More Trinity stuff

[Fortigurn]

For those of you who do not think the bible teaches the concept of the Trinity? Who was Jesus if only God can save unless the Messiah is God himself?

Easy, Jesus is the agent of God, through whom God wrought salvation. As early as Genesis 3:15 we find that the salvic process will involve the seed of the woman - it would be through a mortal man that God would work salvation.

God gave the same message to Moses - that He would raise up a from among his brethren:

Deuteronomy
18 I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command.
19 I will personally hold responsible anyone who then pays no attention to the words that prophet speaks in my name.

This passage provides three important details:

• That this prophet would be like Moses - he would be a man, and he would act as God's agent and representative, just as Moses had (note that God told Moses that He had made Moses 'God' to Pharoah, Exodus 7:1)
• That the prophet would be a man, he would be raised up from among his brethren, he wouldn't descend from heaven like an angel, and he would be of the same nature as those among whom he was raised up
• That this prophet, despite being a mortal man, would act as God's agent and representative, being Divinely authorised to do so by God Himself - what he spoke would be considered as the words of God Himself

We know that this passage did not simply refer to Christ, it referred to all the prophets which God raised up. All were mortal men, who shared the same nature as their brethren. All were Divinely authorised by God to act as His agent and representative.

Christ was the greatest in this line of prophets, and many of the Jews recognised this:

John 6:
14 Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

Peter declared the same:

Acts 3:
22 Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.
23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.'

Note that Peter tells the crowd that Jesus was a prophet like Moses, from among their brothers. He does not tell them that Jesus is God, or that he came down from heaven.

The prophet Isaiah makes it clear that the Messiah would be God's servant (not God Himself), who would be Divinely authorised to act on God's behalf, and would be Divinely empowered to do so:

Isaiah 42:
11 “Here is my servant whom I support, my chosen one in whom I take pleasure. I have placed my spirit on him; he will make just decrees for the nations.

6 “I, the Lord, officially commission you;I take hold of your hand. I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people, and a light to the nations,
7 to open blind eyes, to release prisoners18 from dungeons, those who live in darkness from prisons.

This makes no sense if Christ is God (not the servant of God), because he would already have both authority and power by virtue of being God. He would not need to be authorised or empowered by God. Nor would he need to be protected by God, if he was already God.

The fact that he is also appointed mediator by God is especially important, since this requires that he be a man (not a Divine being), as we shall see later.

Other Old Testament passages could be quoted which describe the Messiah as a man authorised by God as His agent and representative, but these will do for now.

Now we come to the New Testament. Christ himself declares that the Father is the only true God, that he was sent by the Father, that he was both empowered and authorised by the Father, and that the Father was greater than he.

John 17:
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you—
2 just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.
3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
4 I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

Note that Christ distinguishes himself from the Father (one person, whom he describes as 'the only true God'), and declares himself repeatedly to have been given all the had by God (including his authority).

Note also that Christ declares that completing the work he was given by God was the way he glorifies the Father. There is no room here for co-equality.

This was not the first time in his ministry that Christ had made these matters clear:

John 5:
26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself,
27 and he has granted the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.

30 I can do nothing on my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.

Here Christ tells us that:

• He was granted life in himself by the Father (he did not have it in himself before)
• He was granted authority to execute judgment by the Father (he did not have it before), as His agent
• He was granted that authority to judge, not because he was 'God the Son', but because he was mortal - the Son of man

The authority Christ was given by God to judge mankind was therefore predicated on his being himself a man, not on him being God.

Here again Christ tells us that the miracles he performed were not of himself, but performed because the Father was working through him:

John 14:
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds.

This is significant, because this is precisely the same as is said for the works of faith which we humans perform - they are the works of God in us, not works we initiated ourselves independent of the Father. That Christ's works were of this nature proves that he was identical to us.

In the same chapter, Christ affirms that his Father is greater than he:

John 14:
28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.

This makes no sense if the are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent members of the 'triune godhead'.

When Christ said 'I and the Father are one', the Jews picked up stones, ready to kill him. They believed that he was declaring himself to be God:

John 10:
32 Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?”
33 The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”

Modern trinitarians believe that the Jews were right, that Jesus had claimed he was God. But Jesus corrected the Jews, informing them clearly that he had only claimed to be the son of God:

John 10:
34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?
35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called 'gods' (and the scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Christ's own explanation of his words is unmistakable - he was not claiming to be God, he was claiming to be the son of God. But he goes further than this, and declares yet again his dependence on the Father. He also points out that in the Old Testament God Himself referred to the judges of Israel as 'Elohim', one of the Hebrew words for God, and that if it is not blasphemy to call the judges of Israel 'Elohim' (one of the Hebrew words for God), then it certainly cannot be blasphemy for him to call himself the son of God.

He goes on to explain that the unity he has with the Father is not ontological in nature, and that his deeds are merely the deeds of the Father in him (just as ours are):

John 10:
37 If I do not perform the deeds of my Father, do not believe me.
38 But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

This again reinforces the point that he is the son of God, not that he is God Himself.

Now we come to the public preaching campaigns of the apostles. Incredibly, we find that they preach consistently that Jesus is a man. Not once do they refer to him as God.

In his speech to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus is a man attested by God:

Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know—
23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

The apostle Peter taught that Jesus is a man, not God, or even a God, or even on the same level as God. Three thousand people were baptized into Christ that day, with the understanding that he was a man. True Christians therefore are baptized with the belief that Jesus is a man.

Note also that Peter distinguishes Christ from God, and says that Christ was a man through whom God worked, not that he was God who became man.

In his speech to the people after he had healed the lame mand, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 3:
22 Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.
23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.'

Note that Peter tells the crowd that Jesus was a prophet like Moses, from among their brothers. He does not tell them that Jesus is God, or that he came down from heaven.

In his speech to a law court, the apostle Stephen likewise tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 7:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.

He uses the same quote as the apostle Peter had used, telling them that the prophet God would send (the Messiah), would be 'of your brethren, like unto me' - in other words, a man, a human being.

When he was in Athens, the apostle Paul was speaking to some people about who Jesus was. In his speech, he told them clearly that Jesus was a man who received authority from God:

Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Here Paul says that Jesus is a man appointed by God to judge the world. Paul does not preach that Christ is God. He preaches that Christ is a man authorised by God, a man whom God has appointed.

In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul says that there is one God, and that there is one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ, who he says is a man:

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God's purpose at his appointed time.

Here we have God on one side, and humans on the other. In between we have Christ - a man, not God.

It couldn't be any clearer. The apostles all taught time and time and time again that Jesus was a man at his birth, and was still a man after his resurrection and going to the Father.

Note also how the apostles repeatedly distinguished God and Christ from each other in their public preaching:

[Acts 2:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 4:
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 5:
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13:
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Again and again we see it - God and Jesus, God and Christ, Jesus Christ whom God raised from the dead, God and His son Jesus. The two are clearly distinguished, and the term 'God' is used synomously with the Father (not in the generic trinitarian sense of 'the triune godhead').

So we can see that Jesus both was and still is a man. A human being. Nothing at all strange about that. It's very clear. But we also know that he is a man with special power, and special authority, and special qualities, which he received from God.

[Jac3510]

Fortigurn, would you consider yourself an Arian?

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn, would you consider yourself an Arian?

Not in any way, shape, or form. I believe Jesus was and is a human being. I believe he was really born, not that he pretended to be born. I believe he was really tempted, not that he pretended to be tempted. I believe he really suffered, not that he pretended to suffer. I believe he really died, not that he pretended to die.

I believe he came into existence at his birth, was non-existent while dead, and was raised by the power of God. I believe he was exalted by God and is the man who is the mediator between God and men.

[Pierac]

B.W. Thank you for your informative post. I will attempt to explain, but it will require multiple post. I am posting the following so you can see my thought process, I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. Hey, I could even be wrong. By the way, you forgot Psalms 110:1.

First let's review what does the Old Testament teach us about who and what God is. Then I want to look at Psalms 110:1 in more detail.


Shema Yisrael! Hear, O Israel!

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

This is one of the very first Bible verse that most Jewish boys and girls learn. It binds the Jewish life and community together. Every devout Jew recited it daily and even utter the Shema when dying. This is the one belief that distinguished Israel from all the surrounding nations that had multiple gods. “The Lord is one Lord” is thus Israel's classic statement of monotheism, Judaism's highest confession of Faith. It speaks of Yahweh's uniqueness and exclusiveness, that he is one single integral person, not divisible.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that there are two valid ways of interpreting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. It is possible to translate, "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh"- in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh can not be divided into several Yahweh manifestations (poly-Yahwism), like the Baals of different sanctuaries [or we might add the Trinity of later Nicene Christianity]. Or we may translate: "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone"-in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh is the only and the unique God [we will soon see that Jesus affirmed this creed and John 17:3].

Both of these nuances are given in other Old Testament passages. The person of God is indivisible and he has no other in His class for He is alone and unique. He is a single divine individual.

Deu 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him….39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.

Deu 32:39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.


The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus has a God and Father, both before and after his resurrection. As stated by the apostles and Jesus himself. This does not however diminish Jesus' role as our Savior, as most of you might think. (I will explain later).



Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It's importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.
Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh” (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.
He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, in Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lordAbraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord[here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni ('my lord'), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai ('Lord') used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = 'my lords.'” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.”

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

For those of you who do not think the bible teaches the concept of the Trinity? Who was Jesus if only God can save unless the Messiah is God himself?

I will offer my thoughts on this in another post.

Peace
Paul

[Jac3510]

Fortigurn, would you consider yourself an Arian?

Not in any way, shape, or form. I believe Jesus was and is a human being. I believe he was really born, not that he pretended to be born. I believe he was really tempted, not that he pretended to be tempted. I believe he really suffered, not that he pretended to suffer. I believe he really died, not that he pretended to die.

I believe he came into existence at his birth, was non-existent while dead, and was raised by the power of God. I believe he was exalted by God and is the man who is the mediator between God and men.

Ah, I've not studies Arianism in depth other than the primary claim that Jesus was not God, but only like God. From what I understand, Arianism teaches that Jesus was the first created being, but again, not coeternal with the Father. What you described seemed more in line with doceticism.

I have a massive volume on Arianism that was written in '98--something like 800 pages--that I haven't read yet. In the meantime, do you have any links (other than, say, Wikipedia!) that I could check out without googling the whole internet for hours on end?

[Pierac]

Hey Jac 3510

Metzger is extremely helpful, and yes, the apparatus in NA27--all apparatuses that I am aware of--use both Greek and English, and sometimes Latin and a little Hebrew, too. If you have taken enough Greek that you are capable of following the grammar, I'd recommend two resources to you. The first is Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. It's an excellent reference to have on hand so that you can quickly identify syntactical categories for everything from nominatives to paraphrastic participles. I'd also suggest getting a Reader's Greek New Testament. They have one available for the NIV's Greek text, which is not the same as the NA27/UBS4, but it's pretty close, and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. If a word occurs less than 30 times in the NT, then a brief definition is listed at the bottom of the page on which it is found. Very useful for casual reading.

And beyond all that, if your familiarity with Greek is limited to the alphabet, which is still way more than most have, and you want to press it further, I'd suggest Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. You can see everything he has to offer at http://www.teknia.com. I'd get that, along with the workbook, vocab cards, and lectures. You can then work through the language at your own pace, and within six months you should be reading the GNT pretty well--at least well enough to start doing more advanced exegesis. His analytical lexicon is also a great resource . . .

Thanks for the information. I might just get the Basic. My 9 yr old has been studying Latin since 2 grade. I've seen his work books. Getting the course is the easy part, now can you tell me how to find the time.
Paul

[Pierac]

Hey Fortigurn,

Good post but you used up most of the verses I was going to share.

Peace

Paul

[Fortigurn]

Ah, I've not studies Arianism in depth other than the primary claim that Jesus was not God, but only like God. From what I understand, Arianism teaches that Jesus was the first created being, but again, not coeternal with the Father.

That's a fair summary of Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a Divine being who was not God. I don't believe that Jesus was the first created being.

What you described seemed more in line with doceticism.

I wasn't describing Arianism, I was describing standard trinitarianism, the idea that Jesus - as God, an immortal spirit being - came down from heaven, hung around in a tiny embryo for a while, jumped into a 'man suit', and went around pretending to be a human being.

I have a massive volume on Arianism that was written in '98--something like 800 pages--that I haven't read yet. In the meantime, do you have any links (other than, say, Wikipedia!) that I could check out without googling the whole internet for hours on end?

The Catholic Encyclopaedia isn't bad.

Paul, sorry for stealing your thunder!

[Fortigurn]

Jac:

* I don't understand how everyone was forgiven for all their sins, and doesn't have any sins anymore, though we still have to be reconciled. How do you reach this conclusion?

* I believe propitiation is the wrong word to use for Christ's death. Christ did not die to appease the wrath of an angry God who was going to throw everyone into hell until Jesus stopped Him.

* In Psalm 51 David says that he was born sinful, in the sense that he was born prone to sin. We're certainly not guilty before we transgress, as I believe you'll agree.

* When I said no one goes to a burning underworld called hell, I didn't mean that's not what it's called in either the Hebrew or Greek. The fact is that no one who dies goes to a burning underworld, full stop. As you have observed, the Hebrew word sheol is where people go when they are dead, and sheol is simply the grave. That's where everyone goes, the grave (yes, sheol/hades is the place of sleep for all the dead, wicked or otherwise). The very fact that people are taken out of hades and thrown into the lake of fire proves that hades and the lake of fire are not the same thing. The lake of fire has fire in it. Neither sheol nor hades have fire in them, and sheol/hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Presentation attached (just change the extension from .zip to .ppt).

* No, I'm afraid that John 1:1 does not say that Jesus was God. It says that the LOGOS was THEOS, that is that the word was qualitatively divine. It does not say anything about Jesus. Jesus is the word made flesh. When the word was made flesh, X became Y. We are not told that the word 'added flesh to itself', or 'added flesh to its divine nature', so X did not become XY. The concept of the Word of God is well established in the Old Testament, and it certainly doesn't mean 'divine spirit being who is really God':

Psalm 33:
6By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

It's very simple. That's the word of God right there. That's the LOGOS, the word by which He made all things. All we have to do is look in Genesis 1 and we'll see it - 'And God said... and it was so'. Saying that LOGOS really means 'immortal spirit being who is really God' doesn't take into account either the simple meaning of the Greek word, or the Hebrew background of its New Testament use.

* On the one hand you want to tell me that Jesus didn't break the Sabbath, the Jews only thought he broke the Sabbath (true, he only broke their oral laws), but on the other hand you want to tell me that he was really making himself God. Now the passage does not say 'the Jews only thought he broke the Sabbath', it says simply that he broke the Sabbath. But contextually we understand that this actually refers to what the Jews thought, their interpretation of his action. The same goes for the other half of the sentence. You can't claim one thing for the first half and the opposite for the second.

* Yes I'm familiar with the rabbinical discussion of God working on the Sabbath and continuing to work. But that is not a point which Jesus makes. He does not say that since God works on the Sabbath and he works on the Sabbath, he must be God. On the contrary, he defends himself by saying that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Not only that, but he points out that the priests work on the Sabbath, and they are blameless, so does that mean he was really saying the priests are God? Not in the least. He is making the point that those doing God's work on the Sabbath are not breaking the Sabbath.

* You say that Jesus 'never denied he was equal with God'. What does the phrase 'My Father is greater than I' mean to you? Not only did Jesus repeatedly insist he was not equal with God, but the gospel writers and apostles taught likewise that he was completely subordinate:

* Matthew 9:6, 'When the crowd saw this, [Jesus healing] they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men'

* Matthew 28:18, 'Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me"'

* John 5:19, 'the Son can do nothing from himself'

* John 5:22, '[God] has assigned all judgment to the Son'

* John 5:26, 'For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself'

* John 5:27, 'he [God] has granted the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man'

* John 5:30, 'I can do nothing of myself'

* John 17:2, 'you [God] have given him authority over all humanity'

* Acts 10:42, 'he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead'

* Acts 17:32, 'he [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated'

* Yes, Jesus also denied divinity. He even corrected the Jews when they claimed he had called himself God. Here the Jews accuse him of calling himself God:

John 10:
32 Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?”
33 The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”

Jesus responds very clearly that he had called himself the son of God, and also asks what they do with the fact that God called men elohim/THEOOI in the Old Testament:

John 10:
34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?
35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called 'gods' (and the scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Christ's own explanation of his words is unmistakable - he was not claiming to be God, he was claiming to be the son of God. But he goes further than this, and declares yet again his dependence on the Father. He also points out that in the Old Testament God Himself referred to the judges of Israel as 'Elohim', one of the Hebrew words for God, and that if it is not blasphemy to call the judges of Israel 'Elohim' (one of the Hebrew words for God), then it certainly cannot be blasphemy for him to call himself the son of God.

* There's nothing in Philippians 2 which says that Jesus is God. It says he was in the form of God, which says nothing of his nature (the following is from LSJ):

A. form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), soi d' epi men morphê epeôn thou hast comeliness of words, 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, Od.8.170: freq. later, morphas duo onomazein Parm.8.53 ; morphên allaxanta Emp.137.1 ; morphan brachus Pi.I.4(3).53 ; morphês metra shape and size, E.Alc.1063: periphr., morphês phusis A.Supp.496 ; morphês schêma, tupôma, E.Ion992, Ph.162; tên autên tou schêmatos morphên Arist.PA640b34 ; kai Gaia, pollôn onomatôn m. mia A.Pr.212 ; oneiratôn alinkioi morphaisin ib.449; nukterôn phantasmatôn echousi morphas Id.Fr.312 ; proupempsen anti philtatês m. spodon S.El.1159 ; of plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, huperphaton morphai Pi.O.9.65 ; hois potistaxêi charis euklea m. ib.6.76, cf. IG42 (1).121.119 (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; sôma morphês emês OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); morphês eikonas ib.27; charaktêra morphês emês ib.60.

2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, A.Pr.78, S.Tr.699, El.199 (lyr.); outward form, opp. eidos, hekaterô tô eideos pollai m. Philol.5 ; allattonta to hautou eidos eis pollas morphas Pl.R.380d ; m. theôn X.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, 144.

3. kind, sort, E. Ion 382, 1068 (lyr.), Pl.R.397c, etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. forma for morg[uglide]hmā, with f by dissimilation, cf. murmêx.)

Indeed, Philippians says that he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped at - so he didn't grasp at it, unlike Adam and Eve. You can't choose not to grasp at something you already have.

* We agree that Jesus never used the words 'I am God' of himself. But that certainly wouldn't have stopped the Jews brining it as a false witness against him. Why, if they really thought he had claimed to be God, did they never raise this at the trial, not even as a false accusation?

* You spend a lot of time on the whole history of emperor worship, but you don't address the key issue, which is providing evidence that the local Romans would care less about some local crackpot calling himself God. If this was a legitimate charge which could have been used against Christ, then why didn't the Jewish rulers use it when they took Christ to Pilate? Instead all the had was a feeble charge of insurrection, which was so pathetically untrue that Pilate saw through it in a moment. Pilate wasn't even concerned by the fact that Jesus had marched into Jerusalem with crowds proclaiming him the Messiah, and the King of the Jews. There's no point saying 'Well the Jews didn't raise the charge because it couldn't be proven', they raised plenty of charges which couldn't be proven, including completely false charges.

* Why didn't Jesus simply deny that he was God at his trial? Simple - he was never accused of it at either trial. He never denied being an insurrectionist at his Jewish trial either, because he was never accused of it. He did deny that he was an insurrectionist at his Roman trial, when he was accused of it.

* I raised Adam in response to your claim that the Jews thought the phrase 'son of God' meant 'of the same nature as God'. That is patently not true. As you have acknowledged, they understood that the phrase 'son of God' could refer to a created being, so for Christ to say he was the son of God did not mean that he was claiming to be God (and really, son OF God does not mean 'God', any more than son OF Jac means 'Jac').

* Yes, Jesus was uniquely the son of God, in a way different to Adam. How? Because his birth was miraculous. He was conceived by the power of the Highest, and for that reason he is called the son of God. Your argument that since he was the son of God he had to have inherited his Father's nature makes no sense for a number of reasons. Firstly because nature is only inherited where physical relations take place, and you just don't want to go there. Secondly because that would mean that Jesus' divine nature originated at his birth, but that is not trinitarianism. The doctrine of the trinity insists that Jesus' divine nature always existed from eternity long before his birth, and his divine nature did not come into being at his birth. For the trinitarian, Jesus did not come into existence in any way at his birth - he already existed. What happened was that God formed an empty shell of flesh into which Jesus crawled, sat in for 9 months, and then walked around in for 33 and a half years or so.

* You say 'I couldn't care less what is taught explicitly and what is not', which pretty much explains why you're not interested in the apostolic teaching speeches in the Acts. I've never actually heard anyone come out and say that they couldn't care less about what the Bible teaches explicitly and what it doesn't. The problem here is that you are prepared to subordinate the explicit apostolic teaching to your own syllogistic reasoning. You subordinate the explicit apostolic teaching to your inferred arguments. That is not the ideal way of learning from Scripture. Certainly we compare Scripture with Scripture. But that means you must start with what is explicitly taught. You can't just throw it out and say 'I couldn't care less'.

* A syllogism is not 'nothing more than putting truths together and looking at the necessary results'. The premises of a syllogism are not necessarily truths. In this case, two of your premises are not truths, and I am challenging them. The other problem is that in this case your syllogism results in a logical fallacy which violates the law of contradiction. That should tell you there's something badly wrong with the reasoning involved.

As far as all your verses go on Jesus being a man, you can save them a docetic. I believe that Jesus was a man. I believe He was fully and completely a man. He was 100% human. I further believe that He is STILL a man, even now.

You've missed the point of why I quoted them. I quoted them to prove that the apostles - when they taught the gospel and salvic doctrine - only taught that Jesus is a man. They never taught the trinity. They never taught Jesus is God. Why not? Because they didn't believe in it. Simple.

But as it happens, I believe that the trinity is necessarily Docetic. You don't believe that Jesus is a man, you believe he's something different, called a 'Godman'. Docetism continues to plague trinitarian theology in various forms. This article is interesting:

Reformed theologians claim agreement with the symbol of Chalcedon, but in reality this agreement is only superficial.

"On the basis of the philosophical principle that 'the finite is not capable of the infinite' (finitum non est capax infiniti), they insist that the Son of God, after the incarnation, is not everywhere present according to his human nature, but that his presence is limited to a single place."[5]

Grudem, an author of a popular Reformed dogmatics book, says, "When we are talking about Jesus' human nature, we can say he ascended to heaven and is no longer in the world (John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9-11). But with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Jesus is everywhere present."[6]

Quotations like this one demonstrate that the Reformed do not hold to the unity of person in Christ as it is found in Scripture and as it was affirmed at Chalcedon.

To say that Jesus' human nature is contained within his human body, but that his divine nature supercedes this body and fills everything, is to say that Jesus' human nature was not always with his divine nature. This is a separation of Christ.

{...}

Naturally, the Reformed divide the person of Christ in his work. Grudem uses the story of Jesus calming the storm on Galilee to demonstrate how the two natures work separately:

"Particularly striking is the scene on the Sea of Galilee where Jesus was asleep in the stern of the boat, presumably because he was weary (Matt. 8:24). But he was able to arise from his sleep and calm the wind and sea with a word (Matt. 8:26-27)! Tired yet omnipotent! Here Jesus' weak human nature completely hid his omnipotence until that omnipotence broke forth in a sovereign word from the Lord of heaven and earth."[10]

Here we see the idea that there were two competing forces (human nature and divine nature) working in Jesus. Sometimes the human worked, at other times the divine worked.

He uses the same type of logic to explain the death of Christ. "In a similar way, we can understand that in his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor. 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17-18; Heb. 7:16)."[11]

This interpretation of what happened on the cross is the same as Nestorius'. Nestorius used John 2:19 in the same way (confer page 1).

He says, "The incarnate God did not die, but quickened him in whom he was made flesh."[12]

When the Reformed say that the divine nature did not die, they are saying that the divine was separate from the human at the moment of death. This teaching caused Nestorius to be anathematized. This is not what Scripture teaches!

{...}

We thank the Lord that the Reformed do not follow the ways of Nestorius when speaking about Christ's work of reconciliation. They do not completely take the divine nature out of the picture. This has been referred to as a "happy inconsistency."

They realize that Christ's divine nature must have been involved in his death. But they are unsure about the role that the divine nature played in this events.

Grudem seems perplexed when he says, "Moreover, it seems difficult to understand how Jesus' human nature alone could have borne the wrath of God against the millions of people. It seems that Jesus' divine nature had somehow [emphasis mine] to participate in the bearing of wrath against sin that was due to us (though Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms this)."[14]

Even though the divine nature did not die, it somehow mysteriously participated in the death.

The Reformed must wonder how the divine nature participate in the "bearing of wrath against sin." Since the divine was not completely united in the person of Christ during his death, how could the death of a man be powerful enough to forgive the sins of the whole world?

This question shows the nature of their inconsistency.

All bold emphasis mine.

[Kurieuo]

A Christian as I see is anyone whom Christ accepts as His own regardless of belief, works, faith. I am happy to leave it there, but obviously more ought to be said to clarify what I mean.

Wait, what? I would appreciate clarification here . . .

Which is why I did clarify further

"These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in His name." John 20:31

This does not contradict me.

In your view, what does a person have to believe to be saved, considering your above wording that a person can be saved "regardless of belief"? I mean, I can totally understand saying they don't have to believe in the Trinity proper. I can understand the distinction between accepting divinity and rejecting it (I use the same formula for the doctrine of assurance and the doctrine of eternal security), even as I disagree with it. But to say a person is saved regardless of belief??? I'm sure it's just a matter of misunderstanding . . . I'm just really, really

I see a person can be saved despite not having believed in Christ this life. Keep in mind "belief in Christ" for me is very different and involved more than simply believing in certain propositions. But still... I see one can be saved despite not having believed upon Christ in this life. Hopefully the rest of what I wrote clarified my words.

you still have to answer the question of what happens to babies in general. If you don't believe any of that is necessary, you still have to account for children. The fact that I don't see the Bible allowing for exceptions to the requirement of faith to be justified, I don't think, really matters . . . maybe I'm just wrong here?

Well given the following beliefs which no doubt you (and I) have derived from Scripture:

I've said before that I believe in universally effectual atonement. That means that everyone is reconciled. I don't think sin is what condemns a person to Hell, and propitiation or even forgiveness are not what get us to Heaven.

AND

While it does not necessarily follow, I see a person like someone who accepts the doctrine of total depravity yet maintains those before an "age of accountability" are saved, that such a person must reduce the seriousness of sin to God as portrayed in Scripture.

I'd agree with this. But for one thing, I disagree with TD. For another thing, as I've already said, ALL sin has been paid for by Jesus. All are reconciled.

If this is the case, then no one is under sin any longer (including Adam's sin). So being saved simply becomes a matter of whether one desires to be reconciled with God, not forgiven by God which is already a given. And so if babies or children die who desire to be with God what is stopping them if they have been forgiven? Even a fully grown person who dies in this life having never known about Christ, if they desire to be with God then what is stopping them if they have been forgiven?

The thing is many do not want to be with God. Many do not see they even need forgiveness, and I have found many non-Christians are insulted by the Gospel message that they are sinners and have been forgiven. Thus, for such people, reconciliation is not possible. But for those who do want to be reconciled, I see nothing stopping them beyond their own self.

[Jac3510]

K:

So you believe that even though we are saved by believing, there are exceptions to this rule. I'm trying hard to not misrepresent your position. So is that right?

As far as the last part goes, again, I believe that all are reconciled already. I do not believe we are condemned for partaking in Adam's sin, but for partaking in his nature. Those in Adam go to Hell. Those in Christ go to Heaven. Sin has no bearing on the issue at all anymore, therefore, I don't see the need to "accept" forgiveness as a condition of salvation.

Fortigurn:

I'll get to your reply tonight, but the substance of my response is going to be:

1) I don't care if classical Trinitarianism is, has been made by some, docetic. I am not docetic, so to reject the Trintarianism so far as our discussion goes based on that heresy is to build a straw man.

3) Theos en ho logos: yes, logos is qualitative, but it is not adjectival. Notice the NET's translation of the phrase, which I think to be excellent, if not a bit wordy.

Anyway, I gotta go. I'll deal with your other objections in detail later.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

K:

So you believe that even though we are saved by believing, there are exceptions to this rule. I'm trying hard to not misrepresent your position. So is that right?

That is correct.

"Saved" for me is reconciliation with God. The general rule I see given in Scripture is that while we are forgiven through Christ, one also needs to believe in Christ to be reconciled to God. On the other hand, I see nothing which suggest Christ will not take those to Himself who desire to be with Him and who may not have had the opportunity in this life to come to Him.

As far as the last part goes, again, I believe that all are reconciled already. I do not believe we are condemned for partaking in Adam's sin, but for partaking in his nature. Those in Adam go to Hell. Those in Christ go to Heaven. Sin has no bearing on the issue at all anymore, therefore, I don't see the need to "accept" forgiveness as a condition of salvation.

I have been quite quick in my responses, but I do understand this is your position and we are in agreement as far as I see regarding a universal atonement. So if sin has no bearing on the issue (as we both agree), then any discussion of an "age of accountability" really does not matter. It may matter to those who think we need to believe in Christ to be forgiven, but not for us who believe forgiveness already abounds for us even before we come to Christ.

[Pierac]

Hello Jac and K:

I'm getting lost in your understandings.
What do you mean by the words: Heaven and Hell?

Heaven is not a physical place but a realm isn't it? I have always believed the Christian reward is the Kingdom of God, not Heaven, is this incorrect?
I am aware of the many verses that read kingdom if heaven. "Heaven" is an evasive synonym for "God." The Jews were not comfortable saying the name of God or God.

It remains, therefore, a question. Is the Christian hope directed, towards "going to heaven" at death, or "inheriting the earth" (Matthew 5:5), and ruling it (Rev. 5:10) when Christ returns. Is the Kingdom aired in Heaven, or will appear on the earth when Jesus returns?
Are we going to leave the earth for heaven! Or the exact opposite? And Jesus is going to leave heaven and come back to the earth and set up his kingdom after He binds Satan for the 1000 years?

Hell is simply the grave. You already know it's translated from the word Hades and Sheol. With the exception of Gehenna which is a geographical location in Jerusalem.

Either way Death and Hell are cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades (Hell) were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Now if death is destroyed then is Hell (Hades) also destroyed?

I would think we would be more concerned with the lake of fire than with Hell.

(Rev 20:15)
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Seems to me the lake of fire is a little more important. Any thoughts?

Jac: universally effectual atonement

This system does not take into count the 95% of humanity that has not heard the message of the bible. Countless millions of humans have not had the opportunity to hear of Jesus. Is that justice? Is that Love? What scripture is there that says you must confess Jesus while alive here on earth? I can't find one.

K, wrote: So if sin has no bearing on the issue (as we both agree), then any discussion of an "age of accountability" really does not matter.

Can you give me the “age of accountability” verse or scripture too? I can't find that one either?


Forums can make one appear rude by asking direct questions. You don't get the opportunity to hear the vocal tone or read the face. I'm just looking for answers like you, I'm still searching. Please don't take my direct approach in a negative way. That is not my intent.
Paul

[Jac3510]

Pierac,

You are right that the Christian hope is actually in a future bodily resurrection in which the saints will live with Christ on the new earth for all of eternity. You are further right that the lake of fire is the place in which the resurrected unrighteous will find themselves for all of eternity.

In the most technical sense, "heaven" and "hell" are temporary places where the righteous and unrighteous dead go, respectively. However, because most, if not all, of us recognize that, we use the terms as shorthand for referring to our eternal states as well. For better or worse, it is just a matter of using overly simplified, and broadly understood, terminology to discuss the bigger issues.

Further:

This system does not take into count the 95% of humanity that has not heard the message of the bible. Countless millions of humans have not had the opportunity to hear of Jesus. Is that justice? Is that Love? What scripture is there that says you must confess Jesus while alive here on earth? I can't find one.

Yes, and the sad truth is that 95% of humanity, or whatever number it happens to be, will stand condemned before God. Ignorance is no excuse (Rom 1:20). As far as the fact that we must believe in Jesus while on this earth (not confess Him--confession is not a condition of salvation), Peter says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) The author of Hebrews tell us that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." (Heb 9:26)

As for the claim that this makes God unjust, I point you to the great flood. God gave men 120 years to repent and avoid the flood. Even more, He gave them Noah. If any had believed Noah's report, they could have been saved by entering the ark with him, and yet they did not believe and thus perished. Do you, though, believe that every person alive on the face of the planet over that 120 year period heard Noah's message? Of course not! I'm sure there were a great many who were swept away in the flood who had absolutely no idea it was coming.

Ignorance of the means to salvation does not excuse one from the penalty of dying outside of that salvation. That is all the more reason it is our job as believers to share the Gospel with as many people as possible. Those who never hear can't believe, and those who don't believe are not saved (Rom 10:14ff).

[B. W.]

...If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

Peace
Paul

You must be psychic knowing what King David thought. That is a bold statement based solely on human rationale passed on and on and not on what the scriptures teach about the Messiah:

Only God can save — who then is Jesus? Please read Isaiah 55. God's ways are not mans. Your post exalts mans reasoning and such faith is based in man's work, not God's work. Who do you trust? God or Man?

Next,

You do not understand what Christians mean by the Trinity do you? Therefore, what do you think Christians mean by the Trinity?
-
-
-