Bart's Invitation

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:23 pm

ttoews wrote: you are right, it isn't clearly stated....I take it that, like me, you would expect Peter to address and clarify something as important as the nature/divinity of Christ in his sermon launching the Church's evangelistic mission. Would be nice if it was there and in its absence I note:
a) perhaps Luke simply did not report that portion of the sermon (I don't expect that Luke reported the whole sermon), but then one is still left wondering why God didn't have Luke do so.
b) perhaps understanding the nature/divinity of Christ is not as important as the Church has made it?
c) when one wonders why God didn't clarify the divinity of Christ so that no debate could arise one is not gaining support for one view over the other view....you might say that, "If Jesus is a member of the Trinity, surely Peter would have clarified that membership in his sermon.", but I can equally state that " If Jesus isn't a member of the Trinity, surely God wouldn't have allowed passages in the Bible to lead to trinitarian beliefs such that His church has been trinitarian (to the exclusion of other views) for many, many centuries."

It could also have been that Peter saw there was no need for such clarification as the fact was obvious to all who came to believe in Him.
I also think that some things went unstated to provide that step of faith we must take ourselves. Jesus taught in parables so that some got the message and others (who were spiritually blind) did not. God hopes for our trust in Him and leads us on towards Him, rather than blatantly telling us absolutely everything. To my mind, this seems like a faith thing. We are given a huge number of clues all pointing in a certain direction, but we must take the next little step in faith ourselves.

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:20 pm

Here it is! This is in response to ttoews' letter. I know many of you have been anxiously awaiting for it to show up

I needed some help on this one. I guess it goes without saying that it makes sense to me. Please see if any of it makes sense to you...
_______________

In response to a letter addressed to DonCameron. By Patrick Navas*

.…it seems this one Spirit is both the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God and that Paul uses those terms interchangeably....could that be b/c Jesus is God?

The Spirit of God, the Spirit of his Son, and the Spirit that indwells believers is the same. The Spirit of God and of Christ is the same, but God gives his Spirit to his Son and, in turn, his Son gives the Spirit to others (Compare John 3:34; 20:22). In fact, the Scriptures indicate that God gives his Spirit to all those who obey him. Jesus himself was obedient to God to the point of death (Acts 2:33; Philippians 2:8 ). Paul can use the terms “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” interchangeably because it is a reference to the same Spirit, a property of God's being, which he bestows on others, including Jesus, his own Son.

….for our salvation we are directed to have faith in Jesus Christ (1 Tim 3:13, Col 1:4, Rom 3:22, Gal 2:16 and 2 Tim 3:15 the last two specify that justification and salvation come through faith in Jesus Christ ) …yet elsewhere the faith of the church is described as faith in God ( 1 Thess 1:8, 1 Peter 1:21, Heb 6:1) …it seems this one faith is described as a faith in Jesus and then also described as a faith in God...could that be b/c Jesus is God?

Jesus is the one whom God sent into the world as God's chosen object of faith. Christians have faith in Jesus, the Messiah, because he is the one whom God anointed and commissioned—the one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” (John 10:36). By exercising faith in Jesus Christ we are exercising faith in God; this is so simply because Jesus is the one whom God sent into the world as his approved ambassador. Jesus is, in fact, God's own Son, the “image of the invisible God” and the “exact representation of God's very being” (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). So, to have faith in Christ is to have faith in God's sent-one, savior and chosen representative. Yet what this ultimately amounts to in the end is faith in God; but it is not necessary to conclude from this that “Christ” and “God” are one and the same.

Wrt the "One Lord", I do not anticipate that you would take issue with my identification of that one Lord as Jesus Christ...after all at 1 Cor 8:6 it reads "there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ"…

Jesus was regarded as “Lord” in the view of the apostles and from the perspective of the Christian Scriptures because “God has made” Jesus both “Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36). Or to put it another way, Jesus is “Lord” because God exalted him and gave him “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18 ). If we say that Jesus is “Lord” because he is “God the Son, second person of the Trinity,” we are declaring something the Bible does not declare and ignoring what the Bible does declare in reference to his Lordship. Yet one might ask: If Jesus is the “one Lord,” does that mean that the Father is not the Lord? No. Jesus is the “one Lord” because he is the one person whom God, the Almighty and Sovereign Lord, appointed as head of all Christians. But this does not compromise the Sovereignty or Lordship of God in any way. It is, rather, an expression of God's Sovereignty; for God himself was pleased to confer upon his Son authority over all. Such authority belongs to Christ alone based on God's own decision. It can also be pointed out that by identifying the “one God” as “the Father” and “Jesus Christ” as the “one Lord,” Paul is not excluding either from the broader categories of lordship or godship. The Father is the Sovereign Lord (Heb. adonai) and Almighty God. But, again, the very fact that he is Sovereign Lord of the universe affords him the sovereign right to have “made” his Son Lord of all others. And although the Father is the all-powerful, universal Lord, he is not the “one Lord” who was “appointed” to that status by another who is “greater” than he (1 Cor. 8:6; Acts 2:36; John 14:28 ). Likewise, Jesus is certainly a possessor of godship according to the Scriptures (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8 ), as are the angels and ancient rulers of Israel (Psalm 8:5; John 10:34), but he is not the “one God” who appointed someone else to be the “one Lord.” This is a dignity that belongs to “the Father” alone.

b)the gospels (all four actually) identify John the Baptist as the voice (from Isaiah) that is preparing the way for the Lord (Jehovah in the OT)..such that a passage dealing with Jehovah is applied to Jesus. That example is not unique.

It is not necessary to conclude that the text in Isaiah is applied to Christ by John the Baptist. The text is, however, certainly used in association with Jesus' introduction into the world (or on the scene of Israel) as the Messiah, “the beloved Son” in whom God is “well-pleased.” The statement by John does not need to be interpreted as “prepare the way of the Lord [Jehovah incarnate in Jesus].” The “way” of the Lord, Jehovah, is prepared, carried out, and expressed, in the arrival and work of his Messiah. But this does not mean that John the Baptist means that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Jews. In John 8:54 Jesus made clear that the God worshipped by the Jews was his Father.

In Joel 2:32 it states that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Jehovah in Joel, Kurios in the NT) will be saved. That verse from Joel is used by Peter (Acts 2:21) and by Paul (Roman 10:13). In Acts 9:14, 21 calling on a name is considered and the name in question is Jesus. In Romans 10:9 the requirement for salvation to confess "Jesus is Lord" is stated just before the quote from Joel regarding salvation for those who call on the name of the Lord (Lord = Kurios in both cases) Again a passage from the OT which refers to Jehovah is applied to Jesus.

Even if the confession “Jesus is Lord,” in this context means in effect, “Jesus is Jehovah” (which it probably does not), this does not have to be understood and accepted within the framework of Trinitarian thinking. Jehovah can and does put his name in others (Compare Exodus 23:21). That is, God can invest his name and authority in one he has chosen to represent him. Non-trinitarians can accept the statement that “Jesus is Jehovah” in the sense that “God has given him” his own name and authority in order to represent him (Philippians 2:9). In fact, it would be entirely appropriate to say and think of Jesus as “God,” because he, for all intents and purposes, functions as God. God has given him all authority; so Jesus is God, functionally.

In Isaiah 45:23 -24 it states every knee will bow before Jehovah...at Romans 14: 11 Paul references that verse and then at Phil 2:10 Paul points out that every knee shall bow at the name of Jesus and every tongue shall confess Jesus is Lord.

But note in the context that “God exalted” Jesus, showing that “God” and “Jesus” are two distinct figures. God has “kindly given” Jesus the name above every name (either 'Jesus' or 'Jehovah'), and all will confess Jesus as “Lord,” but it is all “to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11). The text in Isaiah indicates that every one will bow to God. This is fulfilled in Philippians when all bow to the one God gladly appointed Lord of all, to God's glory.

At Psalms 24:1 it is stated that the earth and everything in it is the Lord's ...at 1Cor 10:26, just after considering the Lord's supper, Paul quotes Psalms 24:1 using Kurios instead of Jehovah. If Paul didn't mean to apply Psalms 24:1 to Jesus why did he use "Kurios" for the "one Lord", for the "Lord's supper" and for the greek translation of Psalms 24:1?

Because by quoting Psalm 24:1 the original Hebrew term translated “Lord” was the divine name, Jehovah. Although Jehovah is the Sovereign Lord of creation, the owner of the earth and its fullness, the concept of “Jehovah” and “Lord” are not one and the same. Jesus is Lord (the possessor of 'all authority in heaven and on earth') and Master to all Christians because God, Jehovah, made him to be such, based on Jesus' obedient life to the point of death.

In the NT then, passages about Jehovah are applied to Jesus with the greek word "Kurios" used for Lord where Jehovah was used in the OT Hebrew. Could this be b/c Jesus, the one Lord, is also Jehovah God?

If and when this is so, could this be, instead, because God has kindly given Jesus his own name and authority as his representative?

“…we should also note the manner in which these titles are applied to Christ (b/c they are not applied in that manner to anyone else but God almighty.)”

When we do in fact note the “manner” in which the titles brought out above are applied to Christ in the Scriptures, we will realize that every title and dignity possessed by the Lord Jesus Christ is possessed by him not because he is “God, the second person of the Trinity,” but as a result of his Father, God, granting him such a highly honored and exalted position. One of the most significant points that should be kept in mind is that although Jesus is undoubtedly dignified in Scripture as “Lord” (which is commonly pointed to as establishing the notion that he is Almighty God), the Father is described several times in Scriptures as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,” or as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Compare Ephesians 1:17; Romans 15:6). If by calling Jesus “Lord” the apostles meant that he was “God,” how can the Father be “the God” of our “Lord”? Does Almighty God have a God above him? Certainly not. If we understand Jesus' Lordship based on Scripture itself, we will recognize that he is to be regarded as “Lord” based on the authority given to him by God, not because he is himself God.
______________

*Patrick Navas is a former Jehovah's Witness and author of the book, “Divine Truth or Human Tradition" at http://divinetruth.homestead.com/index.html

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:17 pm

One of the most significant points that should be kept in mind is that although Jesus is undoubtedly dignified in Scripture as “Lord” (which is commonly pointed to as establishing the notion that he is Almighty God), the Father is described several times in Scriptures as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,” or as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Compare Ephesians 1:17; Romans 15:6). If by calling Jesus “Lord” the apostles meant that he was “God,” how can the Father be “the God” of our “Lord”? Does Almighty God have a God above him? Certainly not. If we understand Jesus' Lordship based on Scripture itself, we will recognize that he is to be regarded as “Lord” based on the authority given to him by God, not because he is himself God.

As I pointed out before The Father is many times in the scriptures referred to as simply God, and vice versa. It is an authoritive term. This still doesn't prove that Christ is not God, or that the Holy spirit is not God for that matter...despite all of your clever tweaking of the scriptures.

In fact, it would be entirely appropriate to say and think of Jesus as “God,” because he, for all intents and purposes, functions as God. God has given him all authority; so Jesus is God, functionally.

That is probably the most diabolically clever twisting of the scriptures that I have ever seen. I don't recall anybody in the scriptures ever receiving worship reserved only for God that wasn't God. Not prominant men, not angels, nobody!

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:35 am

DonCameron wrote:

John,

I"m still trying to understand...

Are you saying that the reason why Jesus had to be more than just a perfect man is because Adam proved that a perfect man can sin? Therefore, a perfect man is not able to save anyone. Again, is that why Jesus had to be more than a perfect man?

I'm saying Jesus is more than just a perfect man because perfection is God's attribute and no one else's. We all fell short of the glory of God, Don.

DonCameron wrote:If this is what you are saying, then here are my thoughts...

You seem to be skipping over the fact that a perfect man can choose not to sin. Adam could have chosen to obey God. He had that ability. Your position seems to be that it is impossible for a perfect man obey God and not sin.

So let me ask you this question then, when did God put together the plan of salvation? Was it before he created Adam? Or did he wait to see if Adam would sin or not then decide on the plan of salvation accordingly? That, again, is a rhetorical question Don. God's Living Word (Jesus) was the plan of salvation ever before the universe.

DonCameron wrote:Are you saying that if Jesus had only been a perfect man that it would have also been impossible even for him to obey his Father and not sin?

That's exactly what I'm saying and what orthodox christianity has been saying for a couple of millennia.

DonCameron wrote:It seems to me that if anyone (perfect or not) cannot use his free will to obey God and not sin, then there really isn't free will. If it was not possible for Adam to obey God then he must not have had free will.

You know something Don? I used to be a huge advocate of free will. Make your own destiny type of thinking. But lately, thanks to some very good friends and a lot of scripture reading, I have come to the realization that human free will is extremely limited. I won't go as far as the calvinist viewpoint and totally discount it as I do still believe we need to exercise it to make the conscious decision of accepting God's free offer of grace. But I must admit, the gap between my thinking and that of a 5-point calvinist has been considerably narrowed (thank you August and PL). God did not wait for Adam to form his plan of salvation Don. So you tell me, did Adam really have the free will not to sin?

DonCameron wrote:You mentioned Moses as one who would not qualify as our Saviour. I agree. But not because he was perfect and could sin. But rather because he was born in sin and therefore was imperfect no matter how hard he tried not to sin.

As I said before, Adam did not have the natural propensity to sin yet he still found a way to go against his nature and sin because, according to you, he used his free will. What could have stopped Moses (or any one of us, for that matter) from using our free will to go against our sinful nature and not sin? The answer is nothing. It is the only logical conclusion. But if that's the case, I ask you again, why did we need Jesus? Since we have it within us not to sin, there's no need for a savior. I know you strongly believe what you believe Don, but these are the kinds of absurdities the early church was guarding against when the doctrine of the trinity was formalized.

DonCameron wrote:You gave Jesus as the example of the one that does qualify. I again agree. But not because he is God and cannot sin, but because he was a perfect man who didn't sin. He was born without sin and he used his free will to remain sinless. Although Adam was also 'born' without sin, he used his free will not to remain sinless.

I think I've already established free will had absolutely nothing to do with the plan of salvation as it was put together before free will ever existed. Jesus did not come to show us how to reconcile to God (or how to use our free will). Jesus came to reconcile us to God, period.

DonCameron wrote:WHAT IS THE LESSON LEARNED?

You and I have not learned the same lesson.

No, we did not.

DonCameron wrote:You said: Adam was a perfect man and he sinned, lesson learned.

If I understand you John, the lesson you have learned is that since Adam was perfect and yet he sinned, therefore for mankind to be redeemed from the negative effects of Adam's sin, it will take the sacrifice of someone more then just another perfect man (who can also sin). And so, if Jesus was just a perfect man, his sacrifice would not be able to redeem any of Adam's descendants. Therefore Jesus had to be God in order to be able to able to accomplish this.

Is that close?

Yep, that's the gist of it.

DonCameron wrote:The lesson I learn comes from what Paul explained to the Corinthians above...

"Since death is through a man(Adam), resurrection of the dead (salvation) is also through a man (Christ). For just as in Adam (a man) all are dying, so also in the Christ (a man) all will be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:21,22

The lesson you learned Don is incomplete because you missed the other side of the coin. We fully acknowledge that Jesus was fully man. But that man was also fully God yet still the same man, otherwise we'd be worshiping another god.

DonCameron wrote:Although you said, "God will not leave the plan of salvation to man," Paul said that our salvation from death is "through a man," Jesus Christ.

See above.

DonCameron wrote:To me, you don't seem to be taking into account that although Adam had the ability to sin, he also had the equal ability not to sin. And because he was created with free will, he could choose which way he wanted to go. When he chose the wrong way he lost his perfection and therefore could not pass perfection to any of his offspring.

I believe I've answered this already but just to recap, God's plan of salvation did not hinge on man's ability to sin or not to sin. If this were the case we'd all be gods. Once again, these are the inescapable heretical conclusions one arrives at when Jesus' deity is denied. These are the very ideas the early church was trying to guard against when the trinity doctrine was formalized.

DonCameron wrote:Jesus also had free will. He too could choose whether he wanted to obey his Father or not - just like Adam. Fortunately the man Jesus chose to be obedient even to his death. That's the way it looks to me.

Of course Jesus has free will, he invented it.

DonCameron wrote:Please let me know if I have understood you properly, If not, where did I miss.

You have understood it perfectly but I'm sorry to say I don't believe you've comprehended it.

Going back to an earlier post regarding Acts 2:14-42

You wrote:I was not able to see anything they said that even comes close to suggesting that Jesus was God or that God was Triune. Instead, Peter concluded: "Let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." - verse 36

Did 3,000 people get baptized without realizing that Jesus is God? Or did they get baptized because they then realized that that Jesus was both Lord and Christ?

Those 3,000 people knew only one God, the God of the bible, the one and only God, the one they must worship and no other. Yet here they are being told to worship this new Lord Jesus Christ. Either they became idolators or they believed Jesus was God. My money's on the latter.

As for your latest post in response to ttowes', I will only comment on the below quote as 1) it illsutrates what I've been saying all along and 2) all the rest is simply extreme sripture twisting as FFC already commented.

You wrote:In fact, it would be entirely appropriate to say and think of Jesus as “God,” because he, for all intents and purposes, functions as God. God has given him all authority; so Jesus is God, functionally.

I really can't tell if you really believe the emphasized portion above or you're trying to appease us somehow. Regardless, the above quote pretty much says it all. Either Jesus is God or you're worshiping 2 gods.

John.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:19 am

Sorry Don, but I feel like I'm being ignored here. Let me ask you again:

Why does Scripture refer to the Son as Jehovah (Isaiah 8:13-14 cf. 1 Peter 2:6-8; Jeremiah 23:6)? Why does it refer to the Holy Spirit as Jehovah (Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 10:15-17)?

And let me add, What does it mean for Jesus to "function as God"? Is this something like a substitute teacher? Please clarify that, and in doing so, you may see how ridiculous that statement is.

Thanks,

PL

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:05 pm

FFC & John,

Here is Patrick's reply when FFC flinched at the thought that Jesus is "functioning as God." FFC said, "I don't recall anybody in the scriptures ever receiving worship reserved only for God that wasn't God. Not prominent men, not angels, nobody!"

Among other things, Patrick offers an example in the Scriptures of this very thing happening.

_____________

I wonder, what is so “diabolical” about pointing out the scriptural fact (not opinion) that Jesus was exalted by God to God's right hand and given all authority in heaven and on earth? If God, by nature, has all authority in heaven and on earth—being as he is the creator of it all—yet at one particular point in time he gives all authority in heaven and on earth to someone else (whoever that someone else might be), is, in fact, functioning as God.

If God gives an individual such an all-encompassing authority, that individual is “God” to the persons under his authority. Do we find any concept like this in the Bible? Yes.

In the time of Israel's bondage in Egypt, Moses was “God” to Pharaoh and Aaron (Compare Exodus 4:14-16; 7:1). Moses was not God literally, but he represented God before these people, and therefore he could be thought of and spoken of in this way.

I'm not quite sure where the “worship reserved only for God” is given to Jesus. Jesus is certainly worthy of “worship,” not as God but as God's Messiah. If we argue that others beside God cannot receive a degree of honor and worship (those whom God has invested with authority), how doe we explain the following text in the Old Testament?

1 Chronicles 29:11: “Yours, O Jehovah, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours; yours is the kingdom, O Jehovah, and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all…”

And in verse 20: “David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king.”

The Point: The assembly of Israelites “worshipped” Jehovah and the king; but did that mean or demand that the king was also God?
______________

Naturally I (Don) think that is a fair question. And of course I think the fair answer is, "No."

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:08 pm

DonCameron wrote:FFC & John,

Here is Patrick's reply when FFC flinched at the thought that Jesus is "functioning as God." FFC said, "I don't recall anybody in the scriptures ever receiving worship reserved only for God that wasn't God. Not prominent men, not angels, nobody!"

Among other things, Patrick offers an example in the Scriptures of this very thing happening.

_____________

I wonder, what is so “diabolical” about pointing out the scriptural fact (not opinion) that Jesus was exalted by God to God's right hand and given all authority in heaven and on earth? If God, by nature, has all authority in heaven and on earth—being as he is the creator of it all—yet at one particular point in time he gives all authority in heaven and on earth to someone else (whoever that someone else might be), is, in fact, functioning as God.

There's nothing diabolical about it as long as Jesus is God. It becomes diabolical when Jesus is made into a lesser god then you've crossed into polytheism.

DonCameron wrote:If God gives an individual such an all-encompassing authority, that individual is “God” to the persons under his authority. Do we find any concept like this in the Bible? Yes.

In the time of Israel's bondage in Egypt, Moses was “God” to Pharaoh and Aaron (Compare Exodus 4:14-16; 7:1). Moses was not God literally, but he represented God before these people, and therefore he could be thought of and spoken of in this way.

It's not Pharaoh's opinion you need to be concerned with Don. Besides, if Pharaoh did think of Moses as God, he thought of him as a god among many and not as Jehovah.

DonCameron wrote:I'm not quite sure where the “worship reserved only for God” is given to Jesus. Jesus is certainly worthy of “worship,” not as God but as God's Messiah.

Yes, he is most definitely deserving of worship but if Jesus is worshiped as anything but God then, once again, you've entered into polytheism.

DonCameron wrote: If we argue that others beside God cannot receive a degree of honor and worship (those whom God has invested with authority), how doe we explain the following text in the Old Testament?

1 Chronicles 29:11: “Yours, O Jehovah, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours; yours is the kingdom, O Jehovah, and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all…”

And in verse 20: “David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king.”

The Point: The assembly of Israelites “worshipped” Jehovah and the king; but did that mean or demand that the king was also God?
______________

Naturally I (Don) think that is a fair question. And of course I think the fair answer is, "No."

It's a fair question yes but the answer is most definitely not 'no'. The only translation you picked that out of was the KJV. When I did that (the Lord from heaven, remember that one?) you called me on it. So here I do the same. Please check all other translations below:

1 Chronicles 29:20 (NIV) 20 Then David said to the whole assembly, 'Praise the LORD your God.' So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king.

1 Chronicles 29:20 (NASB) 20Then David said to all the assembly, 'Now bless the LORD your God.' And (A)all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and (B)bowed low and did homage to the LORD and to the king.

1 Chronicles 29:20 (NKJV) 20 Then David said to all the assembly, 'Now bless the LORD your God.' So all the assembly blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the LORD and the king.

Note that none of them even come close to suggesting that the king is worshiped, no less worshiped the same way as the Lord God. As shown, Patrick's example doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And by the way, who is this Patrick and why doesn't he come down and address us personally? Unless of course, he gave you full authority (Don, you're not him now, are you?

).

John.

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:09 pm

Now do you care to have Patrick answer the following?

puritan lad wrote:Sorry Don, but I feel like I'm being ignored here. Let me ask you again:

Why does Scripture refer to the Son as Jehovah (Isaiah 8:13-14 cf. 1 Peter 2:6-8; Jeremiah 23:6)? Why does it refer to the Holy Spirit as Jehovah (Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 10:15-17)?

And let me add, What does it mean for Jesus to "function as God"? Is this something like a substitute teacher? Please clarify that, and in doing so, you may see how ridiculous that statement is.

Thanks,

PL

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:21 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote:When you look at the original greek, what translates as "form" does not refer to shape or image, it means, "the very same material."

The word here translated 'form' is the Greek word MORFH.

This is what it means:

morph-ê, hê, form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), soi d' epi men morphê epeôn thou hast comeliness of words, Hom. Od. 11.367 (cf. Eust. ad loc.); so prob. allos men . . eidos akidnoteros pelei anêr, alla theos morphên epesi stephei God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Hom. Od. 8.170: freq. later, morphas duo onomazein Parm.8.53; morphên allaxanta Emp.137.1; morphan brachus Pind. I. 4.53; morphês metra shape and size, Eur. Alc. 1063 : periphr., morphês phusis Aesch. Supp. 496; morphês schêma, tupôma, Eur. Ion 992ti=tên autên tou schêmatos morphên Arist.PA640b34; kai Gaia, pollôn onomatôn m. mia Aesch. PB 212oneiratôn alinkioi morphaisin IBID=au=Aesch. PB 449; nukterôn phantasmatôn echousi morphas IDEM=A.Fr.312; proupempsen anti philtatês m. spodon Soph. El. 1159 ; of plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, huperphaton morphai Pind. O. 9.65 ; hois potistaxêi charis euklea m. IBID=au=Pind. O. 6.76 cf. IG42 (au=IG 1).au=IG =lr (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; sôma morphês emês OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); morphês eikonas IBID=au=OGI 383.27=lr; charaktêra morphês emês IBID=au=OGI 383.60=lr.

2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, Aesch. PB 78 , Soph. Trach. 699 , ti=Soph. El. 199(lyr.); outward form, opp. eidos, hekaterô tô eideos pollai m. Philol.5; allattonta to hautou eidos eis pollas morphas Plat. Rep. 380d ; m. theôn Xen. Mem. 4.3.13 , cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; hêrôôn eidea kai morphas A.R.4.1193; kata te morphas kai phônas gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9; tên m. melanchrous, têi m. melichroas, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143, au=Ptol. Tetr. 144.

3. kind, sort, Eur. Ion 382 , au=Eur. Ion 1068 <(lyr.), Plat. Rep. 397c , etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. forma for morg&uup;hm&amacr;, with f by dissimilation, êcf. murmx.)

Note the citation of Philippians 2:

2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, Aesch. PB 78 , Soph. Trach. 699 , ti=Soph. El. 199(lyr.); outward form, opp. eidos, hekaterô tô eideos pollai m. Philol.5; allattonta to hautou eidos eis pollas morphas Plat. Rep. 380d ; m. theôn Xen. Mem. 4.3.13 , cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; hêrôôn eidea kai morphas A.R.4.1193; kata te morphas kai phônas gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9; tên m. melanchrous, têi m. melichroas, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143, au=Ptol. Tetr. 144.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:25 pm

Byblos wrote:Please check all other translations below:

1 Chronicles 29:20 (NIV) 20 Then David said to the whole assembly, 'Praise the LORD your God.' So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king.

1 Chronicles 29:20 (NASB) 20Then David said to all the assembly, 'Now bless the LORD your God.' And (A)all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and (B)bowed low and did homage to the LORD and to the king.

1 Chronicles 29:20 (NKJV) 20 Then David said to all the assembly, 'Now bless the LORD your God.' So all the assembly blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the LORD and the king.

Note that none of them even come close to suggesting that the king is worshiped, no less worshiped the same way as the Lord God.

That is because the Hebrew word used here (like the Greek word often translated 'worship' in the New Testament), does not necessarily mean worship of a Diving being. Both the Hebrew and Greek words must be translated in context. The words themselves do not indicate whether or not the subject is Divine. Only the context can do that.

Of course many trinitarian translations render the Greek word 'worship' whenever it is used of Christ, and 'prostrate' when it is used of men, because they presume the Divinity of Christ, and on the basis of that assumption presume men were worshipping him as God.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:29 pm

puritan lad wrote:Why does Scripture refer to the Son as Jehovah (Isaiah 8:13-14 cf. 1 Peter 2:6-8; Jeremiah 23:6)?

None of those passages refer to the son as 'Jehovah'. You're committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Why does it refer to the Holy Spirit as Jehovah (Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 10:15-17)?

Those passages do not refer to the Holy Spirit as 'Jehovah'. The Holy Spirit was the agent by which God inspired men to write the Scriptures and to give prophecies, which is why passages are sometimes said to have been (by metonomy), written or spoken by the Holy Spirit.

Really, I don't understand how people can interpret the Holy Spirit as a Divine person. It doesn't even have a name for one thing, and it's simply God's spirit for another. The spirit of God is not God Himself. It's an attribute.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:33 pm

Byblos wrote:Those 3,000 people knew only one God, the God of the bible, the one and only God, the one they must worship and no other.

That's absolutely right, and yet no one corrected them before they were baptized.

Yet here they are being told to worship this new Lord Jesus Christ.

Where were they told to worship Christ? More specifically, where were they told to worship him as God? Particularly cogently, where were they told to worship him not actually as God alone, but as the second member of the trinity?

In fact we look in vain throughout the preaching of the apostles for evidence that they taught people the trinity (Acts is a classic example). This caused considerable embarrassment for the trinitarians (who came much later), who were unable to agree on an explanation of why the apostles failed to teach Jesus is God.

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:40 pm

Hi John,

First, I am not Patrick. I'll ask him if he would like to participate.

About 1 Chronicles 29:20 you said...

The only translation you picked that out of was the KJV.

First of all, I didn't pick out that version. All this information comes directly from Patrick.

Second, The American Standard Version Bible also says that they "worshipped Jehovah and the King."

Don

P.S. Puritan Lad: I'm working on your letter.

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:03 pm

Hi Fortigurn!

Nice to see you here. Makes me consider the possiblity that I may not be completely nuts after all - or at least I'm not the only one who is nuts!

Don

Note to Puritan Lad: I like the answer Fortigurn offered for the questions you asked me.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:10 pm

In all these ramblings I fail to see why you can't associate Christ to God or God to Christ... Just what is the point of denying this? Is it evil to think not? What is the thesis here?

When you mock Christ you mock God Himself.. Is that hard to understand?