripture without some type of interpretation that contradicts the truth. They must meet all 4 requirements for me even consider theres any value in them.
so to answer you
YES
But they do help me understand just how christianity got to where they are now.
robert
Your comments remind me of this saying by those Protestant lovers who are all about “scripture only”:
I do not follow interpretations of men. Now let me tell you what I think.
Xavier
Thats a little belittling.
It doesnt matter what i think , It only matters what i can prove. I find no reason to be led by blind faith when the bible is not as confusing as some people want you to think. All it takes is clearing the preconceptions and doing a little research on history then you can make a logical conclusion.
robert
No worries bro.
Peace.
Xavier
Oh i wasnt worried because i have seen a lot worst by many here including me but have been accused by a lot less.
I wasnt offended even though it was meant to belittle but we must look at what other people here see who see it as very unchristian. It is not just the statements that offend that are just human, its the inability to forgive your brother that is unchristian or the person who is not held by the same standards as they hold their brother by that is unchristian.
we may not be able to be perfect in how we treat others but we all can be perfect in forgiveness if we want to
robert
That was not my intention, I was actually trying to enlighten the mood of these posts. I do not seek to belittle or denigrate posters. As per “The Golden Rule”:
Regardless, if it did offend you then I sincerly apologize friend.
Speaking of enlightening the mood of these posts there is an old Christian saying that says “God will never give us more than we can handle.”
There are times when I wish God didn’t trust me quite so much…
Xavier
You didnt offend me, I know it wasnt meant to belittle but that doesnt change that it is a statement that does belittle I just think its not a good idea to profile someone using past or current religions. Doesnt matter if they were or are of a sect of christianity because every sect has people who are misled by people they trust and respect. It is the teachers of the sects who are to blame.
lets just not compare people to sects.
robert
I think your misreading too much into this. Nothing about comparing people on here with sects etc.
I printed Dave’s second article and have been studying it with care. One thing I had never really thought about before was the question of whether Jesus worshipped God, his Father.
I am now convinced that he did (does). The two passages in the article were less than convincing (to me), but Matthew 4:10 seems conclusive.
It is marvellous to see the absolute dependence of Jesus on his God. And if dependence characterized the only-begotten Son of God, it should certainly characterize his disciples.
The statement that Jesus could be tempted needs to be qualified, I think. I’m still looking at that one. The meaning of “tempted” would have to be explained, because it is used differently in different contexts.
Xavier
You must not understand the purpose of your joke. Any joke with a religous overtone is meant to belittle. since we are mixed backgrounds here it has no place here.
Like i said i dont think you intended to offend, but there are those it would do just that.
Margaret
You said, “And if dependence characterized the only-begotten Son of God, it should certainly characterize his disciples.”
I wholeheartedly agree.
Hi, everyone
Sorry for not coming back with a critique on the second part of the debate yet. We’re visiting relatives 700 kilometers away, and will only return this weekend. Will post my comments as soon as I can. (I feel jealous for not taking part in your exciting exchange.)
Just one little thing, Xavier. The Golden Rule (Mt 7:12) says, Do unto others what you want them to do unto you. The negative of this, the one you’re quoting, is Confucius!
See y’all soon, and God bless,
Jaco
Jaco
Confucius, Jesus, Buddah, same message no?
LOL, don’t go all universalist on us, mate.
:P
Dave: You wrote, “Jesus lived a sinless life of service to the Father’s will, despite being capable of sin and subject to temptation.”
I think we all agree with the principal clause. But I have reservations about the two qualifying phrases.
Hebrews 4:15 tells us that he can “sympathize with our weaknesses” because he has been “tempted in all points as we are, apart from sin.”
The phrase “apart from sin” could mean that his temptations INCLUDED the temptation to sin, which he resisted; or it could mean that he was not tempted by sin at all - that all his temptations were APART from sin.
The Greek word for “tempt” is used in two different ways. God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13); so in the sentence, “Thou shalt not tempt Yahweh thy God” (Matthew 4:7), the word is translated “put to the test” (NIV).
In that same sense, God tempted Abraham – put him to the test. But he did not tempt Abraham with evil, because (as James tells us) God will not do that.
James explains that the temptation to do evil comes from WITHIN. We are tempted to sin by our evil desires. And evil desires are themselves evil, according to Jesus.
If Jesus had evil desires, he was a sinner, just like us, whether the evil desire culminated in an act or not.
But in him was no sin. Jesus had no association with sin UNTIL Yahweh laid on him the iniquity of us all. That’s what qualifies him to be the sinless substitute.
When the Spirit of God led Jesus into the wilderness, the Devil tempted him – tested his devotion to God - just as God tested Abraham. But Jesus’ devotion to God was total. He had no desire for anything apart from the will of God.
So I conclude that Jesus, like his Father, could not be tempted with evil, and therefore was not capable of sinning.
But I am willing to be corrected.
Margaret
I am not sure what translation you are using but here is several different translations that put it into perspective
New International Version
15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.
Peshitta - Lamsa Translation
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot share our infirmities, but we have one who was tempted with everything as we are, and yet without sin.
The Geneva Bible (1587)
15 For we haue not an hie Priest, which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all things tempted in like sort, yet without sinne.
King James Version (1611)
15 For wee haue not an high Priest which cannot bee touched with the feeling of our infirmities: but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sinne.
Complete Jewish Bible
15 For we do not have a cohen gadol unable to empathize with our weaknesses; since in every respect he was tempted just as we are, the only difference being that he did not sin.
I believe Jesus was tempted in everything like we are but he did not commit sin. He kept himself by the power of God, sanctified for our salvation, that he might be our redeemer and priest of God.
One thing I’ve been thinking about in relation to this matter is that all men from Adam have had the proclivity to sin, by one, the nature
we have inherited, and two, by our own falling into it, being taken captive by it.
We’ve all had those two counts against us there. But Jesus neither had the inherent tendancy to sin, nor did he commit sin, though I believe he was tempted as we all have been.
I wonder if he had a stronger resistance to it. By him we should learn to overcome all sin.
So here’s the question:
Jesus being tempted with just as much temptation as we all have been, and did not sin, was it that he overcame the temptation for many reasons, one being that he had a greater resistance to it, or that he was stronger than we against the temptation?
Is it possible that two men be tempted with the same strength of temptation but that one overcome the temptation because of a greater resistance to it, or because of a greater character, as well as other reasons?
The scripture says that he resisted unto blood striving against sin.
(Hebrews 12:4) By this I conclude that his working to resist sin was a greater effort than anything I have produced in resisting it.
I fell into sin and he did not. He put forth a greater effort for one thing. I’m sure there are many reasons why he was successful against sin and why I failed.
Ray
If Jesus wasnt able to sin he wasnt a role model for us to follow because we are able to sin.
It was the fact he was able but didnt is why he was chosen to be the Lamb of God at his baptism where he received the Holy spirit which wrote the (Word)Torah in his flesh (heart)with understanding without measure.
He did this out of pure love of Gods ways not out of some supernatural power.
I believe it was God working within him to will and to do according to his good pleasure. (Phil 2:13)
Jesus said that he could do nothing of himself (John 5:19) but what he saw the Father do.
This he said after he healed the man at the pool of Bethesda.
I wonder if keeping himself from sin was the greatest of his works.
Ray
all this was after receiving the holy spirit. you have nothing for before so dont invent it. He was human in everyway we are, After the holy spirit GOD WAS WITH HIM but being chosen was from his life prior to the holy spirit
I am using two interlinear Greek Bibles, Robert, as well as the meanings given in two lexicons. The preposition “choris” means “separate from,” or “apart from,” or “without”. And the word “yet” is not in the text.
I like your thinking, Ray. You are groping, as I have been. But if Jesus lacked the TENDENCY to sin, since he lacked the sinful nature we inherited from Adam, then he did not have the sinful desires that are the breeding ground of all sin (see James 1:13-15). So he wouldn’t have to struggle to keep himself from sinning. He had better things to do. And so would we, if we loved God with all our heart and soul and mind.
We do not need sympathy for our sinful thoughts. We need to confess them and accept God’s forgiveness for them through faith in Christ’s atoning work.
Thank you for mentioning Hebrews 12:4. I don’t think the sin Jesus strove against was sin in himself. He came to take away OUR sin, and his agony in Gethsemane is a hint of what it cost him - but in him was NO sin (1 John 3:5).
Never mind. With each comment the picture becomes clearer, and I become surer that the Son of God was a true son of his Father. He (like his Father) could not be tempted with sin, and he did not have to struggle to keep himself from sinning. Instead, he found all his delight in doing his Father’s will.
“The preposition “choris” means “separate from,” or “apart from,” or “without”. And the word “yet” is not in the text.”
Margaret
Neither is the word “from” found in text
but “yet” not being there doesnt change the reading but “apart” just simply means “Without”
which would be the common sense reading, one that makes the whole verse senseless or one that makes sense from front to back.
this is why most scholars present correct reading even though they would rather give a reading that backs their belief too.
they seen it wouldnt make any sense to bring up tempted of sin then say he was not able to sin.
what else can you be tempted to commit other than sin
Margaret
Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him…He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”…And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Lu 22.39-44
Margaret, I believe you are over-complicating the issue unnecessarily. We all agree that there was no sin in Jesus. He did not sin in any way; not even through his thoughts.
But Scripture says Jesus was made like us in every way (Hebrews 2:17). Scripture also says Jesus was tempted and that he suffered when he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18).
If Jesus literally pre-existed as a divine being, was incapable of temptation and did not struggle to keep himself from sinning, then both of these verses are false.
Dave
Amen brother!!
1 Pe 3.15
Xavier, your reference to Gethsemane proves my point. He suffered at the thought of bearing OUR sins - not his own. It was OUR iniquities that Yahweh laid on him; and to someone who was sinless, the thought of bearing sin, and thereby being forsaken by his God, was agony.
Dave - I’m sorry if I appear to be complicating things. That’s not my intention. I simply want to look at ALL of the Word of God relative to the subject, and I don’t think that’s wrong.
He “suffered when he was tempted” reminds me of Matthew 4. He suffered hunger. The hunger was real.
The Tempter used that hunger to try to make him do something ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE - something he would not do, no matter how hungry he was. His total dependence on his God, his love for God and his delight in doing only those things that pleased his Father, made any such self-directed action impossible.
The reality of his hunger, though, and the suffering it entailed, means that he can sympathize with people today who are suffering from starvation and the temptations that such suffering can cause. (I can’t. I have never been there.)
Hebrews 4:15, I believe, qualifies what is meant by the “every detail” in ch. 2:17-18. Our high priest can sympathize with our weaknesses (like hunger and exhaustion). He was made like us in every detail APART FROM SIN.
In other words, his likeness to us in every detail does not mean that he was born with a sinful nature, as the rest of us are.
That, so far as I can see, leaves no contradiction. But I appreciate being reminded of any passage that might shed more light on the subject.
Margaret,
I will have to remind myself of my own advice that we should not be attempting to convert each other on this blog. So I’ll keep this short and simply give you my opinion, for whatever it’s worth.
You say:
(a) The Bible does not say “he was made like us in every detail apart from sin.” It says he was tempted in every way, like we are, yet without sin.
(b) As a Christadelphian, I believe that we are born with a nature that is capable of sin and prone to sin, but we are not considered sinners until we actually sin. Unlike the Catholics and Calvinists, I do not believe in “Original Sin” (or “Total Depravity”, as the Calvinists call it). This is how I can say say that Jesus is made in exactly the same way that we are, but still managed to live a sinless life.
I hope this helps to clarify the point.
Dave
A question on the nature of sin [disobedience].
Is it due to what some translate as “the sinful nature” [sarx] or something else? Considering that even spiritual beings are suseptible to sin [cp. Jude 1.6; 2Pe 2.4].
Thank you for the correction, and thank you for clarifying your point of view. I don’t consider it an attempt to convert me. You are trying to help. Big difference.
Just to clarify my own position: I am not a Catholic, nor a Calvinist, nor a Christadelphian. I am not bound to defend any “official” set of doctrines. I want to learn. If learning more about my Father’s Word changes my views, then they need to be changed.
I have been wondering about your sentence, “We all agree that there was no sin in Jesus. He did not sin in any way; not even through his thoughts.”
If he did not sin through his thoughts, what was the “temptation”? If he wasn’t thinking of a sin to be desired, how could he be tempted to commit it?
James makes it clear where the temptation to sin comes from. It comes from our own desires, our own inward thoughts. A pedophile, for instance, is tempted through his thoughts.
Did Jesus experience that temptation? Just how far would you take the phrase “in every detail”?
Hebrews 4:15 does not tell us that Jesus was tempted to sin. It tells us that he was tempted in every detail WITHOUT sin.
I understand “without sin” to qualify “in every detail”. The temptations he endured did not involve the temptation to sin.
That makes sense grammatically, and it fits what we read about Jesus elsewhere.
Xavier:
You would have to tell me what you mean by “sinful nature.” I believe that human nature can be described as “sinful” only in the sense that it is capable of sin and prone to sin. Human nature does not = sin, full stop (as the Catholics and Calvinists believe).
I don’t believe that spiritual beings are referred to in those verses.
Jesus said that faithful believers will be made “like the angels” (Mark 12:25) and Paul tells us that “the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (I Corinthians 15:26). Since death is the wages of sin (Romans 6:23) it naturally follows that there will be a time when sin and death both cease to exist. I believe that time is the post-millennial era (see Revelation 22).
Since the entire point of Jesus’ mission was to save us from sin and death, it makes no sense if we are still capable of sin in our glorified immortal state. In fact, Paul describes our immortal bodies as free from the effects of sin and death (I Corinthians 15:53-56). Thus I believe that those who are “made like the angels” will be incapable of sin, just as I believe angels themselves are incapable of sin.
If we can still sin after being accepted, glorified and immortalised at the Judgement Seat of God, then Jesus’ entire life and sacrifice was a complete waste of time. Bottom line: there’s no such thing as an immortal sinner. The very idea is a contradiction in terms.
Dave
By humanity’s “sinful nature” I refer to what Paul time and time again refers to as “the flesh” [sarx]. Something that apparently is seen as the vehicle and at other times the reason for sin itself.
So who or what are those verses referring to? I agree that God’s angels are kept holy as long as they remain subservient to their Creator. What about Satan and the rest of his wicked angelic host?
Xavier:
OK, I see what you’re saying. Paul sometimes uses “the flesh” as a metaphor for our sinful inclinations (Romans 8:12, “So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh“) and sometimes as a reference to our susceptibility to sin (Romans 13:14, “Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to arouse its desires”).
Paul always insists that our flesh makes us prone to sin, but he never equates flesh with sin. Paul would not regard a newborn baby as a sinner, as Catholics and Calvinists do.
I believe that they refer to a particular group of sinners in the Old Testament. Note that Jude mentions them in the context of other mortal sinners (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah). The Jamieson-Faussett-Brown commentary says that these “angels who left their first estate” are the sons of Seth (Genesis 6:2) which is a plausible explanation.
Alternatively, it might be a reference to Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16) which fits the context even better, since Jude has made it clear that he is referring to sinners during the Exodus period (verse 5) who were destroyed because “they did not believe.” I think this is more likely to be correct.
I believe that their only inclination is to obey God. They are perfect; immortal and incapable of sin. Faithful believers are promised that we will share this state. Is there any point in making us immortal if we can still sin? Do you believe there will never be a point at which sin and death no longer exist?
I don’t believe in an evil supernatural being called “Satan” and I don’t believe in a “wicked angelic host.” Angels are immortal and therefore incapable of sin. How can you have immortal sinners?
2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Dave
Your view that this isnt spiritual beings makes no sense. It nowhere says immortals can not sin. there have been many refered to throughout the bible. Can a person be possessed by a human, No so who are the evil beings being cast out by the power of the holy spirit by Jesus.
I am sure there are seperate commandments for spiritual beings and eternal punishments for sinning.
But you dont believe that satan is an angel that sinned, do you?
Margaret:
I understand this and appreciate it. I think you have a great attitude.
I see what you’re saying Margaret, but there’s a danger that we might end up talking past each other due to our different perspective on these verses. Perhaps we should go back to Jesus’ own words:
I believe that Jesus could be tempted to have lustful thoughts by the presence of a desireable woman, but that he never allowed those thoughts to emerge. Does this help you to understand my view?
robert:
robert, please go back and read my responses to Xavier, where I explain how I arrive at the conclusion that immortals cannot sin. Here’s the short version:
Death = the wages of sin. Immortals cannot die. Therefore, immortals cannot sin. Paul tells us that we will be made immortal, no longer subject to sin and death. Scripture tells us that there will be a time when sin and death no longer exist. Therefore, immortality goes hand in hand with sinlessness.
Surely you don’t believe that immortals can sin and die?
robert, doesn’t it strike you as rather odd that the problems caused by “demons” and “evil spirits” in the New Testament are now known to be medical problems which can be treated and in some cases cured by modern medicine? Isn’t it strange that reports of “demons” and “evil spirits” only emerge from the most remote, undeveloped human communities, where superstition is rife and
Well, I don’t find that anywhere in Scripture.
No, of course not. Angels can’t sin. What would be the point of making us like the angels if we can still sin? That’s not much of an improvement, is it?
“Surely you don’t believe that immortals can sin and die?”
Dave
Absolutely not, I believe they receive eternal punishment worst than dying in the lake of fire
——————————————————–
“”robert, doesn’t it strike you as rather odd that the problems caused by “demons” and “evil spirits” in the New Testament are now known to be medical problems which can be treated and in some cases cured by modern medicine?”"
Can a medical problem speak and fear judgement
————————————————-
“I am sure there are seperate commandments for spiritual beings and eternal punishments for sinning.
Well, I don’t find that anywhere in Scripture.”
why would you , they wouldnt be addressed to humanity
—————————————————
“No, of course not. Angels can’t sin. What would be the point of making us like the angels if we can still sin? That’s not much of an improvement, is it? ”
Dave
We receive immortality like angels we dont become angels.
Only difference between mortality and immortality is death would be a blessing for an immortal that sinned. better to be a mortal who sinned that to have all the truth as an immortal has than sin
robert and Xavier,
I’ll have to drop this subject because I can see us going around in circles very soon, and in any case I need to get back to my Trinity debate. But I’ll respond to these last few points:
True, we don’t become angels. But we do become free of sin and death. Read I Corinthians 15.
Ooops, my final quote tags are broken. Hopefully you can still see what I mean.
:p
Thank you, Dave. Matthew 5:28 was on my mind. A man who looks on a woman IN ORDER TO (pros) lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
My question with regard to Jesus is - how could he be “tempted” to have lustful thoughts, unless the desire for lustful thoughts was already there?
More generally, how could he be “tempted” to steal or “tempted” to abuse a child without having sinful thoughts?
If in Hebrews 4:15 the verb (tempted) is qualified by the adverbial phrase (without sin), then it’s telling us he was tempted in every respect EXCEPT sin. Grammatically, that is the natural way to read the sentence. Or am I wrong?
If that is a legitimate understanding of the sentence, it does away with the problem of how far we go in applying “in every respect” to the ways in which Jesus was tempted to sin. It means he wasn’t tempted to sin at all. He was tempted in all respects EXCEPT sin.
Frankly, I think that makes sense. He was (is) his Father’s true Son. Like his Father, he is not tempted with evil, and he doesn’t tempt anyone else with evil.
I DO understand, however, that the Tempter in Matthew 4 was trying to use the physical hunger of Jesus to make him act independently of God. It didn’t work.
“True, we don’t become angels. But we do become free of sin and death. Read I Corinthians 15.”"
Dave just were do you see this applying to angels, after the first resurrection satan will be bound for 1000 years so temptation to sin will be too. after the 1000 years he will be freed to deceive the nations than after that thrown into eternal punishment with the false prophet and antichrist then God will come to dwell physically with the living where sin and death no longer exist.
there are 2 resurrections and you have applied them in your doctrine to be the same. the first only promises us 1000years but in the 2nd immortality. but those who enter the 1000 year kingdom are promised immortality when death is defeated after the 1000 years but those who live without the kingdom during the 1000 years are still subject to death as we see when satan is freed and deceives the nations to bring war against the saints.
Why 6 references when i can use the whole bible to prove it. can you provide 6 references to support your view. no but you can ignore many to support your view.
I cant fight those who ignore clear verses so yes we have come to the end of a fruitful discussion.
Wisdom doesnt allow me to ignore clear verses over unclear verses that can be interpretated to mean just about anything we want.
Dave, I was reading #268.
Now my thought about Jesus being with God in God’s very image
and likeness in the begining, and up until he came to this earth through his conception by the Holy Spirit, at such a time is it that he was not tempted?
Could it be that a divine Son of God being as God himself is, without flesh, but being a spiritual being, could it be that in such a condition, he was, and at this time he was not tempted?
I suppose I can look at Lucifer’s condition. He was a spiritual being,
but he fell into sin, having not flesh.
I suppose Jesus being with God in the beginning, could have fallen into sin as Lucifer did, but Jesus did not. He kept himself in God.
“Can you find six passages in Scripture which prove that we will be capable of sin even after we are immortalised? I don’t think so.”
Dave
Here is one powerful one worth more than 6 that an immortal being can sin. what so powerful about this one is it is Lucifer the archangel(anointed cherub) aka advesary(Satan) of God. the one you deny exist. there is no way this refers to any human being
Ezekiel 28
11 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, [4] topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, [5] and never shalt thou be any more.
Dave, before you go let me reply to your last message to me where you said:
Hard not to come to that conclusion that that flesh=sin. What is he saying regarding sin and the origin thereof?
Yes, I have heard it said that the “angels” menioned throughout the scriptures starting with Gen 6 are humans and not angelic beings.
But, as the ESV Study Bible states, most “scholars think this refers to the original fall of angels from heaven. Others think Jude is referring to the sin of angels in Gen. 6:1–4 (see 1 Pet. 3:19). This view is strengthened by Jude’s citation of 1 Enoch 1.9 (Jude 14–15), which contains much discussion on the fall of these angels.”
Following are notes from 1Pe 3.19 from the same:
Dave
Sure, I believe what scripture says regarding the eternality of the age to come. Beyond that the information is next to scant to say the least.
I see. Forgot your a CD. Guess the previous comments from ESV will be explained away so let me ask you this. Paul writes in Eph 6.12 that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers [kosmocrator] of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.”
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the NT says this regarding the Greek word kosmokrator:
The ESV Study Bible says that this is a “list of spiritual rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers (see 3:10) gives a sobering glimpse into the devil’s allies, the spiritual forces of evil who are exceedingly powerful in their exercise of cosmic powers over this present darkness.”
Further, the online NET Bible commentary adds:
What say you?
[QUOTE]What say you?[/QUOTE]
Xavier - Dave is clearly busy with his debate - which is important - so maybe this is the time for me to ask for help in formatting.
I’m going to try using the code used on another website, to see if it works. If it doesn’t would you please tell me what I am doing wrong?
One of the sufferings that Jesus endured was the suffering of [B]death[/B]. That suffering was necessary, both for his role as [I]Savior[/I] and for his role as a sympathetic [I]high priest[/I].
Chapter 5 of Hebrews expands on the subject already started in ch. 4, and I am finding it extremely interesting.
I wish there were a way to preview this before sending it, but … here goes.
Sigh.
Margaret,
This website uses normal html for formatting comments. Click here to see instructions on how to format using html. (the link is also at the top of the page called “Formatting Comments”)
Thank you!!
I am still thinking that “The Word” of John 1:1 is probably the same person whose name is “The Word of God” in Revelation 19:13.
On another thread, some verses were mentioned which seem hard to reconcile with the idea that the Son of God did not exist before the birth of Jesus. Here are three of them:
John 1:15,30 - John bore witness of Him … “He existed before me.”
John 6:62 - What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?
John 17:5 – Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Is there conclusive evidence somewhere that the Son of God did not exist until Jesus was born? If so, what is it?
I just read the article Divine Agency in the Scriptures.
It is tremendous. I have not seen the subject dealt with so well.
As far as I can tell, the Bible never suggests that Jesus did not exist until he was born.
When I read Colossians 1:26-28, it seems to me that not only is Paul speaking of the mystery about Christ, but about Christ himself
who was hid but became manifest unto the saints. It seems to me that Christ himself is the mystery of God and the grace of God. (Titus 2:11)
Margaret
Anthony Buzzard in his recent book Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian [p 147] writes that it is “important to examine God’s own story as He prepared to bring his unique Son on to the scene of history, ‘when He brought the firstborn into the world’ (Heb. 1:6). ‘In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, coming into existence from a woman’ (Gal. 4:4)…Note the deliberate and unusual use of ginomai here and in Rom. 1:3 to express the beginning of existence, not just birth. Compare the genesis of Jesus in Matt. 1:18. Note that the normal word to express birth is gennao (see Job 14:1; 25:4).”
On the textual evidence regarding the word genesis at Mat 1.1, 18 textual critic Bart Ehrman in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture [pgs. 75-76] says:
Actually Jesus did believe in a Godhead as you will find in [Luke 7:35] “Wisdom is proven by Her children.” but only as dual aspects just as many throughout the OT did. You will also find that during the translation to greek they removed Feminine aspects and replaced them with masculine aspects and John 1 is the worst of the mistranslations by applying a masculine aspect to wisdom(word)( Holy spirit) or as it should be known as the indwelling spirit that made a dwelling place in the person of Jesus that made him the anointed(christ). Whether Jesus was exalted to a position of the Son in the Godhead at his resurrection as the first begotten of the dead I am not sure but some NT writers hint very heavily toward it. what the most important to know is Jesus was just a perfect human being while he walked the earth born of completely human parents but was the first to receive the promise of the indwelling of the spirit of God and his blood completed that promise to the whole world to receive the same .
Just how many scholars know this but hide it from the church
Among the many pearls of truth that have purposely been concealed from churches and synagogues is the awareness that Elohim is simultaneously God and Goddess. In the original Hebrew of the Bible, Eloah [el-LO-ah], is the feminine form of ‘God.’ This one specific word, Eloah, literally means “Goddess.”
Theologians, motivated by various agendas, deliberately masked profound truths about Elohim [pronounced el-lo-HEEM], the God of the Bible. They intentionally obscured the presence of the Divine Feminine. Even though some of the Hebrew words for God have a distinctly feminine gender, translators have almost universally suppressed this, being unwilling to use the feminine word “Goddess.” They have consistently used only masculine pronouns when referring to God – even when feminine pronouns would have been correct.
Present-day Bible dictionaries and concordances are still biased, and ignore basic Hebrew grammatical rules in translating the various words for Deity. The result is that most Christians and Jews have been mis-taught that God is exclusively male.
Elohim is a majestic, awesome Being that is beyond comprehension. Elohim is translated into English as ‘God.’ It is actually a gender-combined word, simultaneously representing both unity and majestic plurality. It is a compound of the feminine singular Eloah with the masculine plural suffix -im. Eloah is the feminine singular counterpart of El, which means God. Eloah is correctly translated as “Goddess.” In Hebrew, the -oah, -oh or -ah suffix makes a word feminine [comparable to the English suffix -ess, used in such words as waitress and stewardess.]
In Aramaic, the original language of New Testament times, the word Abwoon is similarly gender-combined, meaning “Father-Mother.” In the original Aramaic, ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ begins with the word Abwoon, but in English translations of the Bible, it has been translated as Father, only.
El Shaddai is another name of God used in the Bible. The word ‘shad’ means ‘woman’s breast,’ and ‘shaddai’ means ‘breasts,’ or ‘many breasts.’ Though El Shaddai is translated as ‘God Almighty,’ or ‘the Almighty’ in the English Bible, it literally means ‘God with breasts’ or ‘[many] breasted [God].’ The name El Shaddai refers to the Goddess of Israel.
There is a radically important declaration in Exodus 6:3: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.” The Patriarchs were aware of the Father [Yahweh], but Elohim related to them primarily as the Goddess, El Shaddai.
The word Eloah appears fifty-seven times in the Old Testament, and Shaddai or El Shaddai appears forty-eight times; two-thirds of these are found in the book of Job. Job lived during the days of Abraham, and Job is the second most ancient book of the Bible. There are two specific declarations of the femininity of Eloah, in Job. The Father announced, “the sea ‘leapt tumultuous from the womb’.” [Job 38:8] Then, He rhetorically asked, “Out of whose womb came the ice?” [Job 38:29] Obviously there is a Biblical Goddess, Eloah, from whose Divine Womb sprang the sea and ice.
Ruach ha Kodesh is the Hebrew phrase that means ‘Holy Spirit.’ Ruach is feminine, and the Aramaic equivalent ruah is also a feminine noun. These words are always paired with feminine verbs and pronouns. The Holy Spirit is feminine, and is another designation of Eloah. In the original Aramaic texts, Messiah promised: “And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that She may dwell with you forever.” [John 14:16]
Wisdom is another name for the Goddess. ‘Wisdom’ is the feminine Hebrew word Hochmah; the equivalent name in Greek is Sophia. Although the word ‘wisdom’ definitely is equated with good judgment and astuteness, Wisdom unmistakably refers to Goddess in several scripture passages, The Messiah said: “Wisdom is proven by Her children.” [Luke 7:35]
Wisdom announces that She was brought forth before the physical creation, and She also assisted in the generative process, alongside Yahweh. “Yahweh created Me, first-fruits of His fashioning, before the oldest of His works. From everlasting I was firmly set – from the beginning, before the earth came into being. The deep was not when I was born, nor were the springs with their abounding waters. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before He had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world. When He fixed the heavens firm, I was there; when He drew a circle on the surfaces of the deep, when He thickened the clouds above, when the sources of the deep began to swell, when He assigned the sea its boundaries (and the waters will not encroach on the shore), when He traced the foundations of the earth. I was beside the Master Craftsman, delighting Him day after day, ever at play in His presence, to play everywhere on His earth, delighting to be with the children of men.” [Proverbs 8:22-31]
The Bible makes numerous references to the Goddess. It instructs us to praise and worship Her; to offer prayer to Her. “I am one who calls on Goddess and expects an answer.” [Job 12:4]
“Then Shaddai will be all your delight, and you shall lift your face to Eloah. You will pray and She will hear.” [Job 22:26-27]
Robert
That last post was very interesting. I am always praying to God for wisdom…
Hi, everyone
I’m glad to be back after a short holiday.
To turn to our Debate, Part 2:
I’ll start with Bowman’s treatment of the matter. He starts off with expressing his unease toward classical hermeneutics, namely the assigning of greater priority and authority to clearer texts, compared to unclear or ambiguous texts. Well, that poses a problem to Bowman. If I am a polygamist and proper scientific research publishes one finding after another on the negative effects polygamy has on the person, the family and the community, my reaction to those findings will reveal my own honesty in the matter. But my attacking scientific method would be the utmost sign of dishonesty and desperation! If the polygamist thinks that scientific revolution will follow because the method exposes a weakness in his makeup, well, he has to think again. The same goes with Bowman.
I generally agree with his 8 points on exegesis. I would add the ninth, though – the one Bowman strives to trivialize above.
Now, over to Bowman’s “proofs.” I was dumbstruck to see which texts Bowman included and which he didn’t. He did not include the “Alpha and Omega” texts of Revelation! No “I am” texts! While these are the ones he loves to use - not to mention the novel ad hoc grammatical rules in Greek he conjures up when treating John 8:58. But, alas! Bowman still has creative concoctions he scoops out of his eisegetical cauldron…
Matthew 28:17: “And when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted.” Bowman then says:
Arguing from silence…fallacy number one.
Inconsistent arguing. If the context determines what they doubted about, where does it say that they doubted the “propriety of worshipping Jesus?” Fallacy number two.
He continues:
Excuse me, but we are not the ones asserting the propriety of proskyneo to be the issue here! Strawman fallacy…fallacy number three. Dave nicely answers the issue, pointing to the apostles doubting whether it was truly the risen Jesus.
He then links 28:16-18 with 4:8-10. As Dave points out, there is no link…In fact, Jesus uses the fact of his receiving all authority as a reason, not for worshipful service, but for sending them out to spread the Gospel. “Therefore, go and make disciples…” Nice cherry picking by Bowman…fallacy number four.
He goes on:
What I cannot understand is that Bowman has to resort to such reductionistic assumptions that the juxtaposition of these referents automatically and naturally implies equality and identity. The very juxtaposition does not imply 3 Gods (however this can be deducted from it alone is also mind-boggling). If it’s all about the juxtaposition, why cannot the Father be the Son be the Spirit? From juxtaposition, that is. Slippery slope par excellence.
He says:
False dilemma. We expect no president for performing such acts to any other man. As the Ultimate Declarer of who Jehovah is, Jesus would be the only man ever to receive such exaltation and no one since! The absence of any such comparison does not necessitate him to be God, sorry
Another false dilemma:
Not true. His being present does not necessitate him being God, and no such connection is ever made. His sending a representative spirit (John 16:7-16) is the actual Biblically authentic understanding of it.
Bowman’s reference to God’s sh’khinah is another short-sighted, rushed “proof” of Jesus “Deity.” Messianic Jews like to run with this “evidence.” Sh’khinah means glory. Bowman and others say that Jesus was God’s glory, and thus in essence God. Well, not according to Heb. 1:3, where Jesus is “a reflection of God’s glory (sh’khinah)…” and not the Sh’khinah itself… Sorry, no proof here either.
Then John 1:1-18.
Firstly, had it not been for the grammatical ambiguity in English Trinitarians like to exploit when referring to God, the confusion would not have served to the Trinitarians’ interest at all. Hence you will find subtle grammatically distinct references used as if they were identical, e.g. to say the Father is God (ho theos, a definite noun) is not the same as saying the Son is equally God (no Greek precedent, adverbial reference). There is simply no place where such a distinction is drawn, unless one refers to theios, which would be a different reference altogether.
“En” means “was.” No “past perfect” nuance here either (that the “word” had eternally been with God), sorry.
The anarthrous predicate noun, “theos” in John 1:1c is not proof of Jesus’ equality and identity with God, period. No novel ad hoc grammatical inventions allowed here, sorry.
So, his assetions,
belong somewhere else, but not in this debate. He seems to be confused.
I have my reservations with Bowman’s reference to “world” as that which Jesus as co-creator created. Bowman here confuses the secular, classical kosmos (literal creation) with the biblical kosmos (order, arrangement of things). “Creation” (ktisis) is different from “world” (kosmos).
Bowman says in one place, referring to Anthony Buzzard’s explanation on “word,”
But in the next paragraph he says:
.
Nowhere does John 1:1 say this either! Bowman cannot accuse someone of something and then commit it himself! By the way, he doesn’t even attempt to refute Anthony Buzzard by evidence. That doesn’t prove anything!
He goes on:
No, poor exegesis again. In 2 Pet. 1:13 Peter refers to himself as a tabernacle. How on earth can that prove that Peter is God? If it doesn’t, how on earth can Bowman use the same premise to prove that Jesus is God?
As if Bowman has not had enough of accusing someone of something he is guilty of himself, he quotes the inaccurate translation (NRSV) of John 1:18b:
Check ANY interlinear. There is no such thing as “God the only Son.” This is utter dishonesty. And he dares to criticise Anthony Buzzard for using a paraphrase for Gal. 3:20!
Bowman’s handling of John 20:26-31 is no less amateurish. He goes to great length to divorce the section from its Jewish roots. He resorts to pseudo-polytheism (“John’s conclusion that he wants his readers to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (20:30-31) is not at odds with understanding Thomas’s statement in 20:28 as a model confession of Jesus as Lord and God.”) He ignores the authentic, and necessary notion of sh’liach, and he even contradicts one of his own criteria of exegesis:
John states the purpose of his book: 20:31, “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.”
Bowman assumes, still without proof, that the Father, Son and Holy spirit are 3 persons, while maintaining that they are a single being. He thus ignores the grammatical, semantic and anthropomorphical distinctness, inequality and non-singularity of the referents. His assumptions are mere repetitions ad nauseam that still need to be proven.
Bowman concludes by using the wicked Jews’ reaction to Jesus’ claims as an acid test for the veracity and implications of his claims.
His reasoning is simply preposterous! If we were to go on the impressions the Jews had of Jesus, we are equally forced to accept their impressions of Jesus being an agent of Beelzebub!
Bowman resorts to further structural fallacies:
First premise: If Jesus is Yahweh, he will be called “the Good Shepherd”
Second premise: Jesus is called the Good Shepherd
Conclusion: Thus, Jesus is Yahweh
Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.
Sorry, Bob, this proves nothing!!! To further say:
Now Bowman resorts to arguing from silence. He simply ignores that, if someone else is only God, then Jesus cannot be that One also. Jesus needn’t spell that out (although I think he does). As I said to Andrew Patrick, autistic children battle to follow implied linguistic logic. Unfortunately I see the same with indoctrinated Trinitarians. Only means only. Alone means alone. If someone is not identified as only or alone such, he is excluded from that… That’s why John 17:3 is so devastating to Trinitarianism.
Bowman finally resorts to equivocation when he said:
It is irrefutable that elohim or theos has a wide semantic range of meanings. Bowman equivocates the Father’s being God with Jesus being god, or representative of God (sh’liach)
It is clear that Bowman is very selective in what he brings out of his cauldron of doctrinal concoctions. To Bowman and others, language means nothing. Grammar means nothing. One can mean anything. “Only you” can include me too. But, alas, to Bowman, the Bible is as depraved of clear confessional statements of God’s identity as it is of quantum physics (cf. Bowman’s previous comparison to Creation). It is, in reality, a depravity of a heresy which simply isn’t there. A heresy which requires extra-biblical mystic philosophical terms to exhaust the mind in ironing out the confusion. A heresy which had Bowman refraining from using pronouns in referring to Yahweh (see Part 1), while doing so freely when referring to Jesus. This (sorry for the forensics) gives away his cognitive dissonance badly.
Bowman continues with very weak arguing when he replies to Dave’s part. Whatever Bowman asserts to prove Jesus’ ontological identity with God, will be a false dilemma unless and until he refutes all possibility for Jesus to be the exact representation of the Single True God, Jehovah. I can go as far as saying that, even if Jesus were called Yahweh at times, not even that would prove anything, but create a false dilemma. If an angel could have had God’s Name in him, all the more so could Jesus. This would not make Jesus God – any less than it would make the angel God (Ex. 23:20, 21).
Bowman wanders off into creating fabulous rules. Once again these are nothing more than structural fallacies:
First premise: If Jesus is God, he would be called Saviour
Second premise: Jesus is called Saviour
Conclusion: Thus, Jesus is God.
Fallacy: Affirming the consequent. He resorts to the ambiguous Sharp’s Rule to prove his point. The typical desperate attempts we see even Muslims resort to when their proofs collapse beneath them. What is more, having Jesus assigned so many titles doesn’t prove anything. Those titles have meanings. To insist (albeit reductio ad absurdum) that those simply prove his Deity is, as I have shown, creating a false dilemma.
Yes, Bowman doesn’t like us highlighting certain “proofs” they use for Jesus’ Deity being used exactly the same way with other non-divine beings (humans, angels, Satan). But that’s his problem. That’s what we call falsifiable arguments. If the premise proves deity in one instance, it has to prove deity in another. If not, then, it doesn’t prove deity.
I think Dave is doing a splendid job. I cannot improve on his excellent rebuttals. All I can say is, Rob Bowman has met his match yet again. I do not want to be in his shoes…
In Christ,
Jaco
Oh, yes, Xavier
The difference between Jesus’ Golden Rule and Confucius’ rule, is in approach.
The Golden Rule is active. Confucius’ is passive.
The Golden Rule is proactive. Confucius’ is almost apologetic.
The Golden Rule is vigilant. Confucius’ is defensive.
The differences in approach do become significant if one thinks about it.
Regards,
Jaco
Jaco
Got it…kuddos.
Thank you, Jaco. Bowman really does suffer from lack of “ammunition”.
Robert:
You are right in saying that the word elohim is not gender specific. In 1 Kings 11:33, each of three idols is called an elohim - and the first one is a “goddess”.
The title does not infer plurality, either. The Israelites called a golden calf their elohim (Nehemiah 9:18). The calf was definitely not plural. It wasn’t male or female either. But the Israelites called it their elohim, just the same.
The title elohim is a general title, used of any deity, true or false. I did a long search a few years ago and concluded that every single idol in the OT is called an elohim. There may be exceptions, but they are few. So Baal-Zebub the elohim of Ekron (2 Kings 1:3); Dagon was the elohim of the Philistines (Judges 16:23); Ashtoreth was the elohim (goddess) of the Zidonians (1 Kings 11:33); and so on.
It is also used of a REPRESENTATIVE of Yahweh, one example being Moses (Exodus 7:1).
Conclusion: The title elohim
Oops. Let me try again.
The title “elohim” does not infer EITHER masculinity OR plurality.
Robert:
You are right in saying that the word elohim is not gender specific. In 1 Kings 11:33, each of three idols is called an elohim - and the first one is a “goddess”.
Margaret
While it may be termed as not gender specific when spoken about another but It can mean both when spoke by the one it is spoke of. The use of this word as not gender specific could be used for an object , an unidentified person or even a mixed group of people. but no one would speak of himself alone using this word when there is a word to mean what gender is being spoke of. It could also represent a position that has qualities of both genders as it is meant when it refers to God and his created spirit which possess the feminine qualities as we see throughout the OT and as well the words of Jesus himself.
The Holy spirit is the feminine aspect of God that God sent to earth from heaven as the only begotten of GOD
Xavier:
Thank you for your answer to my question,
I printed your answer (Post # 296) and have studied it carefully. But it seems to be almost entirely taken up with whether the verb in Matthew 1:18 should be genesis or gennao.
Let me quote:
I follow the argument that genesis can ALSO mean the beginning of existence. But this is not what I meant by “conclusive evidence”.
For example: John 17:3 is conclusive evidence that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus Christ was SENT BY the only true God. (I have yet to see any attempt to reconcile this statement with the doctrine of tri-unity.)
But verse 5 of the same chapter says,
That seems like direct evidence that the Son of God existed, WITH the only true God, before the world began to exist.
So – is there any conclusive evidence that he did NOT exist prior to the birth of Jesus?
If there isn’t, then how do you reconcile such verses as those listed in Post # 292 with that teaching?
Margaret
If anything, the accounts related to his birth, coming into existence, being “sent by God” into this world, would tell us whether or not he preexisted his birth would it not? As it is, both the Matthew and Luke accounts do not give us any evidence of a literal preexistence.
Now, if we read into the Gospel of John such a preexistence simply because it refers to a “glory” that Jesus had prior to his birth, we would say the same for believers who are said to have been foreknown and predestined to share in those same “riches of glory” [Eph 1.5, 11; Rom 8.29-30].
If words have any meaning, as Christians it is of little merit if we say we believe the virgin birth but not what it actually says regarding the origin, coming into existence of the Son of God via His spirit. A miraculous event that created for the first time the unique, “one-of-a-kind” Son of the Living God [Mat 16.16]!
Xavier,
I agree with you here. I’d like to add two more things, please. Firstly, to understand Joh. 17:5 i.t.o pre-existence Christology poses a dilemma of another kind. The Bible says that Jesus received greater glory when he was exalted (Php. 2:9). To assert that he would return to former glory would be a contradiction of what Paul says. Unless, and that is what our understanding is, God had reserved this greater glory for Jesus before the world was.
Another point to consider, also dealing with glory, is John 17:22:
This is what we call proleptic, or anticipatory language. Some definite future event is stated as if it has already taken place. Without being aware of it, we understand this text to be exactly that. We know that those disciples had not been glorified yet. We also know that Jesus had not been glorified either. So, in anticipatory terms, they would receive what has already been reserved for them. Because our subconscious presuppositions include more than this where it comes to Jesus, we tend to ignore this understanding when reading texts such as John 17:5.
Regards,
Jaco
Let’s review the points on which we agree. The man Christ Jesus began his human life at his birth. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of a virgin and was therefore the unique, “one of a kind” Son of the living God.
That does not preclude the possibility that “The Son of God,” who is also “The Word of God,” became flesh when he was born of the virgin, thus beginning a unique human life.
John 1:4, 5 covers three periods, it seems to me:
1. I have glorified you on earth; I completed the work you gave me to do.
2. Glorify me WITH you (with = para – which means beside, or in the presence of) – …
3. the glory which I had WITH you (in your presence) before the world began.
The words of Hebrews 1:1-4 cover the same periods, though not in the same order:
1. The Son, through whom God made the worlds …
2. He (as a man - a little lower than the angels) secured purification of our sins …
3. then sat down at the right hand of God, having been made so much better than the angels.
His work as a man EARNED him a glory that he did not have before.
That’s what the passages seem to say. I am not trying to “read into” them something they do not say.
The same goes for several other passages, Hebrews 1:10 being one of them.
It should be noted that none of these passages have any bearing on the identity of the only true God, who is the Father alone.
Margaret
Of course it does! Because you are attributing 2 births or beginnings or coming into existence of the Son of God. Apart from denying the full human nature of the man Jesus, since that would make him some kind of pre-human human!
Your making the trini mistake of assuming “the word of God” is the preexistent “Son of God”. If anything, the logos at Jn 1.1 should be properly translated as “God’s self-expression of Himself”. It is not some second, preexisting being existing within the One God of Israel. It is, simply put, the creative means by which God brought “all things” into existence.
Who or What was Jesus before his birth then? Human, angel, or some second “god”? If something else, where is this person in the OT? Whoever or Whatever he was he is oddly silent.
Jaco
Great point!
The prophetic glory that was Jesus’ even before his birth was because God’s plan was for him to be the glorious redeemer of Creation. This plan was so well defined by the body of prophecy spoken and written about the Coming One that it was a virtual certainty. Therefore, it could be spoken about as a “reality” long before it was actually fulfilled.
In this same context Jesus could speak about the glory which he had with the Father “before the world was” [17.5]; a glory already received which in turn he gives to us, so that we may be one, just as he and the Father are one [17.22].
A “spiritual oneness” as opposed to an ontological one.
The perspective being Jesus’ heavenly and “eternal” glory transposed onto his earthly life and ministry; eternal because it began, not in some hereto unbeknownst “before all time” but in the mind of God.
Guys,
There has been a delay in the posting of our Week 4 arguments. Bowman was busy with family commitments over the weekend, and I have been very sick, bedridden for several days. Our latest work should be online very soon.
:)
robert, ray and Xavier: I don’t want to get dragged back into the satan/devil debate because it’s not on topic and it’s not what I came here to discuss. But I feel compelled to observe that nobody has presented any evidence that “Satan” is a supernatural being in the verses submitted to support your position. Nor have I seen proof that “Lucifer” is an evil supernatural being in Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 or anywhere else. In fact, modern Bible translations now reject this interpretation as fallacious. See the footnotes of the NET Bible for Isaiah 14:12 (here: http://tinyurl.com/3xv3roo).
Xavier, I’ve written an article on the Ephesians 6 passage (here: http://tinyurl.com/622ay7). It’s about 8 years old now, so well overdue for an update. But it provides a fair summary of my position. You might also be interested in an article I’ve written on the personification of sin (here: http://tinyurl.com/5du7z3) and the other articles on my forum which address the subject of Satan (here: http://tinyurl.com/yay36gy).
Anyway, back to the Trinity debate…
Dave
Just one question…you believe in holy angels but not in demonic angels?
Recently I asked a CD this question and he said that he did believe in demons but not in the Devil. Something I am still trying to get my head around.
Dave
I am sorry but your were the one who requested the verses I presented. Not only does Ezekiel 28 11ff prove that immortal can be judged and punished it seems to say they can die.
the fact that it is speaking of someone who existed 3000 years before this was written and the subject matter is without a doubt lucifer aka satan. this was just a plus. 2 birds one stone.
I see there is no reason to discuss this subject if you can deny the clear truth in these verses but your not the only one here.
Dave
“There is not a single reference in the Old Testament to Satan as an internal tempter. The Serpent in Genesis was clearly not Eve’s human nature! It was an external personality who spoke and reasoned with refined subtlety.” Anthony Buzzard, Satan, The Personal Devil.
http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/articles/satan.htm
Xavier:
Correct. I believe all angels are immortal and incapable of sin.
That sounds very strange; certainly nothing like Christadelphian teaching on this subject. I have no idea what he would mean by it.
robert:
Verse 2 tells us that this chapter is all about the prince of Tyrus, a human ruler. I see no references to an immortal being.
Dave
So if I understand this correctly…CD teaching regarding this subject takes the traditional belief in demons and a personal Devil and reduces it to human nature [OT] manifested as ailments [NT]?
Doesn’t this force upon the reader to see Jesus as either lying or acting in a deluded way himself? Since he is going around like a crazy man interacting with impersonal manifestations of the same human nature?
“Verse 2 tells us that this chapter is all about the prince of Tyrus, a human ruler. I see no references to an immortal being. “”
Dave verse 2-10 is adressing the King of Tyrus if you care to truly read it.
verse 11ff adresses where he get his power from and identifies satan as the true King of Tyrus making the human king only a prince.
No man can have lived in the garden, Mountan of God which was 3000 years prior. This even calls him Christ(anointed of God) as the once King of all angels but now fallen.
But if you dont want discuss this why do you continue. want to or not?
Dave
In one of your study links you say:
Yet, Paul clearly again and again refers to what sounds like a personal being who he describes as “the prince of the power of the air” [Eph 2.2; cp. Jn 12.31; 1Jn 5.19] and most prominently as “the God of this age” [note the use of the article here, ho theos, 2Cor 4.4].
With all due respect, I think you are misled and most importantly misleading others in this issue!
Xavier:
This quote has no impact on my beliefs whatsoever. I completely agree with it!
Christadelphians do not claim that “Satan” in the OT is human nature, nor do we claim that the serpent which tempted Even was human nature. We believe it was a talking serpent. Anthony seems to misunderstand our position, as so many people do. I did my best to clarify it for him when we spoke on the phone last week.
No, that’s another misunderstanding which confuses two different aspects of our theology. We don’t believe that “demons” are “human nature manifested as ailments.”
We believe that sin is occasionally personified (as in references to “Satan” and “the devil”) while “demons” and “devils” are variously (a) physical and mental ailments, or (b) false gods (I Corinthians 10:20), depending on the context (see the articles here: http://tinyurl.com/yay36gy). Notice the use of “daimoniōn” in Acts 17:18, where it is applied to Christ by Paul’s Greek audience. How would you explain this?
We also believe that the word “satan” is used in reference to external tempters, adversaries, and false accusers:
The NET footnote says: “The word is שָׂטָן (satan, ‘to be an adversary, to oppose’).”
We have an example of this in the NT:
“Satan” is simply anyone or anything which constitutes an adversary. On rare occasions it is used as a personification of sin.
But he’s not “interacting with impersonal manifestations of the same human nature.” He’s talking to people with physical and/or mental ailments, who believe they are possessed. If he temporarily accommodates this belief, it is only to reassure their faith in his cure.
I personally believe that some first-century Christians believed that “demons” were real, and that the Gospels are written in this way for this reason. But in our modern world, it is surely impossible to maintain the belief that ailments such as epilepsy, blindness, deafness, etc. are caused by “demons.” Can you recall the last time a “demon” made you ill? Would you tell an epilepsy patient to stop taking his medication and visit an exorcist instead? I suspect that the answer to both of those questions is “No.”
If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Christadelphian position by reading the articles to which I have referred, and sign up at my discussion forum (www.thechristadelphians.org/forums), where you’ll find plenty of people happy to debate it.
robert:
I don’t want to, but I couldn’t even if I wanted to, because you and I are simply talking past each other now.
Xavier:
Yes, Paul denies the existence of demons.
Notice, however, that Paul does not refer to this “personal being” as a “demon.” I think you’re confusing two separate issues: “satanos” and “daimoniōn.” Keep reading the articles. You’ll get a more complete picture that way.
With all due respect: I’ll live with it. If I can help to save people from Trinitarianism, that’s good enough for me.
Dave
Just how do you help anyone without the whole truth.
As far as the trinity goes i see one after Jesus’ resurrection as long as you understand that Jesus is not a God but an agent
as far as binitarianism goes I see it existing after God created Wisdom(The Holy spirit) (God of Isreal) as his only begotten during creation. thanks to Philo christianity changed this
Sorry I just dont see you helping at all
Dave
One of the tenents of your CD belief involves the excommunication and shunning of likeminded believers who do not adhere to your non-Devil [demons] doctrine. Whilst in your mind you may be saving people from trinis…on the other hand your condemning them to seperation from God!
Xavier:
Excommunication: yes. Shunning: no. We do not have a policy of shunning, like the JWs do. Anyone leaving our community for this or any other reason is free to find fellowship with people who share those beliefs and is free to return to us if their beliefs change again. If we’re wrong: well, we’re not condemning them to separation from God, are we?
The main problem, Xavier, is that “Satan” is typically described in a way that makes him equivalent to a second god. Not on the same level as the Father, of course; but still a type of “smaller” god. For me, that’s just unacceptable.
Dave
Oh, I am sorry!. So you only “shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces” [Mat 23.13]? At least you don’t shun them I guess.
Your assumption would also be true of the first Adam since he relinquished his divine authority and rulership of the world over to “the Devil” [Rev 12.9; 20.2], as the Bible alludes to time and time again.
Similarly, the second Adam [Jesus] was tempted to do the same yet didn’t. Thus, having been made the “author of salvation…firstborn from the dead” and through whom God will bring about the restoration of all things.
Hi, Margaret
It is truly a pleasure to have you on the blog.
As I pointed out with the John 17 references, we have assumptions (and even forced translations) we need to contend with. Firstly, as regards the Hebrews 1 references you use, we need to follow the development of the verses:
Verse 1: God communicated his word to our forefathers in different ways by means of prophets
Verse 2: At the conclusion of the days, however, he spoke through someone else, namely, his Son. By means of whom the subsequent ages came about.
Verse 3: Now, this heir of all things reflects God’s glory perfectly.
Verse 4: This very one has been made more excellent than the mighty angels and received greater status.
From this development, it would be an anachronism to have the references to ages (eons) refer to the Genesis creation. Verse 2 continues with how, after communication through diverse ways, eventually through his Son, God produced the ages. Hence my disagreement with the idea that the Genesis creation is in view. Not only chronologically, but also semantically. The translation you use has the word “worlds” for eons, or ages. This is unfortunately very misleading, since it gives the impression that the Genesis creation is referred to, which simply isn’t. Both the Old and New Testaments tell us that there will be new heavens and a new earth. In fact, there will be two more. First the heaven and earth of the Millennium, the 1000 years Christ rules the earth, which will perish (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 20:1-10), and then the heaven and earth of Revelation 21, which will exist forever. A little further on in Hebrews it says,
“It is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking” (Heb. 2:5).
So, the references to the ages or the order of things are the ones which would have taken shape after Jesus came and was exalted.
Another word to understand is the word for “make.” The Greek here is poieo and has a wide range of meanings of causation, including accomplish, are, be, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, made, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached. Hence my understanding that new orders of things came about by means of what Jesus accomplished.
You say:
As I showed, if the glory Jesus referred to was glory he used to personally possess before becoming human, his exaltation would not be “greater glory” but glory already possessed, or glory already given him. This does create exegetical complexities. If, however the glory Jesus ‘had with God’ refers to, not his presence with God, but what was reserved with God, or intended for Jesus, none of these complexities come about.
All these explanations do make sense if one allows the intentional or anticipatory spirit of these passages to guide one’s understanding (as with John 17:22).
Dave and Xavier,
Maybe after the Debate we should have an article on the Christadelphian concept of Satan, demons and angels.
I do have a problem with exclusivity among churches. Unfortunately the seriousness of the excommunication processes are often trivialized with, “they’re still free to return.” This is extremely reductionistic and misleading. As far as I can see, our understanding of who or what Satan or the demons are is not legitimate grounds for excommunication (1 Corinthians 5). And to say, “we’re not condemning them to separation from God, are we?” is not an honest assessment of the issue either. If it is not for the purpose of disciplining, or reproof or of correction, then what is it for? If separation from God is not the issue here, then why take such action also taken against behaviour that does separate us from God? What is more, if I do not confess the non-personality of Satan, I cannot share in communion with Christadelphians. This is the utmost sign of disapproval and non-acceptance by a people who consider themselves the Body of Christ. So, these rationalizations simply do not add up.
But, as I said, you have a debate you’re busy with, and you’re doing an excellent job. Maybe we can get to these issues once you’re done.
In Christ (believing in a personal Satan and all)
Jaco
Jaco
Couldn’t have said it better myself bro.
Keep the faith in a personal Devil!
Margaret,
Your reading of John and Hebrews (#308) looks very sound to me.
It looks the same as I have seen it when it began to become clear to me.
I too believe Jesus is the word of God who existed with God in the beginning, but was manifest later (in the flesh) to many who were on the earth.
I believe Jesus experienced what we could refer to as several
“births”, some of them in the spirit, and one in the flesh.
Thank you for the admission, Jaco. That puts us all on the same level. I will look at any evidence that is produced; but I will respectfully disregard explanations that are themselves based on assumptions.
I have some studying to catch up on; but previous exchanges have left me more certain than ever of one thing, at least: Jesus could not be tempted to sin. He was tempted as we are in all respects EXCEPT sin.
James is quite clear on where temptation to sin comes from. It comes from our own inward desires. If you don’t desire it, you’re not tempted to do it. And the desire to sin is itself sinful, as Dave pointed out from Mat. 5:28.
We all believe that Jesus was (and is) the Son of God. As a true Son, exactly like his Father, he could not be tempted with evil.
I am not basing that conclusion on assumptions. I am basing it on James 1:13-15, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9 and several other passages which I will not take the time to look up.
Jesus did not have to strive against his own temptation to sin, or he would not be the perfect, sinless sacrifice that God required. The sin he strove against was outside of himself, not within himself.
You can prove me wrong by pointing out a passage that tells us of a particular sin that Jesus was tempted to commit, but successfully resisted. I have never seen one.
Ray
Sounds Hindu/Buddhist reincarnation to me Ray. I mean, how many “births” do we have? Seeing as how Jesus is supposed to be our brethren.
Margaret
By definition sin is a manifestation of an inward desire [James 1.13-15]. One of the things Jesus was tempted with was riches [Mat 4.8-9]. Note also that the tempter “departed from him until an opportune time” [Lu 4.13], meaning that it did not end there.
To say that he wasn’t really tempted because he was totally unable to, being the divinely created Son of God, is to do violence to the text. Where it says he was tempted in all things yet did not sin.
Margaret
You said, “You can prove me wrong by pointing out a passage that tells us of a particular sin that Jesus was tempted to commit, but successfully resisted.”
Jesus said that a sin against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this life or the life to come. Jesus knew that God through the Holy Spirit had told him that it was his will that Jesus be betrayed, beaten, and crucified.
In the garden Jesus repeatedly prayed the same prayer over and over again asking that this cup be taken away from him and he was so distressed that he was sweating drops of blood. You honestly don’t think that Jesus was being tempted (within himself) to flee the temple guards that he knew were on the way to arrest him.
In the end Jesus overcame his fear and trusted his father’s will and judgment. The fact that Jesus so clearly experienced this (human) fear I think demonstrates that he was in fact fully human and not some kind of supernatural being that existed since before creation and that participated in the creation of the heavens and the earth…
Thomas - this example proves my point. It was not his own sinful desires that he strove against. It was the sins of others that caused him such anguish.
Jehovah was going to lay upon him the iniquity of us all. He was going to be forsaken by his God. The prospect caused him to sweat drops of blood. If it was possible, he wanted that cup to pass from him.
But he was totally submissive to his Father. “Not my will, but thine, be done.”
Jesus was fully human. We agree on that. He shared our human frailties. But he was nevertheless the Son of God, totally unique. He did not share our sinful desires.
His pre-existence is not the subject here. The fact remains that he was conceived supernaturally, through the power of the Holy Spirit. His father was not a human father. His Father was God.
Or maybe you don’t believe that?
Margaret
Lets put the birth narrative in context
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest(KING OF ISRAEL)
: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a(THAT) man (NAMED DAVID)? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God(KING OF ISRAEL).
This is all about Jesus being heir to the throne though Joseph Nowhere does this state God fathered Jesus. Quite the contrary because the power that Caused the conception was the HOLY MOTHER ,THE HOLY SPIRIT
JOSEPH IS THE REAL FATHER OF YAHSHUA.
Matthews birth narrative was added by church fathers because It wasnt in the original hebrew writing of Matthew as testified by several church fathers
Xavier - Does the text say that he DESIRED riches? If he didn’t DESIRE them, then Satan’s “tempting” turned out to be a test - which is what the word means in Mat. 4:7.
You can’t tempt the Lord God with evil; but you can test him - as the Israelites did at Masseh.
Similarly, God doesn’t tempt anybody to do evil. When he “tempted” Abraham, he was not tempting him to sin. He was TESTING Abraham’s loyalty and devotion.
My point is, if Jesus desired something sinful, then he was sinful. That is taking him at his own word (Mat. 5:28).
He was NOT sinful. He did no sin. No sin was in him. He had no sinful thoughts or sinful desires. So the Tempter had no hold on him. You can’t be tempted to do something you have no desire to do.
Jesus was not tempted to lie, or steal, or treat someone cruelly. If he had been tempted to do such things, he would not have been sinless, and could not have been the sacrifice for sin that I absolutely believe him to be.
I believe that Jesus was fully human, born of a woman. But his Father was GOD.
And he was like his Father. He was the image of the invisible God, who cannot be tempted with evil. Therefore, God’s Son cannot be tempted with evil, either. He was tempted in every respect EXCEPT sin.
Robert - If the Bible is not reliable, we’re wasting our time.
Margaret
No I am not wasting my time because theres thousand of verses,years of history and with a little common sense it is very profitable to me.
The way it is interpreted is what makes it a waste
Margaret
What about the first Adam? The difference between him and the second Adam is that one failed the “test” [temptation] and the other didn’t.
Your reasoning is facetious to say the least. I mean, what other ways can you be tempted except for the purpose of sinning [disobeying] God’s commands?
I disagree with your assesment because your also making a distinction between the biblical meaning of “testing” and “temptation” that really isn’t there. It all leads to the same result. Vine’s Dictionary of the NT defines itthus:
The spirit of God led Jesus to the desert where the devil tried to get Jesus to sin right? If not, was it really temptation/testing as the text suggests? Now to be clear, the text says Jesus was tempted to sin by the Devil and not by God! As you are misreading it. With the OT understanding by Abraham’s example [and many others] that people are tested by God through various means in this present evil age. He allows it “because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” [James 1]
As the writer of Hebrews clearly states, in order for Jesus to bring the children of God “to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters…
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death…
For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. [Heb 2]
Xavier:
We don’t shut the kingdom of heaven in anyone’s face. (We don’t control the door to the kingdom of heaven!) We simply can’t fellowship with anyone who disagrees with us on doctrinal principles that we consider fundamental. That was the apostolic practice, endorsed by Paul himself.
Xavier, you appear to have missed my point. I’m not talking about divine authority and rulership. I’m talking about supernatural power.
Where does your supernatural Satan get his supernatural power from? We know his power does not come from God, because Jesus proved this when he responded to the Jews in Luke 11:18-20. So is Satan’s power innate? That would make him a type of lesser god.
Anyway, perhaps we can discuss this in more detail after the Trinity debate, as Jaco suggested.
Jaco:
Christadelphians understand “demons”, etc. to fall into the category of false gods. That is why we cannot fellowship anyone who believes in them. If that position sounds harsh or unfair, consider this: Paul himself said “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot take part in the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” (I Corinthians 10:21). And that was merely in reference to eating food offered to pagan idols!
Nobody can separate you from God. If you are excommunicated, you are separated from a community, but you are not separated from God. You are still free to pursue your relationship with God in any way that you please. The issue is not about separation from God; it’s about fellowship with a community on the basis of “one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:4-6).
Jaco, I consider you a Christian, just as I consider the Trinitarians Christians. But I can’t break bread with people who believe in the “demons” that Paul described as false gods. I think that rationalisation stands up very well.
Dave,
Believing, as in trusting in, hoping in, praying to demons/false gods/Satan is not the issue here. The issue is believing in whether they exist or not. My acknowledging their existence is most certainly not communing or fellowshipping with them (which eating food in celebration of pagan idols impied), so, the 1 Corinthians 10:21 reference is, I think, irrelevant.
Dave, disapproval is the issue here. If the issue were as trivial as how it is stated above, this action, typically taken against serious and gross sinners (fornicators, idol worshipers, drunkards, blackmailers, etc. - 1 Corinthians 5), would not be the very same action taken against someone who believes in the existence of a personal Satan and demons. The congregational discipline, the judgement, the rejection, the excommunication are most certainly seen as a very serious act of disapproval by a community who view themselves as the Body of Christ, as ambassadors of Christ, upholding His righteous judgment. Their rejection of a person or a doctrine is, in their mind, a reflection of God’s and Christ’s rejection of a person or a doctrine.
What is more, some Christadelphians are at odds with, for instance, the identity of the Tempter in Matthew 4. The same goes with Christadelphians’ understanding of exorcism. In a personal conversation with what we would understand to be an elder of a Christadelphian community in Johannesburg, this gentleman had this to say regarding exorcism:
These apparently do not violate Ephesians 4:4-6 you quote. In my books, that amounts to double standards.
The way you state it, maybe, but that is not remotely a fair reflection of the reality of matters. I am no demon worshipper, friend. Just as my believing in the reality of fornication and murder does not make me a sharer in those vile practices, my believing in the existence of demons and a personal Satan in no way makes me a friend or a fellow of them - let me just get that straight. I hope that is not the way you view me and others.
In your statement above, you say that you consider me a Christian ‘just as you consider the Trinitarians Christians.’ Maybe it’s just my Psychology/Cognitive Linguistics training, but that seems to contradict what you said previously,
If your estimation of other Christians were as indifferent and serene as what you stated two quotes back, you would not endeavor to “save them” from what you consider to be wrong. So, judgment is the issue here.
I, on the other hand, although at odds with your belief regarding Satan and demons, do consider you, not only a Christian, but also a brother. Had it not been for the Christadelphian policy making an issue out of the identity of Satan (to the point of excommunication and discipline), I wouldn’t even have had this discussion with you. Understand please, that the “gap” is not of my doing. If it depended upon me, brother, I would be honored to share communion with you.
Your brother,
Jaco
P.S. I’m still going to give my full support to your debate! Keep it up!
Dave
Yes, but I do not see them doing it over this matter. Since it didn’t exist nor present itself until John Thomas made it up!
What about an archangel gone rebel, as the Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation passages intimate. By this reasoning you could argue the same in the case of Jesus, since he is greater than angels and only second to the One God Himself. A “lesser god” along the Supreme God to be sure no?
What?! This is nonsensical reasoning bro. Paul believed in other “so-called gods” [1Cor 8.4-6] and James certainly believed in demons [2.19]. So I guess you would disfellowship them as well?
By definition though you make yourself out to be the true community [church] of God, don’t you? And since his body is the community of the saints [believers=church], how is this not seperatist??
Be careful bro cause so-called rationalism may lead to delusionism!
Looking at the last 40 or 50 posts, with all the different viewpoints expressed, prompted me to forget blogs for awhile and do what James encourages us to do: ask for wisdom from God, who gives to all freely and doesn’t reproach us for asking (James 1:5-6).
What I really want is to understand how your interpretation of Hebrews 4:18 can be reconciled with James 1:14 and Matthew 5:28. And your reference to Vine’s Dictionary, Xavier, supplies the clue.
Vine makes a difference between outward temptations and inward temptations. That is the difference between the temptations of Matthew 4 and those of James 1:14.
The Tempter tempted Jesus during and after the forty days in the wilderness, and probably many times thereafter. We are told about three of the temptations, specifically.
Jesus was tempted to use his God-given authority, on his own initiative, to make himself a meal. But there was no inward response. His subjection to the will (“every word”) of his God was total.
Satan tempted him to prove that he was the Son of God by throwing himself off the pinnacle of the temple. Jesus countered that temptation again with a word from God. He had no inward desire to show off.
The Devil finally tempted Jesus with the offer of all the kingdoms of the world, of which Satan is “the god” (ho theos - 2 Cor. 4:4), in exchange for worshipping him.
The temptation was not the temptation to be rich. Everything that Satan was offering him (and more) was already his in the plans of God.
The temptation was to avoid the path God had planned toward that goal. Satan was tempting him to avoid the cross; to avoid being made a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind.
But the temptation was outward, not inward. He had no desire to take himself out of the will of God. His response was, again, a word from God. His whole delight was to do his Father’s will.
That solves the problem. He was tempted as we are outwardly. But he had no sinful desires. He was not tempted inwardly to do evil. He was “without sin” – and that includes sins of thought.
In other words, he did not spend his time on earth fighting sinful desires - the inward temptation to sin.
Xavier - The temptation to insult those who disagree with you should be resisted. It does nothing to promote your argument.
Xavier, (#328)
I believe Christians have at least two experiences that we can refer to as “births”. One is the being born of the flesh, and the other the being born of the spirit.
Receiving the Holy Spirit with the evidence of the Spirit being manifest is sometimes referred to by Christians as a “born again” experience.
Jesus also received the Holy Spirit at his baptism, and this began a new kind of life for him, that is, his ministry in the power of it.
Prior to his being baptized by John, and his being born of Mary,
he had been with God, dwelling with him, and even going forth.
That might also be referred to as a “birth” of sorts.
I also think of his conception as a birth because at that time he came from God. I think of him as having been dwelling in God and then coming out of him at that time. Such a miracle of God seems to be to be a “birth” of sorts.
Margaret
I still think your not getting it. God allowed Jesus to be tempted/tested in all ways as we are. The outward evil he encountered to break God’s commandments had to affect him inwardly in order for him to “resist evil”. What do you think he was some kind of Terminator [cyborg, half-man/machine]?!
Do you know the concept of “brotherly” exhortation? Or don’t you think Jesus and the Apostles time and time again “insulted” people when they rebuked them for false teachings and their inability to come to the truth?
Margaret
Before you go I’d just like to respond to msg. (332)
You said, “He did not share our sinful desires.”
I could be wrong but the way I see it Jesus said that to even think about committing a sin was sin. He also said that a sin against the Holy Spirit was the worst of all sins and would not be forgiven in this life or the life to come. It is clear that it was the will of the Holy Spirit that he be betrayed, beaten, lashed, crucified, etc…
The fact that he repeatedly asked that this cup be taken away from him (even though he knew it was the will of the Holy Spirit) shows quite clearly he was thinking about sinning. He was doing the human thing and going to his father to see if there was some way he could avoid (violate) the will of the Holy Spirit (the will of his father).
He was (from within) thinking about committing a sin against the Holy Spirit…
I have to make a correction to my last message. Thinking about committing some sins, like adultery, was a sin. Since Jesus was without sin thinking about how to avoid doing the will of the Holy Spirit because of your God given human fear is something altogether different…
Xavier
You said, “Do you know the concept of brotherly exhortation?”
I agree with Margaret brotherly exhortation should be done with love and gentleness. If everybody on this site went around insulting people that they thought were wrong about something, this would not be a very pleasant site to visit. It would be no different from the many other sites I’ve heard about where people continually insult each other and call it dialogue…
Thomas
you are correct
whether you feel its christian or nonchristian is not the issue. It the fact it a rule for posting here.
we all fail at this at times but apologizing for it and then being forgiving is a most important christian issues
Today I heard the phraze “God fully embodied” which was applied to Jesus.
Though one might not wish to describe Jesus in such fashion, isn’t there a sense in which it is most certainly true?
Is there anything distasteful about that?
I appreciate your thinking about the implications, Thomas. If Jesus desired to do something sinful, it could not be said of him that he was “without sin”. That would be a contradiction.
He asked his Father to take the cup away (change the plan) if it were possible. He did not consider refusing the Father’s will.
“Not my will, but thine, be done” is a clear indication that he had no desire to take his own way.
Margaret
You might be right. But from Jesus’ behavior in the garden it would seem he was bordering on having a panic attack anticipating what he would have to go through. I don’t see how a supernatural being that existed since before creation and participated in the the creation of the heavens and the earth could experience such intense human emotions…
Hi everyone,
The reasoning on this topic has been very enjoyable and thought provoking to follow.
Meditating on all of it, I have come to a question. If God allowed Jesus to be tempted/tested by Satan, while knowing fully that he was capable of resisting temptation, what would the reason then be for allowing temptation in the first place?
The first Adam comes to mind. He was the first to be tempted/tested by Satan. Would Jesus, as the second Adam, be the proof that a man can resist temptation, as he was born as a man? Would his faithful resistance of temptation not settle the universal question Satan posed in the beginning, by tempting Adam and hence also Jesus? (The question being that no man would serve God faithfully without selfish motive, or gaining something.) Would his successful accomplishment not open the way for all of mankind to do the same? If so, what then is required to successfully resist temptation?
It is important then to understand how it was possible to resist temptation if we want to follow in his footsteps. Why did Adam fail and Jesus succeed? What does man need in order to equip himself to resist temptation/tests as Jesus did? Does resisting temptations of all kinds make for a perfect man as Jesus was?
Learning about the way he successfully resisted temptation and his humble plea to God to have the cup passed him because he would rather have Gods will take place than his own, has great spiritual value. Learning of the special relationship between God and Christ teaches us also. It tells us of the high regard Christ had for his Father’s will and purposes. Jesus also proved Satan wrong and opened a way for all mankind to learn how to do so. But most importantly he remained in the same loving, trusting relationship with God, his Father and our Father. He never jeopardised it.
Learning how to resist ALL temptation, spiritual, fleshly etc would then make a perfect man or woman. To successfully imitate Christ, and to fully serve God faithfully as Jesus did, leaves mankind with yet a great task to complete in order to become perfect. To gain a good standing with our God we need to successfully accomplish what our Savior has.
In humble service to God
Annie
Doubting
I agree. But I do not feel I have insulted anyone on here. That they may feel insulted because of their inability to agree with others, that’s their problem. Time and time again I disagree with alot of people here and vice versa and come into hot and heavy debate regarding certain matters. But at no point do I feel that simple disagreement is a cause for me to feel offended or insulted.
Margaret
I think Doubting Thomas’ has presented another excellent piece of evidence whereby if it was up to Jesus, in other words because his will at times weakened due to the constant testing/temptation he underwent, he would not have tasted of the “cup of wrath” that the Father had prepared for him beforehand. But his love for his God and Father was such that he was compelled, even though he may not wanted to undergo such sufferings, to do His will and not his own!
Annie
Your message is very thought provoking. I agree with everything that you said…
Annie
I agree with Thomas
That was very well put and a great understanding of One of Jesus’ great teachings.
Jaco:
It’s not at odds with my previous statement. I believe Trinitarians are Christians who worship a false Christ. We can’t just waltz into salvation purely on the basis of being a Christian; we must worship God in spirit and in truth. Trinitarians do not worship in truth, which is why they need to learn about the real, Biblical Jesus.
Christ said “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven” (see also the parable of the sheep and goats). By the same token, I believe it is possible to be a Christian without any hope of salvation. A Christian is, after all, simply a follower of Christ - and the world has plenty of those.
Dave
Is it just me or does this statement make no sense? Or by this do you mean to be flippant, like when the Apostle Paul talks about his false “brothers”?
“It’s not at odds with my previous statement. I believe Trinitarians are Christians who worship a false Christ. We can’t just waltz into salvation purely on the basis of being a Christian; we must worship God in spirit and in truth. Trinitarians do not worship in truth, which is why they need to learn about the real, Biblical Jesus.”
Dave
Thomas made a very good point in a thread here that he didnt believe salvation was a matter of doctrine. Salvation is based on matters of the heart toward your fellow human being. After this i did some reading with this in mind and found he is correct. I do not believe that someone who lived a life of love towards humanity would not be saved because they didnt know a christian doctrine. There are many people who would be considered very christian amongst the religions of the world that without the law of God and has followed the basics of it within their own beliefs. Their salvation is whats meant by Grace.
Now on the other hand there is a reward for the Elect for those who has separated themselfs as a special group by following every word spoken by God to man. This Elect includes all from the beginning to present who Loved the ways God set for man to follow concerning the Worship of HIM and the treatment of your fellow human. This is a more strict discipline including signs that God setup to set apart this Elect. This Elect is who will take part in the first resurrection and will reign as kings and priest with Yahshua during the 1000 year Sabbath of God here on earth.
I feel that i have met the requirement for the 2nd resurrection but i am striving to take part of the 1st. While there is a few requirements to meet for the 2nd , there are a multitude for the first. The 1st is for the best of the best and 2nd for the best.
So be careful when you judge your fellow human by doctrine over their behavior and claim salvation is for only likeminded people like yourself because God will save who he choses and teaching things that arent true might just set him against you
I agree with Annie that the secret of Jesus’ sinlessness was his perfect love for God, making everything else of secondary value. Thank you for that, Annie.
I also believe he had God (not a human) for his Father. He was the Son of God by birth, as well as “Son of God” by messianic appointment.
That, to my mind, explains his perfect love for his Father.
But maybe it’s time to just rejoice in what we all agree on: that Jesus was “without sin”. Neither his words nor his thoughts were sinful. That’s why he was qualified to die on behalf of sinners.
We, on the other hand, have all sinned (Romans 3:23). Anyone who claims he has no sin is deceiving himself (1 John 1:8). So all of us are qualified to confess our sins and be cleansed. (I take that to mean we can’t cleanse ourselves.)
If I have sinful desires, I don’t look for sympathy. I look for cleansing. But if I confess my sins, the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse me from ALL of them.
For that, I give thanks – continually.
By the way, anyone who has Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words would profit (I think) from reading ALL of what he says about the word “tempt”. It’s amazing the number of passages where the Greek word is found, and the many different ways it is used.
Margaret
You said, “But maybe it’s time to just rejoice in what we all agree on: that Jesus was ‘without sin’.
I agree. We humans tend to make too big a deal about small differences in doctrine instead of celebrating what it is that we all agree on…
“If I have sinful desires, I don’t look for sympathy. I look for cleansing. But if I confess my sins, the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse me from ALL of them.”
Margaret
As long as you understand this is a one time cleansing, after that your sins count towards judgement.
Hebrews 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Margaret
Yes, always in relation to sin!
Ray (msg. 351)
You said, “Today I heard a phrase ‘God fully embodied’ which was applied to Jesus….Is there anything distasteful about that?”
To a Trinitarian it would probably mean that Jesus was fully God. To a Unitarian like myself it would just mean that Jesus fully embodied God’s nature and character. So the way I see it, it all depends on how you interpret it…
When you use the word “always,” Xavier, you can be proven wrong with a single example. Vine gives several - which, apparently, you did not read.
In Matthew 19:3, Mat. 22:17-18, Mt. 22:35-36 and other parallel passages, the religious rulers were “tempting” Christ – not to sin, but to catch him in his speech. (Those passages are worth reading. The last one, in particular, fits in with Annie’s post very well.)
The same Greek word (peirazo) is used in John 6:6, after Jesus asked Philip where they would get food for all these people. The explanation is, “This he said testing him, for he knew what he was about to do.” (Jesus was not tempting Philip to sin.)
In Acts 16:7, Paul and Silas (after being forbidden by the Spirit to go into Asia) attempted to go into Bythinia. (How can you associate this with sin?)
The fact remains: if Jesus had sinful desires, he was not “without sin”. His own words in Matthew 5:28 make that perfectly clear.
Psalms 133:1 “Behold how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity.”
I think it would be nice if this website became a welcome place for all Unitarians whether they agree on Jesus’ pre-existence or his ability to be tempted with sin or whatever…
Margaret
Agree to disagree. This topic is not edifying no one I think.
Doubting
As you probably know, this is one of the few [if not the only one of its kind] blog that even lets you post.
Sometimes meaningless and endless debates such as these ones. Since few are edified and worst of all persuaded to come to some sort of unity in the sound doctrine of our lord Messiah Jesus.
Xavier
I appreciate the fact that you do allow me to post. But I think we can have unity even if there are minor differences in doctrine. The two things are not mutually exclusive…
“Agree to disagree. This topic is not edifying no one I think. ”
Xavier
Just how do you determine what edifies others, i could understand you saying it doesnt edify you.
Whether something edifies others or it self edifies would be unknown to someone not subject to edifictation on certain subjects.
I find edifictation where I least expected to find it.
Thats what drives all discussions
Doubting
It is not incumbent on me to let people post or not but the moderators of this site.
As to whether minor differences and unity in all things are mutually exclusive or not, the lord Jesus wishes his church to be one, even as he is one with his God and Father [Jn 17]. And as time rolls on and the world becomes overloaded with sin, this will be harded to find.
robert
Your posts are evidence enough whether any thread that ultimately leads down a rabbit hole ceases to edify or not.
“robert
Your posts are evidence enough whether any thread that ultimately leads down a rabbit hole ceases to edify or not.”
Xavier
There is no need to try to insult.
I think you need to understand how to use “edify” before you use it, because if you think you can know what edifies others you must not understand.
Xavier
You said, “As to whether minor differences a