January 14, 2010
January 14, 2010 | 93 Comments
More On the Deity of Jesus
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Comments
93 Responses to “January 14, 2010”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
January 14th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
Good show. I think the many callers unwittingly demonstrated the abberant Kenonsis doctrine which leads to “the patten jesus” which leads to us becoming “little gods”. MSoG teachings throughout the body of Christ are having the intended effect.
January 15th, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
I don’t have much to add in the way of doctrine or translations, but I did think briefly about how my faith would change if I thought God and Jesus were not One and I think it would be destroyed. Without Jesus, I don’t feel like I could approach God (in prayer) and I don’t think I could have a personal relationship with Him. I don’t think I know God without Jesus… I definitely wouldn’t understand Him, not that I do necessarily, but I can relate to Jesus.
January 15th, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
Marcella: It’s interesting that you say your faith would be destroyed if you were to think that Jesus was not God. I say it’s interesting because so many people think that it’s not important one way or the other, yet when we look to history and study the development of the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and so forth, we come to learn that the primary concern of all the people thinking about these issues (both the heretics and the orthodox) was SALVATION! So I said all this to say that you’re in good company and your concerns are the concerns of many throughout the Christian tradition.
January 19th, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
I feel like I finally understood the dichotomy this morning. It is not that Yeshua, a.k.a. Jesus, was either all divine or all human. It wasn’t a mutually exclusive situation.
Jesus had his divine nature from his father, YHWH, whose Holy Spirit entered Mary. Jesus got his human nature from Mary, his biological mother. I read somewhere, forgive me if it was from Dr. Brown and I don’t remember so I can’t acknowledge that, but I read somewhere that this enabled him to also escape the blood curse that was attached to Joseph’s lineage. I read it on the internet; one could google that and find it, no doubt, wherever I read that.
So Jesus was both. Both human and divine. I’m not sure what that co-existent dichotomy would be called, but “one-ness” works as a term just fine. Both parts of him were real. The series of temptations he underwent could probably only happen if part of him were human.
The divine part of him knew how to re-connect with his Father, and it was a RE connection, because as he said and as has already been cited, at one point he asks that His father glorify him with the glory that was his before the world was. So he lowered himself in accepting a human form to navigate on earth. He existed in a higher state with the Father since only God knows when. Like a prince who disguises himself in the rags of the commoners in order to live among them, drink and eat with them, and get to know them on a more personal and intimate level, Jesus allowed himself to come through this birthing process as a half-human being. Now he understands us better than ever. We are not only the creation, but he knows what it is to walk around in skin like ours. Has he done this before? I think it was Paul who wrote something that implies it’s only happened this one time. I personally don’t know. (But — and this is a bit of a tangent, forgive me, but I don’t just believe something because Paul said it anyway. Paul was fully human. And the church has to be based on the cornerstone foundation of Jesus’ teachings. Ergo, if Paul errs, his teachings have to be tossed aside. And they would only err if they didn’t plumb with Jesus’. Paul seems to have constructed a church, but Jesus kept it very basic and simple: the kingdom of God is within you; he stands at the door of our hearts and knocks; he will commune with us, he and his Father, and reside within us if we invite him in. All we need is some privacy for prayer, because he thought public prayer led to the showiness of hypocrisy; our closet does that nicely if we have one. If we don’t, the walls of our hearts are enough of a church. As for fellowship, all we need are two or more gathered in His Name, and He (united with the Father) is there.)
I feel confident that Jesus could lay this offer of salvation before us; making us able to commune more intimately with the Father because he knew what it was to be human; it knew it could be done. I’m grateful he did not; that’s an understatement.
Anyway, now I get it: He was simply BOTH human and divine when he walked the earth. When he ascended, he became — fully divine AGAIN. And when He returns, He will do so as a fully divine and glorified being.
January 19th, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
woops, typo on the sentence above which says, “I’m grateful he did not; that’s an understatement.” What I actually meant was, “I’m grateful he did that — that’s an understatement.” I.e., I’m glad he did came to earth for our sakes. That’s divine capital “L” love, pure and simple.
January 19th, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
The Catholic induced “double nature” Christology is foreign to the NT. No where do we find this teaching nor is it intimated. If anything, it teaches the exact opposite: the human [anthropos] Son of God was born, lived and died for all those who believe that he is who he said he was [cp. John 10.30f.].
The Jesus this doctrine espouses is the ‘Gnostic Jesus’ of later Christendome, surviving in the Creedal statements supported by modern Catholic-Protestant churches.
January 21st, 2010 @ 1:55 am
Ruth, what you said SOUNDS good but I suggest it’s an embelleshment of what the bible actually teaches.
Yeshua did not literally pre-exist his birth (no such thing as eternaly begotten) and didn’t put his deity back on at his resurruction. In the book of Revelation 3:12 we read of Yeshua still calling His Father His God. (4 times in that 1 verse!). So ‘Almighty God Yeshua’ has a God ? The scriptures predicted a human messiah. Yeshua is the second Adam.
Messiah Yeshua = anointed savior. (God has no need to be anointed but does the anointing).
The Hebrew bible clearly says that God is not a man.
Let’s stop creating a messiah in an image from gentile paganism.
1 Tim 2:5 “there is ONE God and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Messiah Yeshua”
January 21st, 2010 @ 8:01 am
Rich L,
Well put and simply understood, here’s a good quote from the German scholar Friedrich Loofs where he describes the process of the early corruption of biblical Christianity:
January 21st, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
The Hebrew Bible also states very clearly that most people don’t have a clue about the arm of YHWH (Isaiah 53:1) – and I guess right now that it is especially the Christians (Except for Ruth Smith and some others) that don’t have a clue about Him.
To Rich: How would you comment on Matthew 22:41-46? Does your logic still apply here or is this simply another proof for YHWH’s complex unity? How can Yeshua be the son of David and the master of David at the same time?? The same way He can be human and divine at the same time!!
January 21st, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
Erica, looking at the context of isaish 53,if you are claiming that it is referring to jesus,please explain how at that point because of the person suffering would they now begin to realize? Based on which event would they begin realizing?
January 21st, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
If we read through that chapter, we see that at least the majority does not recognize Him as what he actually is. In verse 12 though we read:
“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out his soul to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.”
So we see here that the one who has suffered instead of others will have a special reward. In the German translation they say :
“…and he will have the strong ones as a spoil”
What ever translation now might be the more correct one – we can see that in the end his reward will be obvoius to everyone.
I personally think that Isaiah 53 is talking about Yeshua as well as about his people Israel and especially the tribe of Judah.
Yeshua was crucified and bore the sins of many. The Jews went through the holocaust and also through many other very difficult times. Although the Jews did not take away the sins of others, the Jews have through their history of suffering a very special identification with Yeshua. That is also why they will reign with Him in the Millenial Kingdom. Not later than then the world will realize that Yeshua still today is a Jew.
In the end it comes down to this formula for us: Without suffering there will be no kingdom. And Yeshua is the best example for that.
January 21st, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
Erica what was the reward that everyone saw jesus receive?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:48 am
Zvi, thanks for answering about who you think Jesus claimed to be…. BTW, you can capitalize ‘jesus’, that is a proper name you know.
Jesus reminds me of Joseph in Exodus 41:43 in this sense…. It was required that people ‘bow the knee’ to Joseph which brought respect to Joseph, as the one his boss (lord), Pharaoh exalted.
One day, we will all ‘bow the knee’ to the Messiah Jesus. This bowing of the knee will not be to bow to him as “God”, but in recognition of the Messiah that God has exalted to His right hand which also honors God himself.
Sorry, I just realized I’ve gotten off topic… (but I won’t delete it)
Erika, I will give it a shot to comment on Matt 22:41-46, maybe Xavier can chime in on this one.
Yeshua was of course referring to Psalm 110:1 which I understand is the most quoted verse in the N.T. (A verse that speaks to Yeshua’s non-deity….see also Acts 2:34-36).
Yeshua is simply pointing out that not only is the Messiah going to be the Son of David, but David’s lord (as in Messiah, King of the Jews). Yeshua as King of the Jews will be David’s King and ‘adonee’ (my lord) in the 1000 year reign of the Kingdom of God on earth after the resurrection. There is nothing denoting deity in the second ‘lord’ (adonee) of Psalm 110:1. The ‘lordship’ of Yeshua is not to be confused with the lordship of the LORD GOD (the Lord and God of Yeshua)
Maybe these verses also bring some clarity….
1 Cor 15:24-28
24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
(NKJ)
You also asked:
Does your logic still apply here or is this simply another proof for YHWH’s complex unity? How can Yeshua be the son of David and the master of David at the same time?? The same way He can be human and divine at the same time!!
I do my best to take ‘my logic’ from what the scriptures teach us and if ‘complex unity’ are code words for the trinity, I’m not seeing the proof. I find it interesting that Yeshua is what the ‘logos’ became in John 1, yet so many people have made him into such an ‘un-logos’ (illogical) being…
I gave my answer above on how Yeshua can be the son of David and Master at the same time.
I disagree with the notion that Yeshua being both human and divine (as in God incarnate divine).
You can’t have both a finite and infinite mind at the same time, or put another way, be all-knowing yet ignorant of something.
Thanks for the questions! I hope and pray that what we’ve been discussing, God will use to be more than just the usual back and forth comments, but perhaps even begin to burn inside someones heart and mind. This dialogue is far from being a waste of time.
Erika, do you believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses knew God as a pluralistic (triune) being? If so, on what basis?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 7:49 am
Zvi, as I said, I think that Isaiah 53 is about Yeshua as well as about the Jewish people, and the obvious reward of this is still coming in the future.
To Rich – I don’t think that complex and pluralistic are the same terms, to begin with. I do believe though that YHWH is complex (NOT pluralistic), as also Paul says in Acts 17:28
“For in him we live, and move, and have our being”.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 8:07 am
Just to back this up with the Torah: Exodus 3:1-6
Is YHWH a fire?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 8:18 am
P.S. here again we see that “The Angel of YHWH” (verse 2) identifies himself as
“the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
So you see here that “The Angel of YHWH” which is preexistent Yeshua, also is “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. Or , to say it in Isaiah’s words “The Arm of YHWH”.
So this view is not pluralistic, but complex. We get this idea of this being pluralistic by simply looking at it from our human dimension – for YHWH this is not pluralistic.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 8:25 am
Erica, Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering servant, it eems from the text that the nations of the world will be surprised that this servant will suffer yet after all end up exalted. The suffering would be at the cross and when will he and up on top,not yet? Does this surprise span a contrast of thousands of years?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 8:49 am
Erika,
Where does scripture back up your statement? If anything, it actually refutes it in Heb 1.5:
zvi,
Now, what God wants or wishes is very different than the reality.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 8:52 am
Zvi, what is your quesion right now?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 9:06 am
Xavier, there is a vast differnce between “angels of God” and “The Angel of YHWH” – there is always this distinction made in the Old Testament. The Hebrew term here is “Malakh YHWH” for “Angel of YHWH” in contrast to “malakh Elohim” for “angel of God”.
Angel can also be translated as “messenger”.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 9:22 am
Continuing: Elohim can be translated as “God”, but also as “mighty”.
So in essence “malakh Elohim” could also be translated as “mighty angel / messenger” while “Malakh YHWH” can ONLY be “The Angel / messenger of YHWH”.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 9:42 am
Generally,on this blog I’m trying to stay away from the common christian-jewish debate,but rather trying to focus on the question as to the divinity of jesus,and Erica quoted from isaiah 53 that speaks of g-d’s arm,so therefore I was forced to respond about that inthe last post by asking as follows;If in fact this chapter is describing Jesus,then why are the nations so rurprised to see the “servant” go from such a low to such a high,WHEN JESUS DID NOT ULTIMATELY PREVAIL,untill his “alleged” second coming? Further the word “avdi” cannot be referring to a G-d for a G-d is not a “slave to g-d”, in fact moses was called a “slave” a mere human being. Thirdly the verse discussed that he will live long and see seed, and Jesus had none of that! Again, I’m only responding to this chapter to refute the notion of jesus being g-d,but not to dispute christianity,if by default this affects him from being the moshiach,I apoligize.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 9:58 am
Erica, Jesus is not an angel,arm of g-d, fire, son of g-d, sevant of g-d, and a human being all at once!
January 22nd, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Erika, doesn’t Hebrews 1:1-2 indicate that ‘the Son’, did not speak to us in times past (the Tanakh) ? And, as Xavier brought out…Heb 1:5.
Does anyone think that the burning bush passage would be much better described by ‘divine agency’ instead of ‘complex unity’ considering the verses below ?
Exodus 23:20-21
20 Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM.
Can someone tell me how to copy from earlier posts and paste so that it shows the lines on the left side? A simple CTRL-C, CTRL-V, didn’t work for me before.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 10:04 am
Futhermore it says that all jews saw the arm of g-d when they left egypt so to them it was CLEAR who the arm was,and the gentiles did NOT witness this arm,yet 90 percent of jews do NOT recognize this arm as JESUS yet the gentiles consider it to be jesus how ironic!
January 22nd, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Zvi,
I have a few questions for you. You earlier mentioned a “Yeshu” (son of Miriam) who is stated in the Talmud to have been executed for claiming to be God. Given your knowledge of Talmud, what do you think is the likelihood of this Yeshu being Jesus of Nazareth? Is a timeframe/historical context given in the Talmud for when Yeshu son of Miriam was executed? Is the mode of execution indicated? These questions seem pertinent to the topic at hand. Thank you.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 11:58 am
If you want to know the origin of the story of “Yeshu” – it is found in Matthew 28:11-15
To Zvi: Either you believe that whole passage of Isaiah 53 or you forget all of it. In verse 8 the suffering servant dies, which is reiterated in verse 9 and 12, and in verse 10 it says that BECAUSE the suffering servant died he will see his seed, and in verse 12 it says
“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out his soul to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.”
And Paul explains this in 1. Cor. 15:36-36
“…that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. 15:37 That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind…..”
And Yeshua says in John 3:6-7
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 3:7 Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ ”
Yeshua’s seed is a spiritual seed, it is His followers. You think they are not many??
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
My above question was regarding Zvi’s own views concerning the Talmudic account so I look forward to Zvi’s own answers
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
John, You have to understand that to jews, the issue of who jesus was or wasn’t is not too important. I’t's not like one of the principles of judaism is not to believe in jesus,but rather not believing in Jesus is just a symtom of being a jew,therefore this is more of a historical question to us more than a religious question. Having said that, my personal belief is that the talmud is indeed describing the Jesus as christians know him. The reasons for this are as follows; The talmud tells us that jesus was hanged on the eve of passover as the 3 out of 4 of the accounts of the nt say, so that matches, his mother being Miriam is another similarity we find,and other things that we believe to be true of Mary, one of the student were “mosai’=mathew while the others could have had a hebrew name that christians didnt use,like mark,luke……As far as the timing of that story I believe it fits pretty well because those that claim that the time period is off because the talmud mentions “Yeshu” in company with Reb yihoshua ben prachia who lived over 100 years earlier happen to be christians who count the years differently than we do. So according to us jews,we are over 100 years earlier in creation which goes well with being in the times of Reb yihoshua ben prachya. Another reason I believe so is because today’s modern talmud editions do not include these 3 particular stories because it was censored many years ago,and that would only make sense if it was referring to Jesus.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
Erica,you havent answered my questions.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
John, Jews are the only nation that is required to keep track of the years, for example they must rest the land every seven,every 50 years is yovel, every 28 years we bless the sun….etc, so it would make alot more sense that we have the correct year more than anyone else.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
I’ll be back g-d willing after shabbos.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
Erica the word “zerah” is never used in the entire scripture to have other than it’s exact litertal meaning.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Zvi,
I thank you for you for sharing your views with me concerning this matter. Have a blessed shabbos.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Zvi, I think I have answered all your questions, one answer being that the revelation of Yeshua is an ongoing revelation, since Yeshua appeared as a man only about 2000 years ago and even today is not fully revealed yet (hence the book of Revelation, which is a prophetic book).
But I think that you haven’t answered my questions Zvi, especially if you do believe in Isaiah 53 at all or not.
I don’t have a problem at all to believe that Yeshua (and His name is Yeshua by the way) is The Angel of YHWH, THE Arm of YHWH, a fire, THE Son of YHWH, THE Servant of YHWH, and has also been a human being for about 29 years.
What was the fire in Exodus 3:1-6 in your opinion?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Erica, Again,what did people see AT THAT time that WOW’d them other than a death at the cross which was is LOW point, what was the high point? Also, the word “zerah” wasnt answered.As far as the nature of the fie,hopeully after shabbos.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
John,you’re very welcome, and feel free to ask if you have other questions.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
How does the word “zerah” relate to Isaiah 53? I’m thinking right now of Psalm 112:4
“זָרַח בַּחֹשֶׁךְ אֹור לַיְשָׁרִים חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם וְצַדִּיק – Light arises (zerah) in the darkness for the upright.”
The meaning here is a clearly spiritual one. Or do you think that the righteous people will enjoy an especially beautiful sunrise?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Erika,
I asked you earlier about Heb 1:1-2, 5. How do you square that with your premise that Yeshua was the angel in the burning bush ? Perhaps you may want to reconsider your view… I’ve had to do that on a number of things myself.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
Zvi, by the terms
“He SHALL see his seed”, “After the suffering of his soul, he WILL SEE…”, “My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself”, “Therefore WILL I divide him a portion with the great”, “HE SHALL divide the spoil with the strong”,
You can see that a future event is discussed. At that point in time people will not realize the identity of Messiah, even though
“he poured out his soul to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors” (past tense).
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Erica there zayin,resh,ayin, which is what we are discussing and zayin,reish,ches, a completely different hebrew word a ches is not an ayin!
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Erica, so the down and the up are thousands of years apart,the cotrast makes no sense.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
To Rich: What is the problem with Heb 1:1-2, 5 ?
I’ll quote them here:
“God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 1:2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.”
It is clear that Yeshua has only been a human for about 29 years, and before that time people had not heard of Him as a human. And since the worlds were made through Yeshua, He is preexistent.
And verse 5:
“For to which of the angels did he say at any time,
“You are my Son.
Today have I become your father?”* and again, “I will be to him a Father,
and he will be to me a Son?”
Well, does this verse determine at what time YHWH spoke this? I think before He created the world. No doubt that Yeshua gained in glory through His mission on earth, but this does not contradict His preexistence.
In verse 8 Psalm 45 is quoted: “Your throne, O God (which God?), is forever and ever.
The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your Kingdom.
You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, your God (which God?), has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.”
January 22nd, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
Please be more clear what you are referring to Zvi.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Ok, I see that you are talking about the “seed”. No, I disagree with you Zvi. “Seed” has always two meanings in the Torah, since the Torah is a parable for our day-to-day lives. There is a literal meaning in the plain story, and also a spiritual meaning on the spiritual level. There is not only one level in the Torah! (Guess what – the Torah is also a complex unity!!!)
Bad news for all the replacement theologians.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
By the way – how can a physically dead man see his physical seed after his death which he didn’t have before??
January 22nd, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Erica, please supply me the verse that seed =non literal. As far as the dead man if it refers to Israel the question doesnt apply.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Hey Zvi, here is a cool song for you:
http://content.bandzoogle.com/users/50shekelgmailcom/ppd/CB8B5DFB8C8FE72212812D91F0197C9F/Chassidic-Vice.mp3?AWSAccessKeyId=01GMS9EF8WX7XAQD3GR2&Expires=1264192232&Signature=EI%2F3Cc4W1X4C7X%2F5JgkgVCiGKK4%3D
Hope you can download it! Have a good Shabbos
!
January 22nd, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
My example is Isaiah 53:10 – or whose literal seed is this about?
And also Isaiah 54:1 – How can a desolate woman have more children than a married woman (except out of wedlock)?
January 22nd, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
erica the word “ben” can be used that way not the word “zerah” and you cant use a proof from the very verse we are debating!
January 22nd, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
So prove me whose literal seed is mentioned in Isaiah 53:10!
January 22nd, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
Hey folks – Shabbat Shalom everybody!! This might be a bit off topic, but I hope I can still share it here: Michael Rood here in Germany – Michael Rood on the Loose!!!
http://www.michaelroodministries.com/children_verboten.htm
Isn’t this just beautiful – I LOVE it!!!
This dear brother has started to do a great job here in Germany, and we are more than thankful for it!!! What has that now to do with the deity of Christ? Well, we also try to glorify Christ here in Germany.
Again, have a blessed Shabbat everybody!!
Erika
January 22nd, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
So Erika….I’m trying to follow your thinking. So the writer of Hebrews says that God has spoken through the Son in these last days but not in times past, and this doesn’t deter you from saying that (the non-human) Yeshua spoke to Moses from the burning bush?
What in the world would possess you to have such a crazy idea ?
When I asked you about Moses knowing God in a pluralistic way, you said He is not plurality, but complex unity…..like in the burning bush.
I find it interesting that God said in Exodus 23:20-21 that He is sending an angel (messenger). This angel is clearly not literally God himself. God said His Name is in the angel. I hope you don’t think that God’s “complex unity” includes this angel…
If the burning bush episode was indeed an angel (a messenger) and not the pre-existent Yeshua, what else do you have to show for the complex unity of God ?
From the Torah, if you asked Moses, “Is God Himself a complex unity or one person(ality) ?” What do you think he would say ?
I wonder if God just laughs while man tries to figure Him out after He has clearly told us “Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one” If God had only used ‘yachad’ instead of ‘echad’, this complex unity idea could almost be believable (it would also help to change a few thousand singular personal pronouns)
A rose is a rose by any other name
Adultery…… romantic affair
Homosexuality….. alternative lifestyle
Socialism ……. universal health care
Idolatry ……… complex unity
Paul writes in Romans 11 that the Jews should be provoked to jealousy by the Gentile believers.
I assure you, Jews that are remotely Torah observant are not, nor ever will be jealous of Gentiles that claim God = God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
Rich,
Just a quick word to encourage you to state your views with a bit more grace (like not calling someone else’s ideas “crazy”), OK? (I haven’t been following the thread, so if others are also lacking in graciousness in their interactions, then this applies to them too.)
Also, just FYI, I personally know of ultra-Orthodox Jews who have come to faith in Yeshua to whom God’s triunity was supernaturally revealed and who felt that this opened up key spiritual concepts to them, especially those who came from Hasidic backgrounds. So, your last point is simply not true.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
Dr. Brown,
I think caution should be adopted when it comes to “supernaturally revealed” visions etc. The Apostle Paul warns the reader not to “receive a different spirit from the one you received [nor to put up with] a different gospel [cp. Acts 8.12] from the one you accepted…because even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed [anathema]…for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light [2Cor 11.4, 14; Gal 1.8].
The Apostle John likewise exhorts his reader not to “believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God [since by testing] those who call themselves apostles and are not, [we may find] them to be false” [1John 4.1; Rev 2.2].
Many a cult and religious dooplegangers have sprang up [as we all well know] claiming Christianity as their herald. I know even of a Muslim who was converted to trinitarianism when he claimed to have had a religious experience where he is said to have encountered a vision similar to that of the Mormon Joseph Smith. A vision which included the “one person” of God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Yet nowhere do we see this “triune God” in scripture.
As Christians, founded on Peter’s confession [“the Christ, the Son of God” Mat 16.13-20, and not 'God the Son'], we should not be afraid to question what we have been taught or whatever personal experience [no matter how vivid and real] we may have had in our lives.
What meaning, if any, do we give to the explicit commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ?
To “believe” here is not limited to some abstract, “receive Jesus in your heart” illusory moment in church “believe”. It involves knowing, understanding and loving the truth of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus preached to his grave and beyond! For in that message lies eternal life in the age to come. A conditional immortality which Jesus of Nazareth has attained to, hence his examplary conduct and teaching should be what all Christians be attaining to.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
I just read this on this board:
The Hebrew bible clearly says that God is not a man.
Let’s stop creating a messiah in an image from gentile paganism.
Who said God was a man? No Christian I am aware of believes God is a man. What we believe is that the eternal God, the second person of the Trinity took on human flesh. The humanity remains humanity, and the divinity remains divinity when they are united. In fact, that is exactly what the council of Chalcedon said, and that was in 451A.D. You can read it here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html
And here is the relevant portion:
This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.
I do not know of any Church of Chalcedonion orthodoxy that would accept the idea that God is a man. That is simply a strawman. The eternal second person of the Trinity takes on human flesh, and both the humanity and the divinity remain unchanged in their nature. Disagree with that if you want, but please don’t erect strawmen.
God Bless,
Adam
January 22nd, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
So Rich, I’m quite frustrated that you keep insulting me without referring to what I actually wrote. I was more than clear – what else do you want to know? Is it such a mystery that”God has spoken through the human Son in these last days” while before “through him also God made the worlds” – at a time when he was not human?
And again you say that a personality cannot be complex – very interesting. Even humans have a complex personality – but probably not you.
Everone knows that these words are not one and the same:
Adultery…… romantic affair
Homosexuality….. alternative lifestyle
Socialism ……. universal health care
It is very insulting though that you say it would be idolatry to consider that YHWH has a complex personality. Again, even regular human beings are complex – but YHWH can according to your definition only be very plain.
It seems that it is your only option to insult since you don’t have anymore arguments.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Adam,
Yes, you’re correct. None of us would ever think for a moment that God was a man.
January 23rd, 2010 @ 3:33 am
Dr. Brown,
It follows that the creedal statement “God the Son took on human flesh” means, nothing more or less than, “God became a human being/man”.
January 23rd, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
“…while at the same time remaining YHWH in heaven” – just to accomplish your sentence Xavier – just like Adam said:
“This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.”
Do we really have the right to question this clear message of the Bible, just because it is beyond our own sphere?? This is like trying to put the whole universe into our backpack!
January 23rd, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Xavier,
Dr. Brown,
It follows that the creedal statement “God the Son took on human flesh” means, nothing more or less than, “God became a human being/man”.
No it does not. It implies [actually, it asserts] that there was a hypostatic union between the second person of the Trinity [God] and human flesh. It does not imply that something happened to the divine nature [i.e., it became human] when it took on human flesh. The differences between the two natures are preserved when they are united in Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Until you can show how that is somehow logically inconsistent, there is no reason to accept what you are saying.
God Bless,
Adam
January 23rd, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
Erika,
Please, I beg you, where is this “clear message of the Bible” where it teaches us the “double nature” of the man [anthropos=human being], “the Son of Man” [a title designating a human being], Jesus of Nazareth? You keep quoting to me “Creeds of the Fathers” as if they were scripture, where is your true scriptural support?
Don’t you realize that if what they say is true, then Jesus really didn’t die for those “who may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” [Jn 20.31] and not God the Son or a “person” of the triune Godhead?!
Any system of believe [faith] that is “beyond our own sphere” of understanding, is really no faith at all. Its called “blind faith”!
Adam,
The Catholic creedal statements of faith are inconsistent with the textual, biblical evidence at hand. That is why it took almost 400 years and various rewrites and reworkings for it to stick. Creating a slippery slope doctrine from which even trinis like yourseleves find it hard not to slip. You either end up with some type of Modalism when you claim “Jesus is YHWH”, or tritheism. There is no in-between when it comes to this doctrine, it is just untennable.
As one of its supporters once said:
Yet this is what modern biblical scholarship says regarding the doctrine:
January 23rd, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
Erica, The verse in Isaiah 53 is speaking about the literal seed of the jewish people.
January 23rd, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
Xavier, I am with you there is no verse that comes remotely close to suggesting such a thought. Not just that but the scriptures in the ot couldn’t have been more clear that it does not exsist. The verses are yelling at us! Think of it,the jews were the ones that received the torah over a thousand years, why do you think they all rejected the idea of a complex unity? Everything has a reason,lets think mathematically why is it that the jews believe in it and the gentiles dont? There has to be a reason! The probability that by CHANCE the jews do and gentiles dont,is just ridiculous. For example say I tell you,that 20 million people like ice cream and 100 million don’t, in addition,the 20 million are lefties and the 100 million are right handed,woldnt youy say that there MUST be a corollation between the 2?? the odds are staggering. So getting back to our question, Given that both jew and gentile were given the same text why is it that 90 percent of jews dONT believe in it yet millions of gentiles do?? The answer MUST be that jews know how their parents all the way up to sinai,and also since the torah was given to them only, so they know EXACTLY how to interpret their own bible, and nobody else can tell them what their own bible is saying.
January 23rd, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Xavier,
Since you have left the subject of the natures of Christ, and are now on the subject of the Trinity, will you at least agree with me that Christians have never said that God is a man? If you do bring it up again, it will be a total strawman, since you have not addressed what I wrote about it.
The Catholic creedal statements of faith are inconsistent with the textual, biblical evidence at hand. That is why it took almost 400 years and various rewrites and reworkings for it to stick.
No, the reason that the official formulations took that long is because of the fact that they were debating how to understand the doctrine on the basis of the text. Read anyone from that time period, especially the writings of Athenasius, and you will find that he quotes scripture all of the time to refute the Arians. The Trinity was always defended and defined on the basis of scripture, and that is why it is pan-canonical.
You either end up with some type of Modalism when you claim “Jesus is YHWH”, or tritheism. There is no in-between when it comes to this doctrine, it is just untennable..
Well, since you haven’t proven it, there is not much I can say other than that you are totally wrong. I would ask you to, for example, take the Nicene creed, and show how it “ends up” with either one of these.
As one of its supporters once said:
Try to Understand It
and You’ll Lose Your Mind.
Try to Deny It and You’ll LOSE YOUR SOUL!
Understand it in the fullest sense? No, since the Trinity describes the very essence of who God is, it is impossible for our finite minds to fully comprehend the essence of God. However, to understand, and create a consistent doctrine of the Trinity? That is completely possible, and I have seen no evidence from you that this is not the case.
Yet this is what modern biblical scholarship says regarding the doctrine:
I find if funny that you would so radically misrepresent the following sources, when I am a student of Old Testament and Semitic Languages here at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and have access to all of the works you cite. Let me go through and demonstrate, sometimes by looking to the next column, or even the next sentence, how these sources have been misrepresented.
“Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the NT. Likewise the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon” (Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce Metzger, OUP, 1993, p. 782).
Interestingly enough, this article you cite is written by a secular scholar who denies that Matthew 28:19 was said by Jesus. He also denies that John wrote John 21, and, like most liberals, seems to indicate that John came from a much later community. The only way he can get away with saying that the Trinity is much later is by arguing that the Biblical writers developed the argument over the course of several centuries. In other words, he believes that the Bible teaches the Trinity; he just explains away the Biblical evidence by saying that the Biblical evidence reflects many decades and even a century of evolution of the doctrines of Christianity. Far from supporting your view, it actually does great damage to it. For it means that, in order to get the doctrine of the Trinity out of the Bible, you have to break the Bible up into little pieces, and say that the portions that are Trinitarian are later, thus begging the question.
In fact, notice what Schowalter says in the article itself:
Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related.
As for your next quote:
“The word Trinity is not found in the Bible…. It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church until the fourth century” (Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Intervarsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, part 3, p. 1).
No one cares about the word “Trinity.” The concepts that there is one God, that the father is called “God,” Jesus is called “God,” the spirit is called “God,” and yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another are concepts that are pan canonical. The word “Trinity” is simply referring to those beliefs, namely, that within the one being who is God there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [From James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, p.26].
Furthermore, if you require the exact word, then, since the Bible does not use the specific word “monotheism,” monotheism must be unbiblical. Since the Bible does not use the specific term “Theism,” then theism must be unbiblical. The term “Trinity” is a word used to describe specific teachings of the Bible, and no one should care that the specific term is not used, any more than they should care that the term “monotheism” is not used.
The Trinity “is not directly and immediately the Word of God” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 304).
That is just simply dishonest. Here is the actual quotation:
The Pastoral Question. There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not bee badgered at one time or another by the question, “But how does one preach the Trinity?” And if the question is symptomatic of the confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.
If “the Trinity” here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all-not, it should be added, because the audi4ence is insufficiently prepared, but because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration. In this strictly pastoral context, and for the far greater part in the catechetical instruction as well, the purpose of theology is to give the preacher’s exposition a pedagogical control, but hardly to supply its content.
If the Trinity means, however, as more often it will, Trinitarian doctrine, particularly the fundamental dogma “one God in three persons,” what should be said in reply has not always been too clear. The 4th century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God. And today, it is becoming more and more recognized that the direct and immediate word of God, the Biblical message speaking for itself, should be the heart and substance of the communication both in preaching and in catechesis.
The context is not about Biblical content at all. The author is dealing with preaching the Trinity in the context of a sermon. What is being pointed out is that there is no Biblical text that systematically lays out the doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, how should you preach the doctrine? He answers that you should not, but should simply follow the Biblical text itself, and simply teach the text, and leave theology for other times and places.
“In Scripture there is yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word ‘Trias’ (of which the Latin ‘Trinitas’ is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD…. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of ‘Trinitas’ in Tertullian” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 47).
Again, all that is being said here is that there is no one specific word that is used to describe this teaching in scripture. However, what you neglected to quote was the very next column!:
The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matt., xxviii, 20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the twelve step by step. First he taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When his ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally, after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them to go and teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt., xxviii, 20).
That is not in a different book. That is not in a different chapter. It is in the next column.
“Hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for [Tertullian] does not apply the words [which were later applied to Trinitarianism] to Trinitarian theology” (Michael O’Carroll, Trinitas: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, 1987, p. 208).
The very next sentence from the text you quoted reads:
He had a Stoic background, not the decided forensic ideas Harnack thought.
The context of this statement is an article about Turtullian. Hence, it only points out that his understanding of “one substance in three persons” must be understood differently, since he was influenced by stoic philosophy. Hence, it has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in scripture, but is dealing with the fact that Greek Philosophical categories had crept into the church, and, because Turtullian eventually joined the montanists, one cannot be sure if he is, in fact, articulating the orthodox Trinitarian concept.
“The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity” (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Zondervan, 1976, Vol. 2, p. 84).
Again, if you will keep on reading, you will find the following, again on the same page:
But, the NT does contain the fixed, three-part formula of 2 Cor. 13:13 (EVV 14), in which God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit are mentioned together (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4 ff.). The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit occurs only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19.
Again, we are talking about a “strict, dogmatic assertion” as the author also says on the same page. There, obviously, is no section where Paul uses the term “Trinity,” and then goes on to discuss the doctrine we call the Trinity. However, the NT *does* say that there is one God, that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, and it also tells is that these three are distinct from one another. That is, by very definition, the doctrine of the Trinity.
“The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century…. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).
Again, if you continue reading, you will find major league problems for your position:
Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then results had been far from decisive.
Notice, he is not talking about the idea of God as both one and three, but rather the systematization of that teaching. The question of God as one and three had already been “once raised.” The systematization of the doctrine of the Trinity, in terms of what it specifically meant, was, indeed, something that was clarified in different councils; however, it was always done on the basis of questions that scripture had already raised, and solved on the basis of scripture itself.
Again, I find this misuse of scholarly sources just wrong. If I were to treat sources here at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School the way you just did, my professors would give me an F, and rightfully so.
Now, let me ask you to respond to some direct quotations from early church fathers:
Ignatius of Antioch [d.107A.D.]:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has been blessed in greatness through the fulness of God the Father, ordained before time to be always resulting in permanent glory, unchangeably united and chosen in true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God, to the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, worthy of felicitation: abundant greetings in Jesus Christ and in blameless joy [Letter to the Ephesians, section 1]
…the ancient kingdom was utterly destroyed when God appeared in the likeness of man unto newness of everlasting life [Letter to the Ephesians 19].
For our God Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is more plainly seen. The work is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing of might, whenever it is hated by the world [Letter to the Romans 3]
I glorify Jesus Christ the God who gave to you such wisdom, for I know that you are fully established in immovable faith, just as if you have been nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, both in flesh and in spirit, firmly established in love in the blood of Christ, completely persuaded with reference to our Lord that He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but the Son of God according to God’s will and power, truly born from a virgin, having been baptized by John in order to by Him fulfill all righteousness (Smyrneans 1).
Melito of Sardis [d. 180]:
He who hung the earth in place is hanged.
He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree.
The Sovereign is insulted.
God is murdered.
The king of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.
This is the One who made the heavens and the earth, and formed mankind in the beginning,
The one proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets,
The One enfleshed in a virgin,
The One hanged on a tree,
The One buried in the earth,
The One raised from the dead, and who went up into the heights of heaven,
The One sitting at the right hand of the Father,
The One having authority to Judge and savem
Through Whom the Father made the things which exist from the beginning of time.
This One is “the Alpha and the Omega,”
This One is “the beginning and the end,” the beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible.
This one is Christ.
This one is King.
]This One is Jesus.
This One is the Leader.
This One is the Lord.
This One is the One who rose from the dead.
This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
“To him be the glory and power forever. Amen.” [Sermon on the Passover]
I think it would be more profitable to go to the actual sources to study the early church’s view of the Christ, and not to small soundbites taken out of context from scholars.
Zvi,
Think of it,the jews were the ones that received the torah over a thousand years, why do you think they all rejected the idea of a complex unity?
Actually, the statements about God in the Hebrew Bible are notoriously ambiguious [God can be seen, and yet can't be seen]. We have no doctrinal statement from the time it was written.
God Bless,
Adam
January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
Adam,your comment has not touched my question at all.
January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
Zvi,
Why not? Your question assumes that we have a consistent theological teaching from Ancient Near Eastern Judaica, and we simply do not. We do have the Hebrew Bible, and it is notoriously ambiguous. Therefore, what evidence do you have that that the Jews who received the Tenach completely rejected the idea of one being in three persons?
You are missing a fatal problem with your position, and that is that neither Judaism or Christianity are based in the Hebrew Bible alone. Judaism and Christianity are ways of completing the *logic* of the Hebrew Bible, with its ambiguities, destroyed expectations, and shadows. Your question assumes that we have the exact same starting place in understanding these things, and we do not. The reason why the Jews reject the Trinity has more to do with the assumption that Jewish traditions are the outworkings of the logic of the Hebrew Bible, and I totally reject that on the basis of the fact that it is a totally reductionistic way of looking at the data, and that it does not take seriously the conundrums such as the visibility and invisibility of God, or how God could not be a man, and yet have a child born to us who is ‘el gibbor [Isaiah 9:5].
God Bless,
Adam
January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
Adam, before getting to the crux of my argument,if you dont believe in oral law, then I challenge you, what does it mean not to work on shabbos?
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:13 am
zvi,
Adam, before getting to the crux of my argument,if you dont believe in oral law, then I challenge you, what does it mean not to work on shabbos?
Simple, to stop from the normal, tiring activities of labor. As Jesus said in expounding this law, “The Sabbath was not made for man, but man for the Sabbath” [Mark 2:27]. In other words, the Sabbath was made for man to stop from his normal, daily work that causes him fatigue at the end of the day. Also, and more specifically, we are to emulate the rest that we will experience when we are in the presence of God after we die, as the Sabbath rest is a picture of that very rest we will experience when we are in heaven [Hebrews 4:9-12].
Keep in mind, it is a whole lot more complicated that the idea that I don’t believe in “oral law.” What oral law is in your system of thought, the New Testament is to my system of thought. I can go to the New Testament where the Sabbath rest is specifically discussed, and get my information from there, whereas you, instead, go to the oral law. I, again, would say that it has problems as even in the New Testament we see that there were downright unusual laws, such as being unable to heal someone on the sabbath, which could be argued is a violation of the sixth commandment. However, rightly or wrongly, the New Testament is to me what the oral law is to you.
God Bless,
Adam
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:13 am
Besides, the Rabbi’s explain these question in great depth,do your research.
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:29 am
Adam,is lighting a fire considered work? Besides how do you know that you’re correct maybe work is even when I dont get tired? who defines how much work is considered a problem? When does the day begin? When does it end? Is moving furniture considered work? Is there any time that it is permited to work? Who decides?How can the nt describe what is considered working what happened before the nt? do you realize that the punishment for not observing shabbos is death? So little detail. Further, what are tefilin? tziztis, lulav,esrog, what is the orlah? why did Daniel pray 3 times a day? why didnt Daniel drink the wine that the king gave him? Without the oral law we are lost.
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:38 am
In Daniel 1 he refuses to eat the bread and wine from the king because it is FORBIDDEN and g-d steps in to help him-tell me where in the torah does it say that you cant eat the bread or wine of a gentile??
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:44 am
In Daniel 6 they tried to find a law that daniel would get caught on that he would disobey them,the only thing they figured they would catch him on was something that was against his religion! what was it? Praying. They decreed that it’s forbidden to pray for 30 days. Tell me where does it say that one must pray every day if not inthe oral law?
January 24th, 2010 @ 1:00 am
Even in the nt picking grain on shabbos was forbidden.
January 24th, 2010 @ 1:01 am
Adam,
“…the reason that the official formulations took that long is because” it is only implied by the [so-called] Church Fathers from scripture. Something we call eisegesis [reading into the text], instead of a proper exegetical study of the text. Why come up with a new set of grammar to explain the supposed doctrine from scripture if it is stated in the scriptures themselves? Does it make any sense to you? It doesn’t to many others.
The way trinis like you interpret and use scripture does not, and never will, explain the doctrine of the Trinity. That was the whole point of debate amongst the early councils, who by the way were controlled by whatever beliefs the current Roman Emperor had regarding the new faith.
In his What Is Christianity? Harnack wrote:
The quotes from the “Church Fathers” only prove my point Adam, the language they used does not reflect in anyway the language of the NT writers. “Our God Jesus Christ”? Where is this “God Christ” in the pen of the Gospel writers?
Ask yourself, did God get Himself born? Did God die? All the questions this doctrine raises are wholly within the Gnostic, Roman/Greek influenced world of paganism and mystical reasoning. Have you ever asked yourself why the only writings from so-called “Church Fathers” are those of Gentile writers originating from Alexandria and Rome? Where are the Jewish/Christians from Jerusalem for instance? Yet even within them, there is confusion and a swaying back and forth of doctrinal points:
January 24th, 2010 @ 1:21 am
Jerimiah 17verse 22 Do not carry on shabbos, as I have commanded your fathers, carry? when? your fathers? Oh,in the oral law. Checkmate!
January 24th, 2010 @ 2:05 am
Zvi,
Checkmate! Think about it some more, OK? There are many obvious answers other than oral law (I deal with this in vol. 5).
Also, Adam and Zvi, haven’t you deviated from the theme of this thread?
January 24th, 2010 @ 2:06 am
Zvi,
You are totally misunderstanding the problem you are facing. First of all, in terms of actual application to individual situations, the point of the New Testament is that this is not the point of the law at all! Yes, there are things commanded for us to do in the case law, but the reason why the case law is given is to show us the nature and character of God so that we can emulate it in those situations it does not specifically address. The case law presents God’s nature and character, and tells us how he thinks, so that we can learn to think after him.
In fact, a person who is looking at a specific law for every situation is a person who is just looking to do enough to get by. God demands so much more than that. Does he have commandments? Yes. However, he demands that all of our decisions be made on the basis of who he is as “holy,” since the scriptures say we are to be holy as he is holy. It calls us to repent of the attitude of looking at how we can do just enough to get by, and calls us to be totally committed to thinking his thoughts after him in every situation.
Again, we are dealing with two different understandings of even the purpose of the law, and its relationship to our behavior.
In Daniel 1 he refuses to eat the bread and wine from the king because it is FORBIDDEN and g-d steps in to help him-tell me where in the torah does it say that you cant eat the bread or wine of a gentile??
Actually, it doesn’t say that it is forbidden to eat bread. I would understand it as the more generic “food.” The point is that the gentiles had no concern for the dietary laws of the Jews, and so Daniel refuses to eat or drink with the king in order to be sure that he does not disobey what God has commanded. Again, this is a text that actually supports what I have said, and that is that actions must flow from the heart, not in merely obeying commands to get by. Daniel wanted to make sure he did not defile himself, and so, rather than consult the law on every single food he consumed, he chose to have a vegetarian diet so as to be sure he would not break the law of God.
In Daniel 6 they tried to find a law that daniel would get caught on that he would disobey them,the only thing they figured they would catch him on was something that was against his religion! what was it? Praying. They decreed that it’s forbidden to pray for 30 days. Tell me where does it say that one must pray every day if not inthe oral law?
I don’t think the point of the text is to erect some kind of law that says you must pray every day, but rather, as the apostle Paul says, that we are to “pray [customarily] without ceasing” [1 Thessalonians 5:17], The point of the this text in Daniel is that we are to pray as part of our life of faith, and that we should be committed to spending time with God, even if it means our lives.
Even in the nt picking grain on shabbos was forbidden.
Actually, that was a tradition of the elders, and the whole point of that passage is to argue that the application of the law, as they had it, was false. Again, it in the tradition of the elders.
Now, let me ask you how you can justify some of these traditions. How do you justify not taking care of your parents, and, instead, giving up all that you should be giving to your parents, and dedicating it to God according to the qorban rule? How do you justify not healing someone on the Sabbath so as to have a violation of the sixth commandment? How do you justify some of these other traditions from the time of Jesus, such as laws that say that you can only travel a certain number of miles away from your possessions on the Sabbath, but will allow you to go out the day before, and lay out your possessions at the appropriate distance so that you can travel much farther than the distance allowed? These were all traditions of the elders.
Also, many of the traditions of the elders cannot be traced back before the time of the New Testament. If that is the case, then doesn’t your argument that people could not know the logic of the Hebrew Bible before the New Testament likewise backfire on you?
This is what happens when you have an attitude of “How much can I do to just get by?” God expects so much more than that. He expects you to think as he thinks in all situations, and to be totally sold out to thinking about doing everything you do according to his nature and character, and for his own glory. If all you have is a bunch of rules, then you miss the whole point of the law. The individual case laws were written in order to show us God’s nature and character, and how that applies to several situations. It shows us how we are to think, and thus, shows us how we can, not only do what is right, but do what is right from the correct motivations, and not just try to get by,
As I said, you don’t understand that the differences between us are really how the logic of the Hebrew Bible works itself out. You have said it works itself out in the tradition of the elders, and I have said it does so in accordance with the New Testament. I have pointed out that, not only is the tradition of the elders entirely reductionistic, but it is at times contradictory with the Torah itself, and even worse, creates an attitude that is simply rooted in how we can best get by, rather than coming to what right from a mind that thinks God’s thoughts after him.
God Bless,
Adam
January 24th, 2010 @ 2:10 am
Dr. Brown,
Also, Adam and Zvi, haven’t you deviated from the theme of this thread?
I will gladly drop this line of argumentation, if you believe it is off topic.
It is just that my professor, Dr. Willem VanGemeren told us that the difference between Jewish and Christian exegesis has to do with the logical outworkings of the Hebrew Bible. I just thought that, if we are going to discuss whether Jesus is spoken of in the Hebrew Bible, and whether he is called God, it just seems like a logically prior question to ask how the logic of the Hebrew Bible is going to be completed.
However, I will drop it, since you have said it is off topic.
God Bless,
Adam
January 24th, 2010 @ 2:10 am
Dr Brown,yes we did get into a bit of a tangent when we began discussing the differences of the traditions between the jewish and christians regarding the trinity and I do apologize for that.
January 24th, 2010 @ 4:50 am
Again Zvi, there is the pashat level of the scritures and also a deeper level. Just because it is not convenient for some Jews to see the real matter of Isaiah 53 does not mean that it doesn’t exist.
The sod-level is just that: it is hidden. Now don’t tell me that only the Rabbis can understand this hidden level. Yeshua Himself did not believe in the oral law (the tradition of the elders) and that was the only reason he always got into conflict with the pharisees of His time. It was the simple question what has more authority: The Word of YHWH OR the tradition of the elders.
And just because it is not convenient for some Jews to see the real matter of Isaiah 53 does not mean that they are condemned therefore. So no reason to freak out because of that.
And if you want to tell me that only the Jewish Rabbis can interpret scriptures correctly just in order to support your point, I must say that this is real arrogance.
Of course all the scriptures are given to us through the Jewish people, and the Jewish people help us to understand it and also to erase some real errors like the replacement theology for example.
But don’t expect people to follow you blindly. It is not recommendable at all to follow someone blindly – even if it is a Rabbi.
January 24th, 2010 @ 5:16 am
Hey Adam, not that I want to continue on this off topic theme, but I think you made some really great points concerning the Law of YHWH in your latest response to Zvi !! It is the heart of the Torah that we are to follow, which is Yeshua !
January 24th, 2010 @ 8:27 am
Erica,you havent answered my question.
Adam, I will resond to your claim in the debate with Rabbi shmuley Boteach blog a little later when I get a chance.
January 24th, 2010 @ 9:19 am
I did Zvi. Do you have another question?
January 24th, 2010 @ 9:46 am
But I can also give further examples of the spiritual meaning of “seed” besides Isaiah 53:10
Psalm 126:6 –> this is not about farming, but about the return to Zion.
Malachi 2:15
Isaiah 1:4
Isaiah 57:4
Furthermore the New Testament explains the true meaning of the Hebrew term zerah (seed), for example in 2.Cor. 9:10
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Adam and Zvi,
Thanks for your understanding and your desire to stay on topic. Adam, yes, you’re correct that differences in terms of exegetical approach are very telling, but the discussion quickly gets off the topic of Yeshua’s deity, etc., and with all the folks posting here on this important subject, it’s best to limit the discussion here.
But you can both continue to chat on a Jewish-related thread, as I believe Zvi has done again under the Shmuley-debate thread.
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
Erica,whenever the verse refers to a human having “zerah” it is always literal.The verses in Malachi and psalms are not speaking of humans,and the verses of isaiah are in fact literal,because the verse doees not =seeds of falsehood-incorrect,look at the previous verse to prove it,the word false is used in the non literal use,and even if it does=seeds of falsehood-again we are not speaking of a human!
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
In psalms-where are not speaking of a human in regards to having seed like to see his seed,but rather a non literal term intead of planting and cutting but not a contrast to having childres,but to focus on the topic Isaiah 53 reagarding the TRINITY would not be the right place to prove it.
January 24th, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
Erica,if you’dlike to cotinue discussing the definition and use of the word zerah or the discussion of Isaiah 53 you can respond in the other thread that Dr.Brown has mentioned.
January 24th, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Zvi, I agree with you that when it speaks of the seed of a human in the Tenach there is always the literals meaning – but in my opinion this is not necessarily the only meaning of it.
In general I perceive the Torah and Tanach as a parable that reveals a lot of mysteries of YHWH that are helpful concerning our own lives if we listen and learn from them. This means that there is a literals sense, but also an allegorical one. And then even the sod level. I think that it goes a bit too far to exclude certain words from these levels.
If we look then further into the “New Testament” we see clearly that it relates to the Tanach and takes the Tanach as its foundation with further defining the basics of the Tanach. So for example the “seed” of Abraham is defined in the New Testament as those people who follow in Abraham’s footsteps. This can include both the literal seed, but also people like Ruth (Tenach) or Luke and Cornelius (Brit Hadasha) who leave paganism behind and follow YHWH the God of Israel.
As you know, there is a lot of debating among Christians themselves what it really looks like to follow YHWH the God of Israel. We do agree though that it is not necessary to convert to Judaism therefor, although it is necessary to dig into the Hebraic roots of the scriptures.
And we do agree that it is essential to believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. Otherwise the grafting-in process is not effective. I know that Orthodox Jews differ with that, but we have to arrange ourselves with these differences somehow if we think it makes sense to work together.
I don’t know now exactly how much time I have to respond to further comments, that’s why I responded here. But it was good to talk to you – and have still a great time
January 24th, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
To be a bit more specific about the New Testament definition of the “Seed of Abraham” – you can find it for example in Romans 4:16-17.
January 28th, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
WOAH!!!! This seems to be some debate!!!
From my reading of scripture I think all scripture OT and NT clearly points to a Triune God who is Three persons and yet One. There is no other way to understand Moses’ meeting with God in Exodus 3, no other way to understand how through out Exodus the scripture points to God leading the children of Israel in a cloud of smoke by day and pillar of fire by night and yet at the same time says it was The Angel of YHWH who led them as the pillar of smoke and pillar of fire. There is no other way to understand Judges 13 and Samson’s parent’s meeting with The Messenger of YHWH who they clearly refer to as God! There is no other way to understand Judges 2 or Judges 6 or Genesis 18!! There is no other way to understand Hagar calling the Messenger of YHWH who appeared to her and showed her the well “God” not once by twice! There is no way to understand how the same Messenger appears to Abraham before he was about to sacrifice Isaac and speaks of himself in the first person as God regarding testing Abraham and yet he is called the “messenger of YHWH.” How else do we explain Jacob saying he say God and lived hence the name of the place “peniel.”
What of Zechariah refering to the Messenger of YHWH as “God” in Zechariah 12? Or Isaiah speaking of a son to be born who would be called Everlasting Father, Mighty God and would have an eternal Kingdom? There is no logical way to see all these passages without stating that from Genesis to Revelation God has revealed Himself consistently in Three persons.
As for the Messiah being God. Well Malachi clearly speaks of a messenger who would prepare the way for YHWH who would appear as the Messenger of the Covenant! This Messenger of the Covenant is the Messiah. John calls him the Word. Well so does Samuel the prophet! Samuel the prophet in Samuel 3 says the Word of YHWH stood and spoke to Him. Now clearly a being called the Word was speaking to Him as God! So John is not talking about some greek philosophical concept when he speaks of the Word he is speaking about a person who is seen through out scripture and has continually revealed himself to mankind.
If God could talk to Abraham as a man and share a meal with him and appear to Samson’s parents as a man of awesome appearance, and do so for moments of time. There is nothing to stop him from taking on human form for eternity in order to save mankind. If human souls and spirits can exist within our flesh and yet remain separate in essence from our flesh and bones what is to stop God who is Spirit from putting on human flesh like us? I see a problem with how we see humanity in the first instance and this affects how we see The Messiah.
However that said I do have issues with the chalcedonian creed. It does not explain for example how the Messiah in his glorified state can have eyes like Fire and a face like shines like the sun and yet have his two natures remain separate. I think yes The Spirit and the flesh are seperate and Jesus reveals this to us when speaking of the conflict that exists within humanity having a willing spirit (in regards to doing God’s work) and weak flesh. That said I also think there are some things that are inexplicable and creeds should not attempt to explain the inexplicable. Because a man with eyes like fire and a face that shines like the sun and yet having flesh and bones is clearly not the norm! And so the nature of God’s glory shining forth from Messiah even through his flesh it would seem is clearly a complex issue!
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Replying to Dr. Brown’s post on 1/22…
We can’t call someone’s ideas ‘crazy’ on this forum? I just thought ‘line of fire’ meant we didn’t have to tiptoe around what we want to say. But okay…. I will keep that in mind….. how about if I say ‘that idea is misguided’ oy vey…
Also I want to add what Xavier well put to when you said ultra-orthodox Jews had a supernatural revelation of the trinity….
Since when should our ‘supernatural’ experience be the basis for anything? Isn’t it true that satan disguises himself as an angel of light? Yeshua said quoting the Tanach…. “man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”
Any revelation of who God is that deviates from the God of Israel that Moses knew should be rejected (Deut 13:6-8). Moses clearly knew God as one individual, one person, one being, one mind, one center of consciousness. Yeshua CLEARLY is not that same being. For instance Yeshua said His Father is greater than him; prayed ‘not my will but yours be done’. And now sits at the right hand of the one Yeshua calls his God (Acts 5:31, Rev 3:12). If Yeshua is God, and the Father is God, there absolutely are 2 God’s.
To Erika from 1/22:
I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to insult you…..it’s only this idea of God having a ‘complex unity’ that I want to insult. Of course God has a complex personality (Rom 11:34). We were talking about ‘complex unity’. Big difference. I don’t have 3 centers of consciousness and neither does God. He is one being, with one mind, and one Name. (Deut 6:4, Gen 3:15). That Name being used 7800+ times in the Tanach. That Name referenced with thousands of singular personal pronouns.