February 8, 2010
February 8, 2010 | 661 Comments
Dr. Brown Debates Sir Anthony Buzzard 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.
Articles on the Deity of Jesus (scroll down)
Comments
661 Responses to “February 8, 2010”
February 8th, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
So Brown agrees on the Jewish-Christian unitarian creed [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29], yet not what it means??
Pray tell why?
February 8th, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
Dr. Brown,
Wouldn’t it be accurate to say that the Son of God pre-existed, but that the Son of God “in the flesh” did not pre-exist, since flesh is made by God? In your studies, why is it that Jesus is called the “Son”? I have a theory I’ll attempt below, having not studied that in particular depth.
Also, I could see what Mr. Buzzard was saying about Jesus being the Word of God that pre-existed who later became flesh to dwell among us. Is it not possible that the word “Son” of God was attributed to the Word of God appearing as flesh because he was living in the human realm under the laws of man, where human terminology was to be used? In humanity, we as people come from our dads and are called sons or daughters. When the Word of God came to the earthly realm from God, he became flesh and was called “Son of God”, while God was referred to as “Father” by him. In order for God to come to earth to show us truth and redeem us, He had to limit His power and become human to live under the laws of the earthly realm. If He came in His full glory, the heavenly order would follow Him here and we would all cease to exist due to being in the presence of such holiness. That’s why He sent His Word here in flesh so we could survive in His presence under the laws of man, where His power would be limited to certain terms.
I think in the Old Testament, the term “Son of God” wasn’t really used so this confuses some people with such a concept. Although, some of us understand this was He who appeared to people like Abraham, Joshua, and others. One thing that could be clear to people is that you can’t separate God’s Word from God, nor can you separate God’s Spirit from Him. They’re all connected and each have shown to have a particular role. God overall is the Master, His Word naturally cooperates with Him to see that His purposes are known and literally carried through among us, and His Spirit empowers us to follow His Word. When people begin to see that His Son IS the Word of God, then they can know that His Son has always existed because God’s Word has always existed, just as God has. I think the word “Son” can be used interchangeably with “the Word of God”, and perhaps the concept of God’s Word should be the preface of understanding the concept of God’s Son. Also, the usage of the word “Son” from Son of God, needs to be defined for people because too many people see it in terms of God needing to have a sexual relationship in order to have a son, or that having a second person in the Godhead such as a son, opens up the door for some as thinking in terms of polytheism. If they just understand that Jesus is the Word of God, they can understand that the Word of God is one with God, just as Jesus says He is one with the Father. If we took away the New Testament, the idea of the pre-existing “Son of God” would be much harder for people to understand. On the other hand, the other name He goes by as “Word of God”, would not be so hard to understand as pre-existing.
February 8th, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Xavier,
Perhaps rather than putting my words in my mouth, you should repeat accurately what I said: I affirm that there is One God and only One God and that His unity is complex, best understood as His tri-unity. It appears the lack of clarity is based on your misperception of what I believe.
February 8th, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
Michael K.,
Yes, of course, you are correct in stating that the Son of God pre-existed, but not in terms of being in this world “in the flesh.” That’s why I always try to speak of the pre-existence of the Son as opposed to the pre-existence of Jesus, which, technically speaking, is the name given to the Son when He became incarnate.
Re: the use of “the Word of God,” have you read what I have written on this in vol. 2 of my series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus?
February 8th, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
Dr. Brown,
I have not read what you wrote about the “Word of God”. Can you enlighten me a tidbit? Also, what’s your take on why Jesus is called “Son” of God? Did my explanation of him being called “Son” present itself as valid in your opinion? (i.e. – use of human terminology for the word “Son” after Jesus was born in the earthly realm) Or does “Son” take on a different meaning if we understand him to have this title before he was born in flesh? I’m not real sure where to reference him as “Son of God” from Tanakh alone.
February 8th, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
Michael K.,
Well, it’s quite lengthy, and I think you’d enjoy getting into the material, and it does tie in with the Word as God’s self-expression, but in a personal, not an impersonal way, also looking to the Targumic use of the Memra (and Philo’s logos).
As for Son, I take up that issue too, but from a Trinitarian viewpoint, God has always existed as Father, Son, and Spirit. Looking at other biblical material, we see that the Son proceeds from the Father, but we also see that the king of Israel was designated as God’s son and the nation of Israel was called God’s son. Within the context of the NT, Jesus is designated Son on a number of levels: as the preexistent Son; as the one born of God and not of an earthly father; as the one designated Son by his resurrection, etc.
Again, there’s a lot more to say on this, so I recommend diving into vol. 2 when you’re able to. I might talk about it some more at some point on my show.
February 8th, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
Dr. Brown,
Thanks, I’ll try to make a point to get Volume 2 soon. I’d be very interested to read it. There’s no doubt that Jesus is understood to be God’s Son from the NT. Like you said, it’s abundantly clear there. Without the NT, it seems you’d have to have some amazing understanding of OT Scripture to understand that there is a pre-existent “Son of God” who is recognized as such and equal with God. It does become exceedingly clear in the NT. I do think it would be very beneficial to discuss this at greater length on your show, especially using the OT as the primary source. To the average person, it would seem like Jesus wasn’t given the title “Son” until he was “born” in the flesh as God incarnate. OT seems to refer to him using terms as “Lord” (from Genesis 18), or maybe even “Commander of the Army of the Lord” from the book of Joshua, etc., but I can’t find a clear example where He is interacting with people and referred to as “Son”. Perhaps Volume 2 will discuss this more. No doubt he pre-existed though, and I personally believe he was the pre-existent Son since I hold to what NT says. I think the confusing part for some is just the terminology of what to call him with regards to his pre-existence, since “Son” isn’t as clear from OT alone. It seems Mr. Buzzard was saying he believed in the pre-existent Word of God which became flesh as Jesus, but being identified as “Son” was not a pre-existent title for Jesus from his understanding. It doesn’t seem to him that who we refer to as the “Son of God” was the same character in Genesis 18 since he doesn’t believe the “Word” appeared in human form until Jesus came.
February 8th, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
Dr. Brown,
I listened to the show live and simply reiterated what you said. Anthony said he did not think the Shema as cited in both Deut 6.4 and Mar 12.29 “is not a Trinitarian creed”. To which you said, “we would agree on that too”. But then you come back trying to cover yourselve by saying its really not a unitarian creed, that its “God in His complex unity”.
I don’t think you even know what you believe Dr. Brown since you keep going back and forth in your interpretation and misapplication of the scriptures. i.e., “there is only one God in His complex unity”.
Am I alone in seeing that this does not make any sense?!
February 8th, 2010 @ 10:12 pm
The word (logos) of God is the verbal expression of God. I am sure that you, Dr. Brown, are a man of your word. I am also sure that you “stand by your word”. The word as expressed in John 1:1 is not separate from God anymore than the words coming from your mouth become a separate being that is actually standing beside you. The logos in John 1:1 would have been understood by both Jew and Greeks of the day as the verbal expression of God.
None of the apostles who personally knew Jesus, nor Paul who received revelation from Jesus, nor the early Christians would have believed that the word in John 1:1 somehow morphed from something spoken, or the verbal expression of God into the physical manifestation of the man Jesus. This would make Jesus different from all his brethren, since man was created from the dust of the ground and not spoken into existence. The first one to morph the logos (verbal expression) into the physical Jesus was not one of the apostles who personally knew Jesus, but instead was Justin Martyr; and he had his own agenda. Christians were being persecuted as atheists because they placed a man in the judgment seat at the right hand of God.
God is not a complex unity because he alone is God. Jesus never stated that he was God, and did not say anything that would indicate he believed a tri-un God, or that he believed in any way that God was a complex unity of anything outside himself.
February 8th, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Dr. Brown,
Towards the end of this debate you quote Heb 1.10 and agree with Anthony that the writer of Hebrews is “quoting the Septuagint”. Which, as you know, gives a different reading than the Masoretic-Hebrew text. Supporting, as Anthony suggested [it seems], the context of a Messianic-eschatological ["future creation", as you say] view for this section of Hebrews 1 and the Son’s involvement as “founder of the heavens and the earth”.
Something which apparently is brought out by the writer when he later says that it is “of the world to come which we are referring to” [Heb 2.5].
Could you explain why you dismiss Anthony’s point here as somehow resorting to a “special pleading” of the text on his part, since you have to “read it completely differently than originally written in Ps 102 in Hebrew or the Septuagint”? Yet, you “fully understand that” the LXX gives a different meaning?
Clarification please since I’m just writing back what you said in the debate.
February 8th, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
That debate got interesting when the part came up about whether God was ‘one’ or a ‘united one’. I’d like to see a debate just on that topic! In my mind the answer to this single topic of how God is ‘one’ would be the basis for understanding all the other related topics (ie pre-existance) – if we can’t solidify this point then the debates that branch out will seem pointless. I know many people would be interested to hear you debate Anthony Buzzard on this topic; is God ‘one’ or a ‘compound one’… Please consider Dr. Brown and bless you for such a great radio program
February 9th, 2010 @ 12:49 am
Good discussion today. As always too short though. Good timing as well because I just received Sir Anthony’s book The Doctrine of the Trinity in the mail today! Would really enjoy further programs with him. He seems very articulate and gracious, even if he is a heretic
,
February 9th, 2010 @ 1:24 am
Steve,
As long as you dislike as with a “smile and a wink”. Wonder if that’s how so-called “heretics” like Servetus and Wycliffe were burned at the stake though.
February 9th, 2010 @ 2:15 am
Sir Anthony,
Have you read Richard Bauckham’s writings on what he calls a Christology of Divine Identity? If so, what do you think?
Dr. Brown,
I know you listed Bauckham’s book as a recommendation when Kermit Zarley was on. What’s your assessment of his desire to move beyond the standard distinction between “functional” and “ontic” Christology?
I have never been comfortable affirming that which Scripture does not require me to affirm – 1 being but 3 persons. I am a Trinitarian but I’m w/ Bauckham in wanting to go back before the Greek explanations in expressing what I believe the Scriptures teach about the nature of God.
February 9th, 2010 @ 3:39 am
Hi Dr Brown,
Could you please share your view point in regards to the debate. If a whole hearted born again believer in Jesus doesn’t believe in the trinity, the holy spirit being a separate person or the pre-existent Son of God – are these salvational issues?
Thanks for your help
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:09 am
From listening to this and having many conversations on subjects such as this. I must say I see each side of this topic that God is a triune and Unitarian / One. But I see God is One and singular depending on the person doing the viewing. much like science is discovering that on the molecular level experiments that the results are different based on who is doing the viewing.
Much like the experiments on light one experiment proves light is a wave and another experiment proves light is a particle. Both are correct. but each depends on who is viewing and conducting the experiment. As each person studies the scripture certain views are determined based on the viewer.
I am Not saying each can have his own personal view of scripture. Some things are absolute but because God is One and Plural sometimes people can only see God as one way not both.
When a person comes to the scripture he comes with a certain mind set and tends to see only what he is looking for. Sometimes not allowing The Scripture to reveal truth. I must say if truth can be fully explained it is probably not the truth.
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:31 am
On the issue of pre-existence, the Holy Spirit makes a special point in Jeremiah that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in his mother’s womb. This “doctrine” of God’s confession of a “relationship knowledge” of a person prior to their birth is also set forth in detail in Psalm 139:14-17 where the infinite knowledge of God (God’s thoughts are without number) is said to encompass a knowledge of a human being prior to their birth (in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them). If Jesus as man had a greater revelation of this point than David or Jeremiah, he might well have shared it. In fact, if this point is true, we might imagine the Son of Man being filled with this understanding as he looked at himself, as David and Jeremiah had, through the eternal eyes of His Father.
If God the Father “knew” Jeremiah before he was born, and if God’s infinite knowledge and eternal point of view is accepted as a legitimate and authoritative frame of reference, and if Christ is the Logos made flesh, i.e. the self-expression of God the Father made human, one would think that such a human would have a transcendent self-image with respect to time, a vastly expanded expereince of the revelation given to Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and David (Psalm 139:14-18).
Now, if Jesus wanted to share this eternal perspective of himself, if he wanted to say, as Jeremiah and David had done, that from God’s point of view he was known before his birth, and if this pre-birth knowledge of God included his identity as the self-expression of God which was eternally destined to become human in himself, then how would he do that without the potential of confusion — are you saying you are pre-existent?
Had Anthony stated that Jesus, like Jeremiah and David, was known by the Father (which of course would be experiential knowledge, since God is infinite and unbound by time) before the world was, and that this knowledge is included in the self-image that Christ both experienced and expressed, as well as in the statements of John the Baptist regarding the fact that Christ was “before him,” it would have moved the two men a bit closer on the issue of pre-existence. The truth is, a correct understanding of the Logos and the time frame of God cannot be ignored when discussing the words of Jesus that appear to say he was pre-existent.
Let us ask ourselves, what was Christ’s self image like if he had a full revelation of God’s eternal perspective of him? And what if part of God’s intent in sending Christ was to give the rest of us a window into this eternal perspective — taking us to the destination that Jeremiah and David had pointed toward? Are we “seated in heavenly places” in Christ? Were we known before we were born? Were we not “created in Christ Jesus” and “chosen in him before the foundation of the world”? What if God wanted us to have a vehicle or paradigm for an eternal self-image, couldn’t He provide that in a perfect, pattern Son?
The truth is, much of Paul’s teaching extrapolates on the stated and unstated premise that we are to view our identities as eternally fixed in the Son. And the starting point for that discussion has to be some concept of a “Son” that transends time, not as a second person of a tri-une (complex) God, but as a foreknown, prototype man who “was and is” the self expression of the ONE God– the Logos.
Amen.
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:05 am
Hebrews 1:2
But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (NIV)
1. The Greek word translated “universe” (or “world” in many translations) is the plural of the Greek word aion, and actually means “ages.” There are other Greek words that mean “world,” such as kosmos and oikoumene, and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.” Vine’s Lexicon has, “an age, a period of time, marked in the N.T. usage by spiritual or moral characteristics, is sometimes translated ‘world;’ the R.V. margin always has ‘age.’” Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon has:
“Aion [age], from ao, aemi, to blow, to breathe. Aion denoted originally the life which hastes away in the breathing of our breath, life as transitory; then the course of life, time of life, life in its temporal form. Then, the space of a human life, an age, or generation in respect of duration. The time lived or to be lived by men, time as moving, historical time as well as eternity. Aion always includes a reference to the filling of time”1
Since most translators are Trinitarian and think that Jesus was the one who made the original heavens and earth, they translate “ages” as “world” in this verse. But the actual word in the Greek text means “ages,” and it should be translated that way.
2. Trinitarians use the verse to try to prove that Jesus Christ created the world as we know it, but the context of the verse shows that this cannot be the correct interpretation. Verses 1 and 2 show that God spoke through Jesus “in these last days,” whereas He had spoken “in the past” in various ways. If indeed it were through Jesus that the physical world was created, then one of the ways that God spoke in the past was through Jesus. But that would contradict the whole point of the verse, which is saying that God spoke in other ways in the past, but “in these last days” is speaking through the Son.
3. Since verses 1 and 2 say that it was “God” who spoke through prophets and through His Son, it is clear that God is the prime mover and thus different from the Son. These verses
show that the Son is subordinate to God and, as a “mouthpiece” for God, is compared to the prophets.
4. The fact that God appointed the Son to be “heir” shows that God and the Son are not equal. For the Son to be the “heir” means that there was a time when he was not the owner. The Bible was written using common words that had common and accepted meanings in the language of the time. The doctrine of the Trinity forces these words to take on “mystical” meanings. Yet there is no evidence in Scripture that the writer changed the meaning of these common words. We assert that if the Bible is read using the common meanings of the words in the text, there is simply no way to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. The word “heir” is a common one and, because death and inheritance are a part of every culture, it occurs in every language. Any dictionary will show that an heir is one who inherits, succeeds or receives an estate, rank, title or office of another. By definition, you cannot be an heir if you are already the owner. No one in history ever wrote a will that said, “My heir and the inheritor of my estate is…ME!” If Christ is God, then he cannot be “heir.” The only way he can be an heir is by not being the owner.
That Christ is an “heir” is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the “heir” at all. These verses teach that God is the original owner, and will give all things to His heir, Jesus Christ. It is obvious from the wording of these first two verses that the author of Hebrews does not consider Christ to be God.
5. The entire opening section of Hebrews, usually used to show that Christ is God, actually shows just the opposite. More proof of this is in verses 3 and 4. After Christ sat down at the right hand of God, “he became as much superior to the angels” as his name is superior to theirs. “God” has always been superior to the angels. If Christ only became superior after his resurrection, then he cannot be the eternal God. It is obvious from this section of Scripture that “the Man” Christ Jesus was given all authority and made Lord and Christ.
6. Since aionas means “ages” and not “world,” it is fair to ask in what sense God has made the ages through Jesus. First, it must be understood that the word “made” is extremely flexible. It is the Greek word poieo, which, both alone and in combination with other words, is translated more than 100 different ways in the NIV, and thus has a wide range of meaning. Some of the ways poieo is translated are: accomplish, acted, appointed, are, be, bear, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, consider, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, judge, kept, made, obey, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached, spend, stayed, treated, was, win, work, wrote, and yielded. Although most people read poieo in Hebrews 1:2 as referring to the original creation, it does not have to mean that at all. The context dictates that the “ages” being referred to are the ages after Christ’s resurrection. In verse 2, Christ became heir after his resurrection. In verse 3, he then sat at God’s right hand after his resurrection. Verses 5 and 6 also refer to the resurrection. The context makes it clear that God was not speaking through His Son in the past, but that He has spoken “in these last days” through His Son, and “given form to” the ages through him (note #1 on Heb. 1:10 below provides more evidence for this).
Broughton and Southgate, pp. 286-298
Hyndman, pp. 123-127
Norton, pp. 194-196
Racovian Catechism, pp. 93 and 94
Snedeker, pp. 457-459
Endnotes:
1. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance, under “world.”
Copied from One God & One Lord by Mark H. Graeser, John A. Lynn, and John W. Schoenheit.
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:03 am
With all due respect to Sir Anthony Buzzard, he seems to put too much emphasis on the views of men which will always be secondary to the Scriptures.
I enjoyed the debate very much although it was just scratching the surface. I’m looking forward to pt. 2.
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:58 am
Steve,
I personally have not gotten very much involved in the debate about terminology, being more of an exegete than a theologian, but because of that, I’m in basic harmony with what you’re saying here and very much appreciative of Bauckham’s work.
February 9th, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
I couldn’t stop myself smirking at the start when Buzzard stated that ‘those at scholars Cambridge’ would disagree with you that Christ was seen as preexistent. One of the chief proponents of doctrine of preexistence in the synoptics is Cambridge scholar Simon Gathercole.
Please see his ‘The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke, 2006.
February 9th, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
Thank you Dr. Brown for your clarity on many issues that much of the church is nervous to approach. (Homosexuality, Calvinism, Eschatology, the Diety of Christ, etc) You are a much needed and respected voice in the Body, please continue to lead others into the Knowledge of God and be encouraged that there are many who are learning greatly from your ministry. Bless you.
February 9th, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Erlend,
Yes sir! I actually referred to Gathercole’s work without citing him yesterday (again, today), and when I debated Kermit Zarley last month, I linked his excellent volume to the second day of the debate.
Thanks much for posting it again here. What especially fascinated me about Gathercole’s book was his explicating the meaning of the “I have come” passages.
February 9th, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
I wonder why these debates seldom address the issue of relationship. I have a relationship with Jesus, and a relationship with the Father. Jesus is not ashamed to call us brethren, and I am not ashamed to call him my brother. I know Jesus as my Lord, and my brother, and who can argue that is not Biblical? Similarly, I know the Father as my heavenly Father, and not as my brother. My relationship with Jesus and His Father convince my heart that they are unique and distinct beings. Jesus said that he is “meek and lowly in heart.” I know Jesus this way. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His character was forged in the fires of trial; he was made perfect by the things which he suffered. I know that character, that person who overcame, who was tempted on all points. I have a relationship with Him. I know His Father too, God Almighty, who cannot be tempted, and in no sense was His character forged in the fires of trial.
It is clear to my spirit that God the Father is the one God, and Jesus is His human Son, exalted to His right hand as an overcomer and heir based on birthright. Christ has earned a reward, and part of what He has earned, is my/our adoration and understanding of the nature of His worthiness, His greatness, His sinless and obedient soul.
God knows this one of whom I speak. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. This one God knows every beat of Christ’s human heart, and appreciates Christ’s obedience and perfection through suffering. He has earned His distinction. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God — except Jesus, he didn’t sin, nor did he come short of the glory of God. When God the Father looks into the heart of His Son, he sees the only obedient human soul to have ever lived; He sees the one who “gave up the ghost” on the cross, and who surrendered His will. I want to know this one who gave up the ghost, and I do. His decision to “give up the ghost” on the cross is worthy of unspeakable honor. No doctrine of the church should rob Jesus of His human glory, or overshadow it with some other idea that is more palatable to the religious mind. When Jesus worships His Father, He worships out of a human heart and will, with a character and willingness that were made perfect through suffering, tempted on all points yet without sin.
God knows who Jesus is, and Jesus knows who God is. Saying that God is a “complex unity” is two dimensional, and ignores the fact that just like Adam had and has a soul, so too does Jesus of Nazareth. God did not deprive Christ of his human identity, that identity is the greatest of gifts, it is life itself. That human soul, the soul that calls us brethren, that seat of personality, deserves recognition. God desires to recognize that soul; He is an overcomer! Let us appreciate that, celebrate that, and when we do, the distinction between God and Christ will become clear. There is one glory of the sun, and one glory of the moon, stars, etc. Glory is about distinction! Blending Jesus and the Father together into some complex unity fails to give the Father His due distinction, and also fails to give the Son His due distinction. And in any event, where is the overcomer? Where is my brother? Decades after Jesus went to sit at His Father’s right hand, Paul called James — the Lord’s brother!! The Lord’s brother? Amen.
We try to lay out doctrines and creeds to define God; we would do better to let our hearts get to know God and His Son as individuals, as persons, as beings, and let their resective positions and personalities speak for themselves. Jesus said that His Father was “His God”; the man Christ is worshipping His God in heaven today. And God the Father is receiving that worship — which is coming from the heart of only person, other than the Father, who is completely perfect, and pure in heart. Let’s not let doctrine rob us of such a beautiful reality!
February 9th, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
Brad,
You seem to limit Jesus as to only human. Does not Scripture speak of his divine nature, and of him being one with the Father.? Scripture even says Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and all things were created by him and for him, and are held together by him. You said “Blending Jesus and the Father together into some complex unity fails to give the Father His due distinction, and also fails to give the Son His due distinction”. Based on Scripture, God’s existence functions in comparison to that of a body. For example, just as our arms and legs are different than our brain, it is still part of the same body. The Father is the Head, the Son is the Word, and the Spirit is the Life/Strength Giver. The have separate roles but do not function without each other because they make up one body, and represent one God. You should also know that the Son has always existed as the “Son”. He is the image of the invisible God and he is also the Word of God, and he appeared to Abraham, Joshua, Isaiah, etc., before he was born as Jesus. So his title as “Son” goes beyond being born as a human. The fact that he is referred to as “Son” and distinct from the Father ought to also give an indication that we all were made in God’s image…..each of us having the ability to have sons and daughters who are connected to us by blood but are different persons of the same family body. We are made to love each other in our families, reflecting that we are made in God’s image of Him loving Himself (Father, Son, Holy Spirit = one Body = One God).
February 9th, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
Brad,
Do you see no danger in allowing your heart to determine your doctrine?
I too walk intimately with my God and King, relating to the Father as Abba and to Jesus as Lord and elder brother. And based on Scripture, I come to very different conclusions than you do. In fact, the incomplete views you state here demean the Jesus I know, before whose feet I fall in worship, offering him the worship that belongs to God alone.
So, my heart and head find no contradiction between what is written and what I experience. And, with all respect, Brad, I say it is your doctrine that robs you of a massive amount of glorious revelation into who this Son is and the greatness of God’s love for you.
February 9th, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
Dr. Brown:
I never said I allow my heart to determine my doctrine. I just find that doctrinal debates such as this often fail to speak of relationship. I have been a student of the Word for over 30 years, have a degree in history and law, (am a practicing attorney)and worship Jesus as Lord just as you do. I attend a trinitarian church every weekend, and when I do I lift my hands and worship Jesus and His Father. I remember the day and moment I gave my life to Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and my God.
You say you relate to the Father as Abba and to Jesus as elder brother, and that the views I state “demean” Jesus. I merely brought out the aspects of scripture that usually get ignored in this discussion, aspects that you have now highlighted in your own comments — the distinction between Jesus as our brother and God as our Father. Were your views “incomplete” prior to the time you mentioned that Jesus was your older brother? How often is Jesus, as our brother, addressed in typical discussions on his person and being? Have you ever written about the the personal relationship our Father has with our older brother — in addition to your other theology? How often have you fleshed out your own sense of Jesus as older brother, and God as Father — I’d love to read it.
My heart is informed by my belief that the Bible is the Word of God, and I believe every Word of it. I believe Jesus is my God and King, elder brother, Lord, Master, Savior, and bridegroom. I threw in the heart comments precisely because I often see brothers enter into such debates without their heart —
How is it demeaning to take a few paragraphs and set forth the idea that Jesus himself described himself as “meek and lowly in heart”? Or that Jesus called God “His God’? Or that Jesus was made perfect by the things which he suffered? Worthy is the lamb!
My addition of these scriptural truths to this debate was an effort to make your debate complete, because the human characteristics of Jesus tend to get set aside in such discussions…and I wonder if the “complex unity” of Gods being, as an idea, takes the meek and lowly heart of our brother into consideration?
February 9th, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Michael K:
I believe Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I believe Jesus is the Word made flesh, and that all things were created in him and through him and for him. I also believe Jesus is my Lord and my God, and that there was never a time when He did not exist. My comments were merely to highlight elements of the scriptures that often get set aside in such discussions. I believe that so much energy is put into defending the Deity of Christ, that we often fail to boldly say — He is our brother. He is the man Christ Jesus. He was made perfect through suffering. He is our High Priest. He is meek and lowly in heart. None of these statements is extra-Biblical, and yet because believers feel it is SO necessary to defend the Detiy of Christ, they often do not speak of these Biblical truths that highlight His humanity.
For instance, now that I have stated my “Deity of Christ” credentials, confessing that He is God, Image of God, Filled with God, Pre-existent, etc., I assume I could get away with addressing his humanity without others thinking that I have demeaned Him in some way, as Dr. Brown has alleged that I have. I just wonder what we do with our brother in all this? The man Christ Jesus? Read what I wrote again, and tell me which point is not in the Bible? Seriously — I mean, doesn’t the Bible say he was made perfect through suffering? Doesn’t it say He is our brother? Doesn’t it say that He calls God “His God”?
Do you not believe that as high priest today, in heaven, He worships His Father?
When He appeared to Paul, he spoke in Hebrew and decades after his resurrection, ascension, and glorification — He said he was from Nazareth — is it demeaning to mention this? He was still talking about His home town!!!
If he had appeared in glory, and said: “I am Jesus of South Jersey” maybe that would help us understand that He is a human being too! In the book of Acts, they referred to Jesus as “a man approved of God by signs and wonders…” I suppose this description of Him was incomplete? A man approved of God? And if I call him “a man approved of God” — am I not speaking Bible?
Jesus was and is a man approved of God…
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
Steve Noel,
Richard Bauckham confuses the Lord God with the Lord Messiah. Jesus is the supreme agent of the One God but he certainly never claimed to be God himself, which would make two Gods and contradict his own affirmation of the unitarian creed of Israel (Mark 12:29). This subject is not so hard provided one believes the synoptic accounts of the origin of the Son of God. Luke 1:35 defines the basis for calling Jesus the Son of God.
Bauckham has attempted to divide the Shema between God and the Messiah. This is what Paul does not do. In 1 Cor 8:4-6 Paul gives a very clear definition of the one God who is the Father (called “the God” 1300 times in the NT). In this passage Jesus is expressly called the Lord Christ. Everyone should know that the Christ, the anointed, cannot BE God! He is God’s anointed. The difference between God and Jesus is beautifully laid out in Luke 2:11 and 26.
NT orthodoxy repeatedly demands that we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. None of the 11,000 occurrences of the words for God means the triune God. The Trinity developed gradually after NT times under the influence of Greek philosophy.
Hope you enjoy my book.
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
Brad,
Thanks for clarifying your point. Much appreciated! As for my comments that you demean Jesus in your post, when you state only some of the glorious things about him that are true to the willful exclusion of others that are at least as gloriously (if not even more gloriously) true, I believe it demeans him. As for the points you made about the Lord Jesus, I do not find them deemphasized or ignored in the circles in which I travel, hence not needing special emphasis in a post here as if those points were true and the others (regarding the Son’s preexistence, divine nature, work in creation, etc.) should either be denied of left out.
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:42 pm
Brad,
Sorry if I misunderstood. At first, it just seemed like you were making an extra effort to show Jesus as merely being human, saying things like God’s human son or Christ’s human heart. No one disputes Jesus’ humanity, but many people dispute him as deity, so it seemed like you may have been disputing him as deity by going through so much trouble to point out his humanity. Also, when you said “Blending Jesus and the Father together into some complex unity fails to give the Father His due distinction, and also fails to give the Son His due distinction”, this raised the question as to whether or not you believed the Son was just as much God as the Father, especially phrasing things like “some complex unity”. In fact, God’s unity is very complex. Wouldn’t you say that one God having three distinct persons is a complexity? I would.
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:42 pm
Anthony,
You state, ” Everyone should know that the Christ, the anointed, cannot BE God!” What an inexact and, ultimately, incorrect statement. Surely he who carries the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form and who was himself in the very form of God and existed from the beginning and is even called God directly is also God. To use your phraseology, Everyone should know that!
Furthermore, I concur with Bauckham’s reading of 1 Cor 8 and his understanding of Paul’s rewording of the Shema there. After all, a first century Jew had one Lord just as much as he had one God (especially a Greek speaking Jew, for whom YHWH had become kurios; God and Lord were thus interchangeable. In fact, in reading the LXX, he would encounter “Lord” far more than “God.”). Surely you must know that to tell that Jewish person that he now had ONE LORD — namely, Jesus — would be to place Jesus firmly within the Godhead, the very point that Bauckham makes, along with many other top scholars.
Regarding your last point, it’s interesting to see how some of the immediate disciples of the apostles clearly spoke of Jesus’ deity — hardly a later development under Greek philosophy.
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Brad,
One more point (upon reading your interaction with Michael K.). I obviously did misunderstand your point — perhaps I was too much in the habit of responding to Unitarians recently, so my sincere apologies — and I have also taught that in our desire to defend Jesus’ deity we have left out other aspects of his character on the human side. So, again, my apologies for misreading your post. Obviously, your intent was to glorify Jesus rather than to demean him, and I do hope you understand that, from my biblical vantage point, the Christologies put forth by sincere (but wrong) men like Kermit Zarley and Anthony Buzzard do a great disservice to Jesus.
February 9th, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
Brad,
In reply to your question, “How often have you fleshed out your own sense of Jesus as older brother, and God as Father — I’d love to read it,” I actually preached on related themes twice on my last trip to India, but I was not given copies of the messages (plus, you would have to listen to one or two translators as well). I’ll be sure to let you know when I share on this topic again, in accessible form.
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
Another issue that gets lost in the whole discussion of Christ’s Deity is the nature of the “blank check” he received “as man” from His Father by virtue of His literal only begotten status. “All power in heaven and earth;” “the Spirit without measure;” “name above every name;” I and my Father are one.” And my personal favorite: John 5:23 “that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father…”
Jesus was born of a virgin, and His human lineage ascended to the Throne of God — that’s pretty important. What we don’t see clearly, at least in my view, is that God the Father is not stumbled by His own Estate Plan — “this is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.” Jesus gets it all — as man. He has, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than any of the angels — a point the author of Hebrews felt worth mentioning, as if such an argument had to be made! But such an argument was not only made, but God breathed that argument into the text, forever highlighting the rationale for Christ’s dominion over angels — inheritance, and a Father – Son relationship. This is a stone of stumbling because it means that Christ’s dominion turns on his only begotten status.
If Jesus as a man is the Son of God, then he is due the same honor as the Father, period. I know that offends people, it is the issue which finally got Jesus killed. “Are you the Son of the Blessed?” No way the high priest was questioning Christ about some kind of pre-existent Sonship, he was getting at who Christ claimed as a natural Father — a legal issue, a blasphemy issue. To the Jews of His day, a claim to be the literal begotten Son of God meant a claim to be equal with God (John 5:18), and that was unacceptable. That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father? Are you kidding?
And yet, God the Father distinguishes the human lineage of Christ as the basis for the honor due Christ. This is the BIG stumbling stone it seems to me, even today. At His trial, Jesus was finally found “guilty of death” when he confessed that He was the Son of the Blessed, and that as the Son of Man would be sitting at the right hand of His Father. That statement was enough to convict him.
Now, if I were to say, Jesus is one with His Father as man, and as man is due the same honor that is due His Father, based soley on His unique and profound birthright — in other words, that His human lineage and human relationship to God as human Son –puts him at the right hand of God — and gives him oneness with the Father — that God Himself accepts this as appropriate legal grounds for the honor and majesty attributable to His Son, then watch out.
And yet Jesus as man can say that God is His literal Father — and I say that this Sonship give Jesus a birthright of Divine dimensions…that’s right, a birthright of Divine dimensions.
What is interesting is that history is repeating itself. the religious of our day are stumbled by the idea that Jesus, as MAN, is due the SAME honor that His biological Father is due. If you hang your hat on that point alone, you WILL be called a heretic by the mainstream of Christianity. It is blasphemy. You must recant, or say that He is one with God in some way other than “merely” as an only begotten human Son. Am I right?
In other words, if Jesus Christ was on (religious) trial today, and made no claims to be part of a complex unity, no claims to be a second person of God, but merely stated that he was the only begotten Son of God, as man, had been given His Father’s name, and all power in heaven and earth, and that God was requiring the world to honor Him as they Honor the Father — with only Luke 1:35 as a basis, he’d be called a heretic and a blasphemer.
How ironic…
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
This discussion has really caused me to consider more deeply my understanding of Gods nature and Jesus Christ.
I Think Anthony had some very good points and answered Mikes question very well. I was greatly surprised. I may not agree with all Anthony’s doctrines, but he really got me thinking yesterday.
Mike I listen to your preaching all the time your a huge blessing and i have many of your books.
At the beginning and end of the discussion you suggested Anthony of “special pleading” or twisting scripture. I thought about this after the discussion.
I did not really see Anthony do this in this particular issue.
The bible says God is ONE, you agree with this but also add God is a triune ONE. Can we somehow make ONE =Triune and accuse others who question or do not agree with a literal existence of Christ as special pleading or twisting scripture.
I agree with Johnny you should discuss the truth of God being ONE or ONE Triunity.
Ok how about the term SON – seems to me its not a straight forward term anymore as i read through some of the comments in this blog. Why not?
Christ is the Literal Unique Human Son of God born of a supernatural Conception via the virgin Mary His Mother. God is His Literal Father, which makes Him the SON of God. The fact that God the Father begot the Son through the virgin birth makes Jesus the SON of God? and does not His Resurrection declare that truth with POWER.
The Pre existence Anthony speaks about to me lines up more accurately with scripture . I think BRAD who left a comment in regards to the Eternal perspective of God, Gods foreknowledge and Christ seeing Himself through Gods time frame. Jeremiah being intimately known and Davids psalm 139 are all very challenging and convincing. I am definitely going to look more into that. WOW!
I will continue to seek for the truth, i look forward to another discussion, i am very grateful for this discussion it has caused me to question the common thoughts of who God and Jesus really are.
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Hi Anthony,
great to see you post a comment! Although I don’t agree with you saying Jesus isn’t God because you have to weave through too many scriptures, and that topic surely calls for careful clarification. However, i’d be dishonest if said that if someone read the bible fresh who had never had the trinity taught to them it would be clear that God is one person and not three in one. The points you made on that topic during the debate were challenging so can you please share with us your main best points as to why you would say that God is not a coupound unity. I’d have to say I love Dr Browns debating and have always seen him clearly prove his oppostition wrong but this one seems up in the air and I’d like to see this one brought down to earth!!! Thank You
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Michael,
You have overlooked the umbrella text in Psalm 110:1 which categorically defines Jesus as non-Deity lord. Luke has laid out for us the identity of Jesus when he tells us in 2:11 that the Lord Messiah was born. Jews did not imagine that the Messiah was God. How could they on the basis of Psalm 110:1? The Son is called the “Lord, son of David,” and constantly the “Lord Jesus Messiah.” Not to distinguish properly between the Lord God and the Lord Messiah is the systematic error of Trinitarianism.
James Dunn is a scholar of enormous prominence and his book Christology in the Making should be studied with care. He stated to us in correspondence that it is heresy to say that Jesus is identified as YHWH.
I imagine that you have some respect for F.F. Bruce. He expressed doubts as to whether any NT writer believed in the preexisting Son of God.
What is baffling to your Messianic unitarian friends who are now emerging in larger numbers is that you apparently give the name YHWH both to a triune God and equally to each member of that Tri-unity. Does that state your position correctly?
One other question: you assert several times in your book that Jesus “returned” to God. But the text speaks of him rather as “going” not “returning” to God.
The glory in John 17:5 is in that very context (v. 22, 24) a glory in prospect. It is very natural for a Jew to say that one “has” something stored up with God when possession of it awaits the future.
For all the points I’m making there is solid exegetical support documented over the past years and certainly in current books. I would thoroughly recommend Anthony Harvey’s Jesus and the Constraints of History and McGrath’s The Only True God.
Thanks for the opportunity for dialogue,
Anthony
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
Sorry i mean a literal pre existence of Christ.
The bible says God is ONE, you agree with this but also add God is a triune ONE. Can we somehow make ONE =Triune and accuse others who question or do not agree with a literal existence of Christ as special pleading or twisting scripture.
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
Dr. Brown, I wish to address something you said to Sir Anthony:
“… Surely he who carries the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form and who was himself in the very form of God and existed from the beginning and is even called God directly is also God.”
The verse reads:
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9)
As you know the word “Godhead” is a translation of the Greek word “theotes. This Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so making a case for it meaning “God” or “Godhead” (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used “theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture; which would have been “divinity” or “divine nature”. Thus it makes perfect sense that Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the “divine nature” dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Peter 1:4).
Another thing to think about is the phrase “dwelleth all the fullness”. We never read about “the fullness of God the Father” because, by definition, God is always full of his own nature. This verse is not talking about Christ being God, nor is it indicating in any way that Jesus existed before he was born; but it is about God providing Jesus with “fullness” as stated earlier in Col. 1:19. The fact that Jesus has “all the fullness” of God does not make him God. Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians should be filled with “all the fullness of God”, and no one believes that would make each Christian God.
Furthermore, if Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by way of God’s great and precious promises we “may participate in the divine nature”. Having a “divine nature” does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God.
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
Johnny,
I agree that Dr Brown was gracious and fair. Here is what I think he is overlooking: there are thousands of occurrences of the words for God in the Bible (YHWH, Adonai, Elohim, Theos). Not one single occurrence of those various words can be shown to mean a triune God.
The word “one” in Hebrew always means “one single.” It is true that the numeral adjective “one” (or any numeral for that matter) can modify a collective noun (like family or bunch). But the meaning of the word “one” remains unchanged. It is still one family and not two families.
If any doubt were to remain, God is proven to be one single divine Person because he is described by singular personal pronouns thousands and thousands of times. This is an exceedingly simple point. God in His gracious approach to us has left us in no doubt. He speaks of Himself as “I.” He is addressed as “Thou” and “Thee” so many times that the ordinary reader could not miss the singularity of the single Person who is defined by singular personal pronouns. The meaning of a pronoun is extremely easy, and it is only when this ground rule of ordinary communication is neglected or avoided that the vastly complicated idea of God being both three and one at the same time gets off the ground.
Try reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter and see if any of those documents provide any basis for asserting that Jesus is YHWH. lf he is YHWH – and we know the Father is YHWH – then surely this violates the creed quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29 and agreed upon by a non-Trinitarian Jew. That creed states that the Lord God is one Lord.
Finally, Jesus never said that he was “going back” to the Father.
Thanks for the question. I hope this gives you something to mull over.
Anthony
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
Anthony,
I hardly overlooked Psalm 110:1 and the usage of adoni there. David was simply stating that the Messiah, although his descendant, would be superior to him — his lord or master — which was Jesus’ whole point in using the text, nothing more and nothing less. It neither proves nor disproves his deity, but certainly is in harmony with his preexistence, as per John 1:15 (despite your protestations to the contrary).
As far as citing F. F. Bruce, surely you don’t think he’s in your corner on these issues, do you?
I see no possible way that your reading of all the “I am from above, I came down from heaven,” texts in John can be taken as per your arguments (and I’ve been immersed in Jewish reading of the texts for many years) — not to mention his coming from the Father and going to the Father in John 13, surely a “returning” — nor do I see any possible way that your reading of the end of Hebrews 1 can be countenanced as “exegesis” of any sort (just being candid, as you seek to be).
As for my Messianic unitarian friends, first, they are in the tiniest minority; second, I predicted in Israel back in 1986 that the denial of Yeshua’s deity would be the first sign of apostasy in my MJ brethren; third, why in the world would the opinions of a group of people influence my beliefs?
I do not accept your “Jewish” reading of John 17:5, and it flies in the face of so many other verses in John’s Gospel (as I briefly alluded to).
As for Dunn’s comments, if he differed with you, would that move you? N. T. Wright is surely as prominent a scholar as Dunn, and he is clearly not in your camp, nor is Dunn a Unitarian. Will you therefore recant your position?
As for the name YHWH, in cases of theophanies, like Genesis 18, the name is applied to the Son (the only One whom people have seen who is God); and, of course, as F. F. Bruce pointed out, the NT strikingly applies YHWH verses to Jesus (as in Philippians 2, quoting from Isaiah 45!) — evidence of an extremely exalted Christology. Other than that, however, YHWH is primarily identified with the Father in the Scriptures.
I do hope that you will be willing to reconsider your position in the coming days.
Michael
Oh, one last note: You are surely aware that the NT speaks of Jesus’ future “coming” as opposed to his return. That would be in keeping with the language in John: It is absolutely a return to the Father there, based on context.
February 9th, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Anthony Buzzard,
If Jesus did not pre-exist, then what is he referring to in John 8:56? You might wanna check out Genesis 18.
Also, in John 8:58, this appeared to infuriate the jews to the point that they picked up stones to stone him. Jesus is claiming God’s name here. You can try to argue what he meant, but is clear to see the jews were angered by what was blasphemy in their eyes. And in John 10:33, the jews accused him of claiming to be God. And by the way, who can forgive sins but God. Jesus forgave people’s sins.
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
Carmen,
The weight of all the evidence cited, which includes Col. 2:9, cannot be spoken of someone only born of flesh and blood, and your citation from 2 Peter 1 does not relate directly to Col. 2:9.
Anthony, with all due respect, it is utter nonsense to say that the Hebrew word “one” (you’re obviously speaking of “echad” here) always means “one single,” as if that proved that God could not be one single tri-unity — whereas you are fully aware that it can mean “one couple” or “one multi-faceted tabernacle.” So, there is one single tabernacle, consisting of many components, and there is one single God, with a complex unity.
Surely, you can’t believe that “echad,” proves your point? Moreover, in context, it most likely means “alone,” as in, the only God we worship.
You state points here as if it’s the first time any of us heard them, whereas we heard them and processed them and rejected them.
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Dr. Brown
Thanks for the response, I hope you do not feel it is misplaced:) Because I think Anthony and Kermit are correct, for the most part. I believe in the vast majority of what they teach regarding Jesus. I just think the divide between the two camps doesn’t have to be so wide.
For myself, I believe the statement that “Jesus is God” is fine. Show me someone who has the Spirit without measure, the Name of God, who is the Logos made flesh, who is the express image of the Father’s person, who has been given all power in heaven and earth, and who sits at the right hand of God — and in my book that one IS GOD. You may say that’s blasphemy, and I’ll hang my hat on “I and my Father are one.” That statement alone gives me everyting I need to say He is God, and He is worthy of Divine worship and honor. To me, all the religious rules go out the door as soon as God begets a human Son — that’s when I bow the knee. John 5:23 is my refuge. When he said “my glory I will not give to another,” in my view, He wasn’t including His only begotten Son in that statement — because if Jesus is His Son, He is not “another.” If you know what I mean. Jesus would be an automatic exclusion, Sonship being the rationale.
With respect to His pre-existence, I believe Jesus was filled without measure with God’s “eternal Spirit,” and was the Logos expressed and made flesh in a human person. Based on that, I believe Jesus was with God before the world was — as the Logos. That means Jesus was pre-existent — as man –well, as the Logos that in God the Father’s mind was Christ, and always Christ — as man. He was “always on His mind,” so to speak, and when we’re talking the mind of God, we throw time and space out the window — After all, He is the “I AM,” and I take that to have something to say about His relative position to time and space.
So I believe that everything Jesus is, he is as a man — even one with God the Father. To me He is the Temple of God the Father, the Express Image of the Father’s Person, and God with us — as a man. That’s my “Deity of Christ.” I just think if he said He and His Father were “one,” then all bets are off — He’s equal with God. (The “Jesus is not God” camp thinks I am way off too, go figure).
So I am guilty as charged! You will no doubt conclude I am a heretic, but that’s okay. Just know that I understand your position. I know why you think I am “off, and for anyone else reading this, I know, I know — after decades of facing the heat that comes with this territory, I know. But try to maybe accept the possibility that a person who prostrates themselves before the Throne of God, accepting God and His Son Jesus, should not be ex-communicated from the fellowship of believers because we differ on some of these points.
Thanks for this forum Dr. Brown, you do great work…and thanks for pointing out that the humanity of Christ is acknowledged in your circles…
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
Hi Anthony thanks for the response!
I guess there are verses in John that seem to imply what Dr. Brown was saying about Jesus’ pre-existance but it’s not clear – from the very beginning of John and right through the language is difficult and it is soaked with figurative speech as Jesus Himself admitted in John 16 – but even if you take the verses as most do even though John is such a deep book, what do we do with all those clear verses in Isaiah and other OT books when God says, ‘I alone made eveything’, besides me there is no one else’ – you can’t get clearer than. My question to Anthony and Michael is how do trinitarians get past all those verses in the OT where God declares he is one and alone as God? Comments by either brown oor buzzard are coveted. Thanks
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
This discussion has really caused me to consider more deeply my understanding of Gods nature and Jesus Christ.
I Think Anthony had some very good points and answered Mikes question very well. I was greatly surprised. I may not agree with all Anthony’s doctrines, but he really got me thinking yesterday.
Mike I listen to your preaching all the time your a huge blessing and i have many of your books.
At the beginning and end of the discussion you suggested Anthony of “special pleading” or twisting scripture. I thought about this after the discussion.
I did not really see Anthony do this in this particular issue.
The bible says God is ONE, you agree with this but also add God is a triune ONE. Can we somehow make ONE =Triune and accuse others who question or do not agree with a literal pre-existence of Christ as special pleading or twisting scripture.
I agree with Johnny you should discuss the truth of God being ONE or ONE Triunity.
Ok how about the term SON – seems to me its not a straight forward term anymore as i read through some of the comments in this blog. Why not?
Christ is the Literal Unique Human Son of God born of a supernatural Conception via the virgin Mary His Mother. God is His Literal Father, which makes Him the SON of God. The fact that God the Father begot the Son through the virgin birth makes Jesus the SON of God? and does not His Resurrection declare that truth with POWER.
The Pre existence Anthony speaks about to me lines up more accurately with scripture . I think BRAD who left a comment in regards to the Eternal perspective of God, Gods foreknowledge and Christ seeing Himself through Gods time frame. Jeremiah being intimately known and Davids psalm 139 are all very challenging and convincing. I am definitely going to look more into that. WOW!
I will continue to seek for the truth, i look forward to another discussion, i am very grateful for this discussion it has caused me to question the common thoughts of who God and Jesus really are.
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
Johnny,
God alone DID make everything! That’s the whole point. The Son IS God, just as the Father is God — the same one God.
As for the verses in John, I see no fair way to interpret them contextually to mean anything other than preexistence. The mountain of evidence is truly insurmountable, unless one engages in special pleading, as I said on the show.
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
Brad,
So, I didn’t misunderstand you that much after all!
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
Hi Mike
If the Son is God is He the Father ?
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
Hi Dr Brown,
Thanks
I read your comment again concerning echad and my question is; isn’t it assumption to imply that echad referring to God describes a compound unity if God Himself never told them that? When echad is used to describe a group of something that ‘group’ is always described – like a cluster of grapes, it’s always clear what ‘group’ it is talking about but when echad is referring to God it never implies a coupound unity in the verse when claiming God is one? It seems that ‘one’ is sometimes used to modify a collective noun but always refers to literally one – I think thats the most logical and Biblical way to look at it but maybe you have some more insight into what I just wrote – please share
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
Dr. Brown, if the Son IS God, just as the Father is God … how did God die for our sins when God cannot die?
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
Johnny,
You have kindly reinforced the point that I made to you about pronouns. Yes indeed, God is said to be the sole, unaccompanied Creator of all things. Based on the grammatical method by which we interpret Scripture, it is astonishing to imagine that the one who speaks of Himself as “I” over and over again and as completely unaccompanied at the creation (Isa. 44:24) really means “I three.” This is why candid and expert Trinitarians like Millard Erickson concede that we have to break the rules of grammar in order to speak of God intelligently. For myself I see no justification for breaking the rules of ordinary communication.
If singular pronouns cannot convince us, I’m not sure what can.
This of course is the position of Judaism, and the Jews were the custodians of Hebrew Scripture.
I would like to see the discussion turn to the “begetting” (coming into existence) of the Son. Matthew and Luke provide the fullest and earliest account (taking the books in the order in which we have them) of the origin of the Son of God (Matt. 1:18). Matt 1:20 tells us about the fathering, originating of Jesus, not just of a conception in Mary, but the generating of the Son. Luke is equally explicit. Luke 1:35 states with clarity that the title Son of God is to be attributed to Jesus precisely because of the miracle worked in Mary. A huge majority of scholars agree that there is no hint of preexistence in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
Major studies by Harris and Rahner show that the word “God” never means a triune Godhead. Imagine that! When the NT says “God” it never signifies a God in three Persons. Thus the NT has not reached the much later definition of the church councils.
Hope this helps,
Anthony
February 9th, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
Dr. Brown
Seeing how busy this thread suddenly got and the many points your interacting with, perhaps you missed my earlier question.
Towards the end of this debate you quote Heb 1.10 and agree with Anthony that the writer of Hebrews is “quoting the Septuagint”. Which, as you know, gives a different reading than the Masoretic-Hebrew text. Supporting, as Anthony suggested [it seems], the context of a Messianic-eschatological ["future creation", as you say] view, giving us a whole new understanding regarding the Son as the “founder of the heavens and the earth”.
A new interpretation which apparently is brought out by the writer when he later says that it is “of the world to come which we are referring to” [Heb 2.5].
Could you explain why you dismiss Anthony’s point here as somehow resorting to a “special pleading” of the text on his part, by saying that you have to “read it completely differently than originally written in Ps 102 in Hebrew or the Septuagint”?
Yet, at the same time, you say you “fully understand that” the LXX gives a different meaning to his section of Hebrews 1?
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Dr. Brown
Is it not more accurate to say that your view that “The Son IS God, just as the Father is God — the same one God” is more of a “special pleading” of the scriptures than Anthony’s view? I mean, yours reeks of the ancient Jewish-Christian heresy of “Two Powers in Heaven”.
For anyone interested, see Alan F. Segal’s book by the same title.
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
Michael,
F.F. Bruce did not go into the public arena with the ideas he expressed to me in correspondence. My point in mentioning scholars is that it proves the debate is far greater than just between you and me.
There are Trinitarian scholars who disagree with you on your reading of the “coming down” texts and Jesus’ existence before John. I wish only to point out that your view is not as clear cut in the eyes of other Trinitarians even. “Coming forth” from God easily means being generated supernaturally by Him. Being sent by God proves nothing about preexistence, since John the Baptist was also sent by God.
As to Heb 1:10 others have interpreted it as a statement about the new creation since in Heb 2:5 the writer expressly says that it is that new creation – the world to come – which he has in mind. Psalm 102 is of course a strongly eschatological Psalm. That Psalm in the LXX tells of God speaking to another whom He addresses as “lord.” I don’t see why we should not let Heb 2:5 define the context of 1:10.
My broader point is that you are proposing 2 or 3 who are each YHWH and at the same time you assert that YHWH is the name of the triune God. Could you explain how it is that YHWH can have two distinct meanings? If one says that each of the members of the Trinity is God and then claims that the triune God is Himself God, one is stating a proposition that is contradictory. This can only be avoided if one then introduces philosophical language about Persons and Essence. My question is this: Where in the Bible is God said to be one essence, one “what”?
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
Michael K,
The “I am” statement in John 8:58 needs first to be translated, as “ego eimi” always is, as “I am he.” the first occurrence of this important phrase is in John 4 where Jesus says to the lady in Samaria, “I am he,” that is the Messiah. If you compare the “I am he” statements in Matt 24 and Mark 13, you’ll see the meaning is “I am the Christ.”
The worst that they could say about Jesus at his trial is that he claimed to be the Son of God. And in John 10 Jesus is careful to make the semantic poinr that the term “God” can be applied to special representatives of the one God, quoting Psalm 82:6.
On no occasion did Jesus say “I am God.” In fact he denied that he was God when he said that only one was absolutely good, not referring to himself.
The base argument of biblical unitarians is that Jesus affirmed as the most important command of all the unitarian creed of Israel. On no account did Paul disturb this greatest of all axioms. He spoke of one God, the Father, and the man Messiah Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5) and in 1 Cor 8 he again defines the one God as the Father of Jesus and acknowledges as the unique servant of the one God, the one Lord Messiah (anointed).
The inspired oracle in Psalm 110:1 was a prophecy not of someone at God’s right hand in OT times but of the human Messiah (adoni) who achieved that exalted position at his ascension as explained by Peter in Acts 2:34-36. You will find that “adoni” is never a designation of Deity and this is the Psalm that controls the relationship of the Father to the Son in the NT. One is the Lord God and the other is the Lord Messiah.
The notion that the Son was generated in eternity is simply false to biblical language. Church fathers had to argue that “today” in “Today I have begotten you” pointed to eternity. But this was an assault on simple language.
The only way Augustine could avoid a unitarian understanding of John 17:3 was by altering the order of the words of Scripture. John 17:3 is in fact a plain and simple unitarian proposition. There is only one being who can properly be called the only true God and that is the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus in John 17:3 is the ultimate ambassador, or shaliach, of God but he never claimed to be identified as the One God and vigorously disclaimed the power to be able to do anything of himself.
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
Thanks for the reply Anthony…
I just think it is an absolutely huge massive step to take to assume that all the numerous times in the OT when it says ‘He alone’ – especially when the same word when used to describe people being alone etc makes perfect sense to us – to assume it’s applied differently to God ‘every’ single time it’s used in reference to God being God by himself doesn’t seem in step with Biblical rules of interpretation with me, nor is it logical or reasonable. The jehova’s wittnesses and mormons do stuff like that with the scriptures all the time and we ‘logically’ and we Hermeneutically refute them but when scholars do it they call it a mystery??? Surely to make an assumption this big with the scriptures would be unthinkable seeing that God never never mentioned once that one means ‘three in one’ when referring to Himself. – all this matter would be sorted if God just told us plainly once that 1 can mean more, since He didn’t I think its basics to assume that he means what he says… And all other truths must hinge on such a clear foundation…
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
Something interesting:
How would you explain a verse like Malachi 2:10 it says “Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us…?” Here the word “one” in both clauses is the word “echad”. The same word describes our heavenly Father and our God, Echad Father and echad God. If we apply echad as a compound unity to ‘our God’ in this verse then we have to also apply it to ‘one Father’ – which would mean that God the Father is also a compound unity? So within the trinity we have compound unity’s which means theres more than three in the godhead???
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
Hi Anthony
Can you explain Luke 10:18
February 9th, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
Notice what happens in 1 Timothy 2:5 which says, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Both of these words are the same adjective “eis”, One God and One Mediator. If “eis” in the first occurrence is a “compound unity of persons” then it has to be in the second usage also, for they are in the same phrase! Can you imagine a Mediator being a “compound unity of persons?
If God wanted to say that He is a “compound unity of persons” at least in the Greek language there was a more excellent way to say it! Instead of using the masculine article “eis” in the first commandment, He could have used in the same structure the neuter form of the same adjective which is “Hen”. When Jesus wanted to describe His unity with His Father (The man Christ and God the Father) He said: NAS John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.” Jesus here says that He is one in unity with the Father, two separate distinct persons are involved, God and the Lamb, God and the Son of God, God and the mediator, who are a unity. Any comments, I think it’s pretty clear?
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:05 am
Anthony,
I’m aware of the reason you cite other scholars, but since none of the ones you cite hold to your particular views (anti-Trinitarian and anti-deity of Jesus) — I’m talking about men like Bruce and Dunn, or Calvin or Augustine for that matter — the point is really moot. The debate is between you and me in that sense, and you really have to use a patchwork of citations — special pleading is the only word I can use — to prove your point.
And I repeat: The reading of Hebrews 1 in terms of pointing to a future creation cannot withstand serious, scholarly interpretation. Please, my friend, let the text speak for itself: It CANNOT refer to a future heavens and earth:
“You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord,
and the heavens are the works of your hands.
They will perish, but you continue.
And they will all grow old like a garment,
and like a robe you will fold them up
and like a garment they will be changed,
but you are the same and your years will never run out.”
In all candor, if you’re unable to accept that your reading of the text is massively forced here — really, that’s an understatement — not to mention in complete violation of the Hebrew, which cannot simply be thrown out — then I fear we can have no intelligent dialog. I might just as well say, ‘Up” and you hear “Down,” or the reverse.
If these verses do not mean what they say — pointing back to the Lord’s act of creation, something affirmed by the LXX as well — then the Bible has no clear meaning and we have no basis for discussion.
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Johnny,
You seem not to be factoring in the reality of the incarnation, and you appear not to have read my discussion of many of the relevant issues in vol. 2 of my series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. I would strongly suggest you take the time to do when you’re able. Thanks for the interaction!
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Anthony Buzzard,
I would still like you to comment on John 8:56, and how it relates to Genesis 18, with regards to Jesus’ pre-existence taking the form of a man.
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:09 am
Somebody help me out here. Jesus said that the “son of man” had authority on earth to forgive sins. He said that the “son of man” is Lord of the Sabbath. This stumbled the religious people of His day, because from their point of view, only God could forgive sins, etc. Now, to me it so obvious that the WHOLE point Jesus was making was that he, as man, had been given the right, by His dad (God) to forgive sins — and that this delegation of authority, while offensive to their religious traditions, would just have to be accepted.
And if God was Christ’s Father, and I’m talking humanity here, would not that make him Lord of the Sabbath?
When we say things like: “hey wait a second, only God can forgive sins,” aren’t we falling into the same religious trap that stumbled the Pharisees? Wasn’t the whole point that they refused to accept Jesus Christ as the extension of God’s hand on earth — as man?
I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone when I see other believers stumble at Christ’s forgiving sins, as if that proves he’s God because only God can forgive sins. No, the son of man can forgive them too because he’s God’s only begotten Son! Look at the reaction of the religious — they were infuriated by Christ’s exercise of authority as a man, to them it was all about blasphemy, and not about the fact that Jesus was doing His Father’s business — as a Son, as a man. The word “Christ” means “anointed,” what was he anointed to do?
Jesus walked on water as a man (as did Peter), healed the sick as a man, forgave sins as a man, and was Lord of the Sabbath as a man. How anointed was he? What was the extent of his delegated authority from His Father as human Son?
Before the virgin birth, it was true, only God could forgive sins — but Christ’s lineage gave him more than a human mother — it gave him God as a literal Father, and the cattle on a thousand hills were His…all power in heaven and earth — as well as the authority on earth to forgive sins!!!
Let me ask this plainly: is it “blasphemy” if I believe that Jesus forgave sins as man, with the caveat that this man was begotten of God and was God’s only begotten? Who thinks that Jesus as man, does not also qualify as Lord of the Sabbath, simply by virtue of his human lineage from God as only begotten? If my dad is Bill Gates, I am the Lord of my house — cuz daddy says so. And if God told His Son he could forgive sins on his own as he was led by the Spirit, then that’s His business. The whole point, at least to me, is that the Jews had gotten so ridiculously religious that they were stumbled by the form that God’s authority and power came to them in — a man, and from Nazareth no less. A human Son? No, no, not a human Son — that’s too much to ask. What should we do? Crucify him! Who gets to define the boundaries of what Christ’s human Sonship entails? T
he Jews (leaders) of Christ’s day were stumbled by his human lineage and what that meant to THEM. They basically said “there shall be no human mediator between God and man except us, and certainly not this guy from Nazareth. Who does he think he is? Only God can forgive sins!!!!!!!”
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:09 am
Michael K.,
Two points to back your position:
1) There is excellent reason to render John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am,” rather than “I am he.”
2) You are correct in pressing the point that, even with an “I am he” rendering, the point of preexistence remains the same, both contextually and in terms of the reaction Jesus’ statement received.
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:13 am
Chuck,
Yes, I missed your question and I’m not able, in any case, to respond to every post.
Simply stated, the different reading in the LXX has nothing to do with a future creation. Quite the contrary. Hebrews rightly quotes the LXX as referring to the Lord’s creation of the world, and the meaning of Heb. 1:10-12 is indisputably clear on that point. Where the LXX reads things differently is by taking Hebrew `-n-h as “answer” rather than “oppress,” with YHWH then talking to this “Lord.” But the world to come interpretation is 100% contextually impossible. Quite simple!
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:29 am
Dr. Brown,
Agreed. Also, going back a few verses to verse 56 in John 8, Jesus says “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So in other words Abraham saw Jesus (not known as Jesus at that time but as the one we know as the image of the invisible God). This is directly related to Genesis 18. I want to hear what Anthony Buzzard thinks of this, regarding Jesus’ pre-existence in the form of a man that is clearly evident in Genesis 18. Jesus spoke directly of this in John 8:56.
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:36 am
With regard to Hebrews 1 potentially speaking of the “new” or “future creation,” rather than that described in Genesis 1, are we then to suppose that the new creation ultimately too “will perish…and…will all grow old like a garment,
and like a robe…will [be] fold[ed.]..up
and like a garment…will be changed”?
It was always my understanding that when Jesus makes “all things new” (Rev. 21:5) it is those very “new things” that will never grow old nor perish.
Just how many “future creations” will there be?
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:59 am
Hebrews 1:10
It seems to me that the author of Hebrews quotes from Psalm 45:6-7 to make a point about the Son “unto the Son he says, thy throne O God..etc.” and then in mid-stream jumps to Psalm 102:25 and makes reference to creator (God the Father) — and thou Lord. So when he says “and thou Lord” in v 10, he is switching the subject of his attention. This sudden switch in subjects is common in the scriptures, especially when dealing with prophetic texts.
For instance, in Luke 4:18 when Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:1-2, he stopped in mid-sentence and left out “and the day of vengeance of our God…”, why? Because there would be a 2000+ year pause between “the acceptable year of of the LORD” and “the day of vengeance of our God.” This illustrates the fact that a scripture quote can be disected by the Holy Spirit in mid-sentence, which is what happened in Hebrews 1:8-10, the author merely splices in Psalm 102:25 in the very midst of a quote of Psalm 45:6-7, leading a casual reader to believe that the subject hadn’t changed and the text was still focused on the Son. In reality, it is a mid-stream switch of subjects. If nothing else, the obvious fact that two Psalms are spliced together in this text should cause us to read those Psalms to get our subjects correct. Psalm 102:25 is clearly speaking of the creator/God the Father, since everywhere else in the Bible He is the Creator, and there is no reason to think that the writer of Hebrews hasn’t just spliced in that subject along with his text. And this position is not effected by an argument from the LXX, since the scriptures are God breathed at the time of writing.
So unto Dr. Brown I would say thy argument, O Doctor, is not as persuasive as you might think, and thou, Anthony, would you at least consider this point? (I just switched subjects in mid-sentence, that’s the way to read Hebrews 1:8-10 guys).
Again, this is a common phenomenon in the prophetic scriptures. Hebrews 1:10 simply re-states what had been said before, that the Lord (The Father) laid the foundations of the earth…etc.
February 10th, 2010 @ 1:29 am
Dr. Brown
Just to understand your position on Heb 1.10 correctly, you agree that the author of Hebrews is citing the LXX reading?
If so, isn’t YHWH in this instance addressing somone else Whom He calls “lord” and attributing to this figure the text in question ["You lord founded the earth in the beginning..."]?
If this is the case, is it referring to the Genesis creation? And if it is the Genesis creation, doesn’t this contradict the whole of the scriptural testimony regarding YHWH as being the sole creator [cp. Gen 1.1]?
Let alone Jesus own testimony in Mat 19.4 where he says:
February 10th, 2010 @ 1:50 am
Michael K.
Following on from your Gen 18 question and Abraham literally seeing the ‘preexistent Jesus’ yet, not really, since since he was “not known as Jesus at that time but as the one we know as the image of the invisible God”.
Then who was he? What was his name? Where does scripture describe this “invisible” person? And how do you reconcile this view with what Hebrews 1 says that “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days [not in the past] he has spoken to us by his Son…”?
Or are we not even talking about a personal Who but an impersonal It?
tj,
Excellent question. Note, though, that according to 2Pe 3.6 the original Genesis creation was “deluged with water and destroyed”:
So, when it comes to “the age to come” and beyond, it seems that at Jesus’ coming [parousia] the earth [world] as we know it will undergo some sort of change. Perhaps it is at this time when Jesus’ prophetic word of “I make all things new” will come into effect.
But note, according to 1Cor 15.20; Rev 19-21f., this is not the end. For we await the final consumation of all things with a “New Heavens and a New Earth” [Rev 22.
February 10th, 2010 @ 1:57 am
Brad,
Regarding your “switched subjects in mid-sentence” theory of Heb 1. From the text it seems that both v. 8 and 10 has “the Son” as the subject. Note the clause at the beginning of both verses: “But of the Son he says…and…”
I do not see any “switch” or “break” in the text, especially when we know that the original Koine Greek simply runs on without any commas etc. Also, the context or purpose of the whole chapter is how the Son is superior to the angels.
February 10th, 2010 @ 2:43 am
Hi Dr Brown, correct me if I’m wrong but at the very start of your show you asked Anthony if he though a trinitarian was right with God – since he answered your question can you please tell us if you think a non trinitarian who believes like Anthony does can be saved believing it. Please answer thanks
February 10th, 2010 @ 7:45 am
Brad,
Of course there can be no change in subjects in Heb 1, as virtually all commentaries agree and as the context demands (Chuck is right on this). This is the Son being spoken of in vv. 10-12!
But Chuck, of course this refers to the Genesis creation — in the beginning, the one that will wear out and be replaced.
These are perfect examples of special pleading to avoid the totally obvious meaning of the text. Sorry to be so blunt, but clear is clear.
February 10th, 2010 @ 7:46 am
Not to detract from the flow of discussion on scripture; but Anthony if Fred Bruce decided, as you say, not to mention his doubts on preexistence in his own, published, words, then please take it upon yourself to start publishing it for him- this was also presumably based upon a conversation you had nearly thirty years ago? Speaking as a family friend of Fred and the Bruces from their time in Aberdeen, I can quite resolutely state, as Dr Brown has, Fred-can hardly be name droppped to support your heterodox beliefs. Indeed can anyone you quote can?
Also, can I ask Sir Buzzard that you interact with the careful scholarship of Bauckham on the schema and 1 Cor again. Surely just arguing, to the effect, ‘ah but everytime God is mentioned it doesn’t also say “Jesus is God” makes your position non-falsifiable. Can any text such as the one Bauckham points out then work? Or do you need every reference to God to include Jesus before you can conceed the, to me, plain meaning of individual text such as 1 Cor 8:6.
February 10th, 2010 @ 8:18 am
Dr. Brown
Could you answer the second part of my query then:
If it is the Genesis creation that is in view, what is your “special pleading” when it comes to the following:
Let alone Jesus own testimony in Mat 19.4 where he seems to support the exclusive monotheism of his Jewish heritage:
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:08 am
Hebrews 1:10
For the record, there is no doubt that as you read the text in Hebrews 1, the subject appears completely consistent, and that subject is the Son. I also think a natural reading suggests, to me conclusively at this point, that the original creation is what is being spoken of.
And let me be clear, in my mind the author must have briefly switched subjects in the flow of the comment, and then switched back, because to read it otherwise persuasively suggests that the Son is the creator, which does not line up with what I believe. In my defense, I think we would agree that the rest of the Bible is pretty clear that the creator is the Father, but putting that aside, I see why you would think I am engaged in some “special pleading” of my own here.
Now, I still believe that the subject briefly changes, that’s the way my mind and comprehension travels over that verse, I can’t help it. What I would do next is to find other portions of the scripture where the identical thing happens, a portion or portions where we would all agree that in mid-stream a new or formerly mentioned subject is interjected seemingly randomly into an otherwise consistently flowing text. Next, I would locate, in your doctrine, an example where you yourself are required to engage in precisely this type of special pleading. Once I have found both of these items, and only then, would I expect anyone to dismiss their idea that I had taken liberties with the scripture. Even then, my goal would be to obtain an admission that my argument could be made in good conscience, even if you disagreed with it. Until then I would understand and accept your position that I had twisted the scriptures to support my position.
Of course, I believe I can do both of these things! I see a fluidity in the scriptures, especially in prophetic texts, that allows me to not hold an author to an apparently consistent subject, even a subject that appears so obviously consistent as the Son in Hebrews 1. And, I believe that the trinitarian model does have to engage in some pretty creative special pleading here and there to survive inspection.
Even so, my position is tenuous, admittedly, until I produce a persuasive set of examples to support my point. Thank you for this opportunity to grow!
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:56 am
Chuck,
Could you answer the second part of my query then:
If it is the Genesis creation that is in view, what is your “special pleading” when it comes to the following:
This is what YHWH says—your Redeemer and Creator: “I am YHWH, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth? Isa 44.24
I am the one who made the earth and created people to live on it. With my hands I stretched out the heavens. All the stars are at my command…For YHWH is God, and He created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am YHWH,” he says, “and there is no other.” Isa 45.12, 18
Let alone Jesus own testimony in Mat 19.4 where he seems to support the exclusive monotheism of his Jewish heritage:
“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ [Gen 1.27; 5.2]
You are begging the question. Both trinitarianism and unitarianism are monotheistic. Hence, we have no problem in saying that God stretched out the heavens by himself, or that there is no other God but the Lord. The issues is whether this one God, who stretched out the heavens by himself, is unipersonal or tripersonal.
I have seen this problem with unitarian arguements for as long as I have dealt with this issue. Statements about God’s “oneness” are always taken to be statements of his oneness in *person* not his oneness in *being.* In order for any of these arguments to work, a unitarian would have to show that we not only can find a passage of scripture that teaches that God is “one,” but that the statement is specifically referring to the personhood of God, and not a statement about the uniqueness of the being of God.
Unless that can be shown, all the statements about God’s uniqueness are completely useless.
God Bless,
Adam
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
If any trinitarian would like to respond to this:
How does the trinitarian position deal with the “seat of personality” in Jesus. When I think about Jesus as a man, body soul and spirit (he refers to all three human elements in the Gospels), and when I conisder that he was made perfect through suffering, was tempted and overcame, etc., it seems obvious that the human identity of Jesus as a human person is real, and honorable as such.
What I don’t understand about the way a trinitarian “thinks” is — how do you deal with Christ’s seat of personality as a human being? Jesus was human, and as a human he developed from birth in the same way we all do, cell-division, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, etc. He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man. He had fingerprints, DNA, 46 chromosomes, heredity, synapses firing, mind learning, emotions experiencing, changes occurring, and human personality — all of which are part of being “fully man.” It seems to me that trinitarians have to “do away” with this person via the doctrine of who he “really” is — the second person of a complex Deity. Because if Jesus is a “person of God,” then I wonder what happened to his “person” of humanity?
To me, this is where the trinitarians tend to use special pleading, because in order to somehow preserve Christ’s humanity, you have to invent ways to make him “both” human and God at the same time. And when it comes to his seat of personality, then there is some notable division. For instance, I go to a mainstream trinitarian church, a big one, and my pastor believes that once the second person became a man, he gave up his “Divine personhood” forever, and will always be a man now. So he has a human Jesus.
So whatever trinitarian would like to respond here, help me out. Discuss the seat of personality in Christ Jesus, and tell me what became of his human identity (given that you say you believe he was “fully man”). And if you dare, try to discuss your answer using quotes from the Bible, because you’d think the Bible would be the best source document to answer this question.
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
Adam,
Just to clarify the often used word of monotheism. Trinitarians are what you might call pluriform monotheists. Biblical unitarians [unlike Universalists] are called exclusive monotheists. Big difference, check it out.
As far as I know the English language, the word “being” means “person, individual”. Your making an age old distinction that is not brought out by the clear meaning of the words.
I know that you have to follow ‘protocol’ and give it a different meaning but answer me this. Where does scripture tell us that the one God of Israel, YHWH, is a “essence”? Or, in your own words, a tri-personal “being” or “essence”?
I do not see scripture giving God some abstract meaning other than telling us He is a person, a being, an individual. All these words are the same as “person”.
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
Chuck,
Does a rock have being?
God Bless,
Adam
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
One of the posters (Brad? implied that other people thought that Jesus was, in forgiving sins, making Himself God, but that Jesus did not present Himself in that way.
Please excuse me if this was metioned in the debate, but didn’t Thomas fall down at Jesus’ feet and call Him “My Lord and My God”? Jesus did not say, “Hold on there, Thomas, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick about me — I’m just God’s Son, a kind of Ubermensch — I’m not God at all!” Jesus corrected Thomas’ desire for physical corroboration, but not what he said about Jesus.
I’m willing to trust what Jesus said about Himself.
February 10th, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
Chuck,
You asked “And how do you reconcile this view with what Hebrews 1 says that “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days [not in the past] he has spoken to us by his Son…”?
Plain and simple….in the OT he appeared at instances of time in the form of a man, not to speak about the things to come as the prophets did, but to intervene in certain ways. In the NT, it was his time to speak to us and live among us as the prophets did, while being fully human with divine nature and limited power under the natural laws of the earthly realm.
If you can’t reconcile John 8:56 with Genesis 18, then what does Jesus mean by saying that Abraham saw his day?
Also, what is your take on Proverbs 30:4?
February 10th, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Anthy:
I am just saying that the fact that Jesus forgave sins, does not prove he “must” have been God. Even assuming he is God, the fact that he forgave sins would not necessarily prove that point all by itself. I would argue that it is NOT true that only God can forgive sins. If God had a strictly human Son, that Son, in my view, would have the same ability and authority that His Father had, including the right to discharge a debt on behalf of His Father.
I believe that Jesus received this authority (to forgive sins) by virtue of the fact that his *human* lineage traced to the Throne of God — to God the Father. When Jesus was confronted about this, he actually posed the question: what is more difficult, to say “your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “rise up and walk”? He followed that by saying: that you may know that the *son of man* has power on earth to forgive sins — rise up and walk. I think what he was saying here is that God’s anointing upon him, and the grant of authority innate to his human Sonship, included both of these abilities. If that is true, neither ability proves His Deity, they could be innate to his only begotten status alone. Again, even trinitarians believe that Christ’s *human lineage* traces on the one hand to Mary, and on the other to God the Father — giving him a unique combination of innate authority — as a man. That’s all I am saying — proof of His Deity must come from other texts, like Matthew 20:28 (My Lord and my God) or Hebrews 1:10 (Son is creator).
February 10th, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Also, to be faithful to the text, when Thomas said “My Lord and my God,” there is nothing said there that indicates that he “fell down at Christ’s feet” and made that confession. It just says Thomas “answered” and said unto him: “My Lord and my God.”
In Matthew 14:33, after Jesus had walked on water, it says “then they that were in the ship came and *worshipped* him, saying, of a truth thou art the Son of God.” Consequently, it appears completely appropriate to *worship* Jesus as the literal offspring (Son) of God.
February 10th, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
Brad,
In a nutshell, Hebrews 1 affirms the Son’s activity in creation — as do a number of other, key passages — but you don’t accept it because it is different than what you believe (as you basically state yourself).
So, I would encourage you to change your beliefs based on the clear testimony of Hebrews 1 and other passages rather than try to manipulate the text — impossibly so — to fit your beliefs.
February 10th, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
The Hebrew text is a difficult text but the subject no doubt is the Son and once again He is Addressed as LORD- Yahweh! Why are we as Mike rightly says special pleading this verse in order for it to say something else.
Colossians 1:15-17 15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
February 10th, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
Pardon me everyone, but no one here has presented a good case at all to deny Jesus’ deity and pre-existence. Those who try can’t accept the fact that Jesus had 100% human nature while having 100% divine nature. There’s no way around it according to the Scriptures. You have to cook something up on your own to deny the deity of Jesus and his pre-existence and equality with God the Father. He is the image of the invisible God. He is the Word of God, was with God in the beginning and is God. (John 1:1) To say otherwise is to deny Scripture and only believe what you logically want to believe. To think we can logically understand God’s existence and make-up is not logical. He is beyond our understanding on so many levels.
February 10th, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
Whislt I don’t agree with Anthony’s explaination of Heb 1, I will be really interested to get Dr. Browns books and find his explanation on how one really means three (only in reference to God) thanks so much for the referal, I can’t believe how I didn’t read your notes first before bringing up the point… How stupid of me!
Besides that If Anthony is still around, I would like to hear his potins in regards to the “begetting” (coming into existence) of the Son. (as he mentioned before)
Please share Anthony
Thanks!
Thanks
February 10th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
This is a great discussion.
February 10th, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
Johnny,
When you get my book and simply study carefully the information presented there — it’s quite clear from the Word, from the Hebrew, and even in the light of some Jewish traditions, you’ll see that your sarcasm is quite misplaced.
February 10th, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
Anthy,
To the Pharisaic accusation that Jesus blasphemed because he claimed Godhood, or even an equality with the one God of Israel, he said:
What about the Apostolic testimony on which the church is supposedly founded on?
Michael K
Where is your scripture to back these claims of a preexistent, invisible God the Son running around in the OT? Or do you believe that Jesus was an angel, as do the JWs?
I did give you an explanation as to how Abraham might have “seen [or known about] Messiah’s day and rejoiced”. The same way King David, in a prophetic vision, saw a human lord [l'adoni] sitting at the right hand of the one and only YHWH in Ps 110.1. Or Daniel the prophet saw the “end days” vision of “the Son of man” figure coming in the clouds and seated at the right hand of Power” [Dan 7].
All these men were inspired by the Spirit of God and saw a future vision of a yet unknown human figure who was greatly exhalted by the one God of Israel. This is noted in 1 Pet. 1:10–11 as well.
Big difference between someone who is said to have been foretold or foreknown and actually already existing as a person, individual being!
I’ll the standard Trinitarian ESV Bible Study again answer your Pro 30.4 query:
You also said:
Where is your scriptural evidence for this? Be specific please don’t just be an “echo chamber” to the ancient, Catholic creeds. If the “double nature” dogma is true, have you ever asked yourself if the whole person of Jesus really did die for you on the cross?
Dr. Brown
How do we do this though, change the thousand upon thousands of personal singular pronouns describing the one elohim of the Jews, YHWH, and the God and Father of the lord Jesus Christ? This sounds awfully like “special pleading” to me Dr.
February 10th, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
This is a great discussion.
To say God is ONE but His nature is triune is special pleading. There is not one clear proof text of scripture that teaches us God is ONE but triune in nature. I read your book and it seems to be a very compromised trinitarian doctrine, trying to appease two parties.
God is ONE and he is not made up of other divine personalities. The fact that echad can be used to modify a collective noun, does not at all make the word Echad plural, nor does it give us the right to make God plural or a collective noun. Thats special pleading.
God is ONE, He is ONE God, with ONE Nature and ONE personality. Though Complex in all His attributes, the Law, prophets, Jesus, Apostles never speak of God as Triune in Nature. Thats special pleading.
February 10th, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Chuck,
Simple. Understand that I believe in one God based on these thousands of verses, and who is the God and Father of Jesus. But I also embrace the rest of the testimony of Scripture, which you so strenuously reject — including Hebrews 1 and a host of other verses.
So, I’m willing to accept the entire testimony of Scripture whereas you misunderstand what I and others believe and then cannot accept the clear and indisputable testimony of other verses.
And, to be candid, if folks like Kermit Z. and Anthony B. did not deny the preexistence of the Son, then I would not be quite as strong in my words of correction as I have been here in these posts. But there is no possible way to deny that fact without all kinds of special pleading.
February 10th, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
Dr. Brown
I am trying to underatand what you and many others believe, honestly. But I just cannot for the life of me see how I can ignore all those singular pronouns describing, as you said, “the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ”, without all kinds of special pleading.
By the way, this scriptural phrase of “the God and Father of Jesus” clearly states that Jesus has a God, doesn’t it?
February 10th, 2010 @ 8:59 pm
Johnny,
I agree with what you say and I’ve made some of these points in my two books which I’d be happy to send to you if you supply me your postal address.
Along the same lines as Mal 2:10 and 1 Tim 2:5 have you noticed Gal 3:20: “God is only one person.” Eis (masculine) as you say means one single person.
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
Joelle,
How do you explain Paul’s description of Jesus being in the form of God in colossians? Or he Spirit of God being called the Spirit of Christ by both Paul and Peter at different times? What of Judges 6 and Judges 13 when The Angel of the LORD is clearly referred to as God by both Gideon and Samson’s parents? A triune nature of God is clear in scripture. God is One Being yes, but he is clearly complex in his Being. Three persons and yet One being. Yes it is a mystery but it is the truth of the matter. To deny that The Messenger of YHWH is God is to go against the very words of scripture.
The Father the Son and Spirit are One. They mutually indwell each other, are inseparable in union and Being. This is not made up doctrine from the church fathers, its clear the Apostle’s believed this. How else do we understand scriptures that say of Thomas the apostle that he called Jesus “my Lord and my God” or when Jesus would heal people and the text says people worshiped Him and he accepted their worship?
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
In order to prove the trinitarian issue, there must be solid proof from the ot,because even for the nt believers-even in the event that it is clear in the nt that the trinitarians are correct,there still must be clear evidence from the ot to allow all those living before Jesus to believe in him. So what it boils down to is:Is there clear evidence from the ot that suggests this idea? By the way the evidence has to be so clear that one would notice this without having to read any other material.
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
Michael,
My point in citing Bruce and others is the doubt they throw on the idea of a preexisting Son of God. Clearly preexistence of God the Son is a sine qua non of classical Trinitarianism. James Dunn has thoroughly undermined the idea of preexistence except perhaps in John, and Colin Brown at Fuller states categorically that in the Bible “to be Son of God means that you are not God.”
I bring these top names to your attention as witnesses to the strength of the unitarian position. I recommend a thorough reading too of Kuschel’s Born Before All Time? and the section on Christology in J.A.T. Robinson’s famous Priority of John.
Even Gathercole admits that there is a strong consensus among scholars that there is no hint of preexistence in the synoptics. Without preexistence of course there is no Trinity.
As to Heb 1:10 you make no comment on the author’s statement in 2:5 that he is talking about the “world to come.” The LXX of Psalm 102:23-24 is “inscripturated” and this differs from the MT. Thus “He (God) answered him…Thou Lord in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth.” F.F. Bruce comments, “This is God’s answer to the suppliant.” He refers then to B.W. Bacon in ZNW 3 (1902). Bruce says, “Bacon suggested that the Hebrew as well as the Greek text of this psalm formed a basis for Messianic eschatology, especially as a reference to the ’shortness’ of God’s days, i.e. of the period destined to elapse before the consummation of his purpose.”
Ps 102:18 states that the author is writing “for the generation to come, that a people yet to be created may praise the Lord.” Verse 22 speaks of “when the peoples are gathered together and the kingdoms to serve the Lord.” This is a psalm about the planting of the new heavens and earth by Messiah. Isaiah 51:16 has the same theme: God says He will “put My words in your mouth to plant the heavens and to found the earth, and to say to Zion, ‘You are my people.’”
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
Michael K,
As to John 8:56, Jesus did not say for one moment that Abraham had seen him. He said that he had “seen,” i.e. looked forward to, “his day.” He goes on to say that he himself is superior to Abraham: Before Abraham was even born, I am he. “I am he” is John’s phrase meaning “I am the Messiah” as I pointed out in an earlier post.
Heb 1:2 affirms that God did not speak in a Son in OT times. So if you are proposing that the angel in Gen 18 is the Son that cannot be. The three “men” who visited Abraham were angels, and Jesus, Son of God, was never an angel. Stephen talked about the angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses and certainly did not identify him as a preexisting Son.
What is ignored in much of this conversation is the primary data provided by Matthew and Luke’s detailed account of the ‘genesis,’ origin of the Son and his coming into existence in Mary. As numbers of scholars have pointed out (Kuschel, Harnack etc) preexistence and virginal begetting are mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot come into existence if you are already in existence!
That is why Simon Gathercole speaks of a strong consensus among scholars that there is no preexistence in Matthew, Mark and Luke (The Preexistent Son, p. 17). You should read Gathercole’s book and see if you find his effort to overthrow that consensus convincing.
One other point: the angel of the Lord can be treated as if he is the Lord on the basis of agency. The angel of the Lord is in fact not YHWH Himself as shown by Judges 13:16 where the angel says, “Offer your burnt offering not to me but to YHWH.”
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
One cannot understand the totality of a conversation based on one verse; nor can one understand the things said by an individual by basing one’s understanding on the misunderstanding of others. I believe that if one will go back and view the things said by Jesus one will come away with a better understanding of John 8:58.
John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
“When ye have lifted up the Son of man”; Jesus is talking about his crucifixion. Of course it wasn’t just his crucifixion, but the fact that God will raise him from the dead. It is the resurrection of Jesus by God that was the ultimate proof that Jesus is in fact the Christ (the anointed Messiah of God).
John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Here he is talking about the resurrection of believers.
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
What was it that father Abraham wanted to see? We learn that in Hebrews 11:19.
Hebrews 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;
Father Abraham knew about and believed in the resurrection. He looked forward to seeing that day.
Now we get to verse 58: Before Abraham was
There is a problem in the translation of “was”. Every other verse that has this exact Greek verb translates it in the future tense.
Mat 20:26
will be
Mar 10:43
will be
Mar 10:44
will be
Only John 8:58 is translated in the past tense. Why?
So the verse 58 should read “Before Abraham will be, I am”. We know that Abraham died a long time before Jesus was born, so Jesus is not talking about being born before Abraham, he is talking about being resurrected before Abraham; which also made him greater than father Abraham. That is why the Jews became angry and wanted to stone him, because no one is greater in their minds than father Abraham.
This verse 58 was mistranslated on purpose, and it was to promote a doctrine which would fall apart if the verse were written correctly. It was mistranslated by man to promote man’s doctrine and continue traditions that started 300 years after Jesus was resurrected.
Now look at the verse again. Do the words “Before Abraham was (was what?) I am (God?)” really make sense? Why do we have to add words to the Bible that are not there? If simply saying the words “I am” declares someone to be “God” how many other have declared themselves to be “God”. How many times do you think the words “I am” has been used in the Bible? Are all the people who declared “I am” also part of the “Godhead”?
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
Anthony
Are you saying these men were Unitarians? And are you saying that Gathercole does not find massive evidence for the Son’s preexistence in the Synoptics?
As for Ps 102:18 — I say again that this is utterly impossible eisegesis to preserve an unpreservable point. The Hebrew is unmistakably looking back (lipanim), and pointing to the creation of the current earth and heavens, which will wear out — but the Son will not. The LXX is more clear still, pointing back to the beginning (arche).
For these reasons (among many others, not to mention virtually all biblical scholars who with one voice recognize that the end of Ps 102 looks back to the creation of this current heaven and earth), I cannot take your position with the least bit of seriousness. Indeed, the argument you raised on the radio was one of the more bizarre arguments I have ever heard in the interpretation of a scripture.
The Son clearly preexisted, by the explicit testimony of Scripture. To quote someone like J. A. T. Robinson as if I would listen to him rather than the Word adds insult to injury.
And as I have stated to others here, although I completely reject your position as unscriptural and outside the fold of biblical orthodoxy, I always welcome dialog and interaction. But when exegetical gymnastics (really, I should say eisegetical gymnastics) must be performed to preserve one’s position — as you do hear with Heb 1 as the most obvious case in point — for me, that puts an end to dialog and reason, since we no longer speaking the same language. (BTW, your references to Bruce and Bacon here in no way support your point.)
February 10th, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
Dr. Brown, I would like to bring this question to your attention again:
Carmen says:
February 9, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Dr. Brown, if the Son IS God, just as the Father is God … how did God die for our sins when God cannot die?
How did Jesus (a God just like his father) die?
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Erlend,
I’m interested to know of your acquaintance with F.F. Bruce. Yes, I did have phone conversations with him, but more significantly I have written comments from him to the effect that he had doubts about Paul’s belief in a preexisting Son. Colin Brown, who worked with Bruce, quite explicitly says that reading John 1:1 to mean that “In the beginning was the Son” is patently wrong.
On 1 Cor 8, it is extraordinary to imagine Paul saying other than what he said in 1 Tim 2:5. Paul begins with a concentrated unitarian statement: “There is no God except the one God, the Father.” At the right hand of the Father is the one mediator, the man Messiah Jesus. There are more than 60 references to the “Lord Messiah” in the NT – none to the God Messiah. Paul places that man Messiah, the Lord Christ, in closest association with, but distinct from, the One God of his Jewish unitarian heritage.
I want to make the point again that Jesus as a unitarian agreed with a Jewish unitarian scribe that God is one Lord. Jesus then went on to discuss the relationship of the Messiah to that one Lord. I am surprised that no one has concentrated on the non-Deity title given to the Christ in Psa 110:1 and quoted as definitive by Jesus himself.
If only these discussions would begin with the synoptic gospels we could lay the foundation in Luke’s explicit definition of Jesus as Son of God precisely because of the begetting in the virgin (Lk 1:35) and consequently as the Lord Christ (Lk 2:11) and the Lord’s (i.e. YHWH’s) Messiah (2:26).
The NT from cover to cover asks us to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God. That belief biblical unitarians confirm with complete conviction.
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Anthony,
I hesitate to accuse you of outright duplicity, but I am at a loss for words as to how else to explain your selective quote from F. F. Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews — which still did not support your reading of the text — while you knew full well that his exegesis of the text was in full accord with everything I have stated here, completely at odds with your position.
Commenting on Hebrews 1:10-12 he wrote (in part):
“The words in which the psalmist addresses God, however, are here applied to the Son, as clearly as the words of Ps. 45:6f. were applied to him in vv. 8 and 9. What justification can be pleaded for our author’s applying them thus? First, as he has already said in v. 2, it was through the Son that the universe was made. The angels were but worshiping spectators when the earth was founded, but the Son was the Father’s agent in the work. He therefore can be understood as the one explicitly addressed with the words:
Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
He could not have made himself any more clear, yet you fail to cite that part of his commentary, giving the impression that he somehow supported your misreading of the text. How is that being forthright and forthcoming?
Regarding the rendering of the LXX, Bruce comments:
“But to whom (a Christian reader of the Septuagint might well ask) could God speak in words like these? And whom could God himself address as “Lord,” as the maker of heaven and earth? Our author knows of one person only to whom such terms could be appropriate, and that is the Son of God.”
I can state plainly here that you do not believe in the Son of God of the Scriptures.
Also, since you do not fairly represent Bruce here when we can check his own words in print, I certainly cannot put much confidence in your reading of private correspondence with him. His words speak for themselves quite clearly.
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Carmen,
The answer to your question is found in Phil 2:5-11 and in the concept of the incarnation. Surely this is not new to you, correct?
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
Dr Brown
In light of your comment here [and in your book regarding John 17.3, see below], could you please explain how this statement does not break with the Trinitarian defintion of “the one God as: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”?
It seems your saying you belief that the “one God is the Father of Jesus” and not a tripersonal God?
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
Michael,
In dialogue one must be prepared to receive as good as one gives. I must take you to task on what you write in your book about echad. It is causing the gravest consternation amongst both Christians and Jews. You tease us with the idea that there is some sort of plurality in echad because one month has 30 days. This is quite unfair. Echad is a numeral adjective as you know, and it can modify any noun including collective nouns.
The word by itself indicates no kind of plurality. The semantic value of “one” in the phrase “one person” is exactly the same as in the phrase “one family.” One single flesh means one and not two fleshes. We all have access to the half a dozen standard lexicons of Hebrew. If what you say about echad is right, why does this not appear in the lexicons? You appear to be telling us that echad itself suggests plurality in God.
As Judaism has always understood, one YHWH cannot mean more than one YHWH. And yet you propose that there are three who are YHWH and you continue to use YHWH as a designation of all three together. Try as we will, we simply cannot understand you on this point.
The word echad occurs in the context of multiple thousands of singular personal pronouns signifying the one God. To support your theory you must show that a singular personal pronoun in fact means a multiple personal pronoun.
You must also show that the word “person” is different in meaning than the word “being” and show this distinction in Scripture. When God says “I alone am God; there is none beside Me” He describes Himself as a single divine Person. I am not able to understand how you think that singular personal pronouns designate a tri-personal being.
Both unitarian Messianics and Jews find you, to say the least, unconvincing in this whole matter of “one” and the singular personal pronouns.
(BTW I rejoice with you that you gave up the non-biblical idea of a pre-trib rapture and that you stand against the duplicitous God of Calvinism, and that you look forward to the Kingdom of God on earth.)
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
Chuck,
When we speak of Jesus, we are speaking of the incarnate Son who is both human and divine, hence the verses and quotes you cited. Again, I would encourage you to look at the opening, short answers to sections 3.1-4 for clear and succinct statements on the nature of God as revealed in the Scriptures.
So, there’s no break with any Trinitarian explanation here, just one of proper emphasis, which sometimes gets lost in polemics.
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
Anthony, you raise great points.But I think,the main thing we have teo realize is,that the question of whether Jesus is g-d or not is THE most important question that can possibly exist in regards to religion and the Bible. So if g-d wanted to tell us that Jesus is g-d,then the the verses should be crystal clear not only that there is a trinitarian g-d but that he can become human and that it is a he and a she, and most importantly that it’s jesus and his mother. We shouldn’t be sitting here and debating exremely vague verses at best.
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
I was wondering what Greek word “incarnation” comes from? I cannot find it in the Bible.
As for the selection of verses (Phil 2:5-11) you have brought to my attention there is the Greek word “morphe”. Can you tell me how you see this word? I have been told by some that it refers to Christ’s inner nature as God.
Using Vine’s Lexicon under “form” reads “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Meaning that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God.
In Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon, morphe is given a one-word definition, “form.”
The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.”
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has “form, external appearance.”
Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable.
Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.”
Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”
The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphe in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphe should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.
From secular writings we learn that the Greeks used morphe to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphe), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used morphe to describe the shape of statues (Bauer’s Lexicon).
Other uses of morphe in the Bible support the position that morphe refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphe)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance.
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Dr Brown
Which “verses and quotes” that I cited above say anything but the simple truth that the one and only true God is the Father and not Jesus? Or am I missing something here?
You make explicit and emphatic in your book the fact that Jesus’ and the Apostles’ testimony is that the one God is the Father and not “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
The reason I keep asking is because I have read your book and it is confusing to me when you say one thing but seem to be contradicting what you just said. Let alone what scripture is supposed to be saying regarding Who “the one true God” is.
Your insertion of Jesus’ “double nature” has nothing to do with what I am trying to get you to explain to me [and any other readers].
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Anthony,
Please see my last post to you about duplicity, which deeply concerns me. As for true dialog, I can only marvel at what you write here:
“In dialogue one must be prepared to receive as good as one gives. I must take you to task on what you write in your book about echad. It is causing the gravest consternation amongst both Christians and Jews. You tease us with the idea that there is some sort of plurality in echad because one month has 30 days. This is quite unfair. Echad is a numeral adjective as you know, and it can modify any noun including collective nouns.”
Take me to task? The gravest consternation amongst both Christians and Jews?
Dear sir, do you pretend to be in better touch with my readers than I am? Are you aware of how many Christians and Jews have contacted our ministry personally after having been immensely helped by the material set forth in this very section of this very book? And do you think by making frequent reference to the “one month” point — which was the most minor point in my whole argument, an argument that you continue to misrepresent, at this point, it appears, willfully, since I corrected your misrepresentation on the radio — that you can deflect from the scriptural evidence I presented? And do you not realize that the ultimate credal form of confession put forth by Maimonides used yachid rather than echad? And do you ignore the other rabbinic and ANE evidence I supplied for the real meaning of echad in the text here — meaning, that Yahweh alone was God and that there were not multiple, local Yahwehs or any other gods to worship?
You write: “Both unitarian Messianics and Jews find you, to say the least, unconvincing in this whole matter of “one” and the singular personal pronouns.”
As for unitarians, based on what you’ve written and posted, I can’t expect to be convincing, since you reject the explicit testimony of Scripture and selectively quote other scholars to prove your point.
As for Messianics — Anthony, I work with Messianic Jews day and night and am in regular contact with a good number of the key leaders of the movement worldwide. I am grateful to God — and quite humbled — by the virtually universal affirmation my apologetics books have received in these circles. And I state these things here not to draw attention to that fact but to expose the vacuous nature of your statements.
Whoever you are in touch with is quite fringe in the Messianic movement, and you really make yourself look bad when you come into the forum of a Messianic Jew and try to lecture him about how Messianic Jews are unconvinced by his apologetics work.
Really now, Anthony. At this point, you have gone over the top.
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Chuck,
I explained things as clearly as possible in the book, so do keep trying to sort out what I wrote there, and please understand that, generally speaking, I do not reply to nearly as many posts in this forum as I have recently. I have, however, been so taken aback by some of the posts that I have tried to reply to as many as possible, despite time constraints.
So, keep looking at what I have written and hopefully it will full into place for you, whether you end up agreeing or not.
February 10th, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Carmen,
Gerald Hawthorne’s commentary on Philippians in the WBC has a very good discussion of morphe. I encourage you to read it if you haven’t already.
As for your opening comment, do you really want to descend to this level of comment? The word unitarian doesn’t appear in the Bible either, proving what?
Based on your citing of other literature in your last comment, it appears that you are more than aware of what the incarnation refers to. If not, you’ll have no trouble looking it up in good theological resources.
February 10th, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
Carmen,
The following from Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time, might help:
For the full article visit: http://benadam74.wordpress.com/?s=kuschel
Dr Brown
Thank you for taking the time in trying to answer my questions, I know you are being kept very busy. Perhaps one day we can come to a like-minded spirit and truth with the scriptures as our standard.
February 10th, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
Michael,
You are right that Bruce did not apply the founding of the heaven and earth to the future creation. I did not say that he did. I merely pointed out that Bruce unpacks the difficult point that it is the LXX and not the Masoretic text that is affirmed in Hebrews.
It still remains a fact that Bruce doubted whether any NT writer thought of the Son as preexisting. The point is that he is therefore uncertain of a fundamental pillar of Trinitarianism. There are many commentators who show (inadvertently sometimes) that they are uncertain themselves.
Yes, you are right, in that commentary Bruce is thinking of the Son as involved in the Genesis creation. But you are wrong to deny the evidence of what Bruce wrote to me. In citing John 1, he says “at least we can believe in the word which (who?)…”
Bruce expresses here an openness to the notion that the logos is not to be read as the Son. Trinitarians must show that John wrote “In the beginning was the Son.” That understanding is at present held as a dogma rather than a matter of careful exegesis.
Hope this clarifies the position re Bruce. But you still have not commented on Heb 2:5 (”it is the world to come about which we are speaking”) and Ps 102:18 (”this is written for the generation to come…”).
February 10th, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
Chuck,
You’re welcome, and yes, I do hope that will be the case.
February 10th, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
Anthony,
Bruce speaks of the preexistent Son in his Hebrews commentary, just as I cited, above. How can you deny that? And your snippet of a quote from a letter from him says nothing to the contrary towhat he explicitly stated here. Furthermore, his unpacking of the LXX, which you cited (without his more important, prior point about it, which I also cited), had nothing to do with the point you were making — hence, my concern about the integrity of your citations. (It genuinely makes me uncomfortable to speak so bluntly about this, but it is quite troubling to behold, especially when you are so quick to cite other scholars to support your view — and in the one case where you supply the quote, they do no such thing.)
As for reading John 1:1 as, “In the beginning was the Son,” if John wanted to write that, he would have, and that would have been to miss his whole use of logos (and, as I and others have suggested, relating to memra’ as well).
Re: Heb. 2:5, read Bruce or Lane in WBC for the simple meaning of the text (and, once again, it cannot relate to 1:10-12); as for Ps 102:18 — again, there is no connection to the point at hand, just the common OT theme (as in the end of Ps 22) that a future generation of Israelites will look back at the testimony of the psalmist here. That’s it!
Again, there is just nothing to address here, and Bruce’s exegesis, in common with all top Hebrews scholars, is perfectly clear — just as clear as the Hebrews 1 citation.
February 11th, 2010 @ 1:04 am
From Sir Anthony Buzzard’s “The Doctrine of the Trinity”
“Echad appears some 960 times in the Hebrew Bible and in no case does the word itself carry a hint of plurality. It means strictly ‘one and not two or more.’ Echad is a numerical adjective and naturally enough is sometimes found modifying a collective noun – one family, one herd, one bunch. But we should observe carefully that the sense of plurality resides in the compound noun and not in the word echad (one).”
This seems to make sense to me. The sense of plurality comes from the collective noun and not from echad. Why is this wrong?
Steve
February 11th, 2010 @ 1:28 am
…in the OT he appeared at instances of time in the form of a man…
Where is your scripture to back these claims of a preexistent, invisible God the Son running around in the OT? Or do you believe that Jesus was an angel, as do the JWs?
…what does Jesus mean by saying that Abraham saw his day?
I did give you an explanation as to how Abraham might have “seen [or known about] Messiah’s day and rejoiced”. The same way King David, in a prophetic vision, saw a human lord [l'adoni] sitting at the right hand of the one and only YHWH in Ps 110.1. Or Daniel the prophet saw the “end days” vision of “the Son of man” figure coming in the clouds and seated at the right hand of Power” [Dan 7].
All these men were inspired by the Spirit of God and saw a future vision of a yet unknown human figure who was greatly exhalted by the one God of Israel. This is noted in 1 Pet. 1:10–11 as well.
Even though the OT prophets did not see clearly when their prophecies would be realized, they did foretell that Christ would suffer and then be glorified. ESV Study Bible
Big difference between someone who is said to have been foretold or foreknown and actually already existing as a person, individual being!
I’ll the standard Trinitarian ESV Bible Study again answer your Pro 30.4 query:
What, then, does the text mean by asking about his son? The Christian reader naturally thinks of the Son of God, but the purpose of the words here is simply to say that no mere human being (whether father or son) has done these things, and that God is “the Holy One” (v. 3) whose ways are high and exalted, infinitely greater than “the understanding of man” (v. 2).
You also said:
Those who try can’t accept the fact that Jesus had 100% human nature while having 100% divine nature.
Where is your scriptural evidence for this? Be specific please don’t just be an “echo chamber” to the ancient, Catholic creeds. If the “double nature” dogma is true, have you ever asked yourself if the whole person of Jesus really did die for you on the cross?
Chuck,
Genesis 18 never said that Abraham was speaking with an angel. It said he was speaking to a man whom he referred to as the Lord. This same Lord was the Lord God of whom no one else is capable of making the decision to spare people of Sodom. Who else could this have been but the Word of God appearing as His image? This was not a vision, but an actual occurrence. Abraham saw the Word of God in human appearance who was with God in the beginning and was God to match what John 1:1 says. Jesus confirmed this in John 8:56.
As for Proverbs 30:4, there’s a reason why he begins with asking “who has ascended to heaven and come down” and follows with asking questions about other powers only attributed to God. He even admits in verse 3 that he has no knowledge of the “Holy One”. The commentary you provided makes no good sense why the author of Proverbs points out “what is his name?” AND “what is his son’s name?” Why would he have to bring the “son” into this? There’s a reason he did and it clearly has to do with the person ascending to heaven and coming down.
You also asked “If the “double nature” dogma is true, have you ever asked yourself if the whole person of Jesus really did die for you on the cross?” You should know that Scripture teaches “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”. Jesus told the thief on the cross that the thief would be with him in paradise that day. And just before Jesus’ physical body died, he told the Father that he was giving his spirit into his hands. So the spirit of Jesus the Word of God did not die, only the flesh.
February 11th, 2010 @ 1:31 am
Just to be clear everyone, my previous response to Chuck shows his comments to me before I actually address him in my response.
February 11th, 2010 @ 1:35 am
Dr. Brown,
If you get a chance I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the current debate taking place among evangelicals (others?) on the Trinity. Do you believe that relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Trinity?
Steve
February 11th, 2010 @ 2:29 am
Anthony Buzzard,
Jesus does certainly say in John 8:56 that Abraham saw his day. To quote from it “He saw it and was glad”. Looks pretty clear to me. Also, to highlight an obvious point you fail to recognize by claiming in John 8:58 that the verse actually means “Before Abraham was born, I am he”, where you claim “he” refers to messiah, how can you not see that regardless of what you think it to mean, by your own clarification, that you are saying that Jesus is the Messiah before Abraham was born? Where exactly in the Old Testament do you even know that the Messiah would exist before Abraham was born? Besides that point, however you wish to manipulate the text, Jesus is clearly making the point that “I am” before Abraham was born.
As for Genesis 18, we know that 2 of the men were angels based on Genesis 19, but the third man who spoke with Abraham was Lord, and never referred to as an angel. This Lord was the Lord God because only He had the authority to determine who would be spared in Sodom. This directly relates to John 8:56.
As for the angel of the Lord verses, admittedly, some of them are open to debate regarding him being the pre-existing Son. We know that the Commander of the Army of the Lord told Joshua, who was standing right in front him, to take off his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. Joshua fell to the ground and worshiped him, and this worship was never refused by the Commander of the Army of the Lord. This same statement was also told to Moses by a being known as the angel of the Lord. Could this person referred to as the angel of the Lord have been the image of the invisble God also in a different form, the Word of God who pre-exists? We know that the fulfillment of Scripture is only through the Son, and since all the Messianic prophecies pointing to the Son (i.e. – sacrifice of Isaac, Isaiah 9:6, etc) are recorded, it makes sense that the Son (the Word) has always been with the Father sharing glory (John 17:5).
February 11th, 2010 @ 3:02 am
doesn’t it say that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth? the Lamb is the Son of God “at the right hand of power” in Daniel it says that “one like the son of man” that approaches “the ancient of days” ?
February 11th, 2010 @ 3:09 am
Carmen,
You’re greatly stretching John 8:56, especially leaving out “He saw it and was glad”. You seem to only make your case with “looked forward to”, but fail to point out “He saw it and was glad”. Abraham saw the one who appeared as a man, the Lord God (Genesis 18). See my response to Anthony Buzzard.
You also raise the point for why does John 8:58 refer to Abraham in the past tense. Why would it not since Abraham is in the past and is dead? Pretty easy to understand if you ask me. There is no indication whatsoever that Jesus is talking about his resurrection in John 8:58. Just read the context, and that should be very clear. The jews make a sarcastic remark about Jesus’ age in relation to Abraham, so Jesus nails the point that with regards to Jesus’ age “I am”, indicating that age is of no boundary to him who is the Word of God that has always existed. Your claim that this verse was mistranslated on purpose is quite bogus.
You also said “How many times do you think the words “I am” has been used in the Bible? Are all the people who declared “I am” also part of the “Godhead”?” To answer this question, no one else besides YHWH and YHWH’s Word (Jesus) says the two words “I am” in this distinct manner in the Bible. These two words alone ( and only to be used alone) are distinguished only for YHWH.
As for Philippians 2:5-11, don’t get all hung up on morphe. Our English translation is crystal clear that Jesus was God who became flesh and made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant. He shares the glory with the Father being worshiped by all in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. Also take a look at John 17:5 regarding the pre-existence of Jesus.
February 11th, 2010 @ 3:30 am
Thanks for the reply Michael – I haven’t read your book but i will try get my hands on it and read about this topic… Just out of interest, in regards to the pre-existant Christ, how do you take Rev 13:8 …the lamb slain before the foundations of the world?
Thanks Anthony for the book offer, i’ll take you up on that , I’ll send you my postal address, thanks
February 11th, 2010 @ 6:27 am
Michael K
Do you know what eisegesis means? Try looking it up and see why I disagree with this fallacious comment of yours.
How about the word theophany to explain how scripture on the one hand says “no one can see God and live” [Ex 33.20; 1Jn 4.12, 20] yet some people did apparently see God [Gen 32.30; Deu 5.24].
Compare the following scripture where Gideon is said to have seen YHWH:
Ask yourself, who did Gideon actually “see”? And why would he fear for his life?
The scripture says the Son of God died, it doesn’t say what you would like it to say. But again, if that is the case, then Jesus really didn’t die at all did he? So how can he be your lord and saviour? And what kind of a God would play such a trick on us?
February 11th, 2010 @ 8:15 am
Steve Noel,
Just to set the record straight on echad, this was an issue in Jewish debate before it was an issue in Unitarian debate, and the word was often cited as if, in itself, it proved absolute unity, which it doesn’t. It simply means “one,” as in “one, two, three.” Some Messianic Jews claimed that it pointed to plurality, which was also wrong, and which I then corrected in my book as well.
But if it pointed to absolute unity in the way that Unitarians argue, then how could it be said of Adam and Eve in Gen 2:24 that the two became one? (And note that it doesn’t say “one couple,” but rather that the two became one flesh.)
So, the simple point is that the one God is infinite and complex, and as we look into the mystery of His nature, we discover that He is a tri-unity — but very much one God!
So, Anthony’s arguments re: echad actually do not address the real issue at all (not to mention he skirts the other issues I raise about its usage as well).
February 11th, 2010 @ 8:18 am
Chuck,
Passages like Exod 24 do not comport with a vision of God (theophany) as opposed to actually seeing Him, as I explicate in vol. 2 of my series, so your argument about theophanies in no way answers Michael K.’s point.
Moreover, John 12 indicates that Isaiah saw the preexistent son in Isaiah 6 (note the use of the word “glory” in each context as well).
Note also that Moses actually saw the temunah, the form of the Lord according to Num 12, whereas the Israelites saw no temunah at Sinai.
There’s much more to be said here, but I just wanted to mention a few brief points.
February 11th, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Chuck,
It is totally possible for He who appeared to Gideon to have taken on a human body and chose on the cross to allow his body to expire. His body would have died (through his allowing it to do so; no man can take my life). His Being would have continued to live even after he died just as ours do, the difference is that he had the power and ability to take his life back. And he did.
February 11th, 2010 @ 9:00 am
Dr Brown
Thank you for your inpout once again, I know how busy you are. But, I must digress…
Many times in the Bible the angel of YHWH is seen as the principal agent of YHWH Himself. As such, following the Jewish Shaliach principle, this angel often speaks as if it was God Himself.
A good example is found in Moses’ encounter of the burning bush [Ex 3]. These appearances by YHWH through His messengers are also referred to as theophanies ['theo' meaning 'God' and 'phaino' which means 'to appear'], since its “God appearing” [cp. Genesis 16.1-15; 22:1-19].
This is an important biblical precedent that foreshadows the coming of YHWH’s Annointed One. Jesus represented God in a manner that went beyond the way of the OT. Christ claimed to act in God’s place in a way that no one else could claim:
Christ spoke as one who knew God and His will intimately, through personal acquaintance [Luc 24:39; Jn 20:27; 1 Jn 1:1-4]. Why? Because he himself was somehow God? The Bible says that as the “only-one-of-his-kind” natural Son, “who is in the bosom of the Father”, he is the only one who can make Him known in an unprecedented way.
Where am I going wrong with this?
Where does the text say “the preexistent son” is in view here?
The first thing to note from the passage whence this is taken [12.37-41] is the variant reading of v. 41 [“the glory of God”].
The most accurate interpretation, as opposed to a literal translation, I could find regarding the contextual meaning of 12.41 is by the New Living Translation: “Isaiah was referring to Jesus when he said this, because he saw the future and spoke of the Messiah’s glory.”
Professor Larry Hurtado has this to say regarding the variant reading:
[It is] supported by a few Greek manuscripts of comparatively later date [and] probably a scribal change prompted by the perceived difficulty in making Isaiah’s vision of ‘the Lord [YHWH]’ a vision of the preincarnate Son…[So] it would be mistaken to think that here or elsewhere, GJohn (or, for that matter, any other NT writing) simply collapses the distinction between Jesus and God ‘the Father’ and flatly identifies Jesus as Yahweh of the OT.
In fact [the writer of John] distinguishes ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ just as consistently as it affirms an unprecedented linkage of them and attributes to Jesus/the Son an astonishing participation in divine attributes and status…
In GJohn Jesus not only is associated with the glory of God, he is the glory of God manifest. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Erdmans, 2003, p 374-380.
In other words, as Anthony pointed out, Jesus is what the logos and Shekinah, sophia and all of those impersonal qualities of the one YHWH became, and were not already existing as literally preexisting beings.
February 11th, 2010 @ 9:20 am
Mwiya
Yeah, I guess that scenario you just painted is “totally possible”. I could say the same for the JWs Christology/Angelology scenario as well. Unfortunately for all of you, that’s not what the textual evidence says!
Angels are considered “sons of God,” but without the rights of the unique Son of God. The job of angels is to worship God, and likewise, to worship his Son as God’s annointed one.
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:48 am
“Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 3:09 am
Carmen,
You’re greatly stretching John 8:56, especially leaving out “He saw it and was glad”. You seem to only make your case with “looked forward to”, but fail to point out “He saw it and was glad”.”
Good point Michael K., thank you. Sometimes it is difficult to include everything when attempting to keep things pithy enough to post. Abraham was indeed “glad” when he looked forward to the day of the resurrection.
“Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 3:09 am
You also raise the point for why does John 8:58 refer to Abraham in the past tense. Why would it not since Abraham is in the past”
He is also alive in the future because of the resurrection.
“Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 3:09 am
The jews make a sarcastic remark about Jesus’ age in relation to Abraham,”
It appears to me that you are basing your understanding of the things said by Jesus on the misunderstanding of his audience.
“Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 3:09 am
… no one else besides YHWH and YHWH’s Word (Jesus) says the two words “I am” in this distinct manner in the Bible.”
Take a look at John 9:9: “he said, I am”.
“Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 3:09 am
Our English translation is crystal clear that Jesus was God who became flesh …”
Obviously not as “crystal clear” as you want to believe.
You use John 17:5 to show the pre-existence of Jesus:
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Have you considered these verses?
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Do these verses mean that the Christian pre-existed their birth in some physical form?
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Just because Jesus did not say, in these exact words, ”I am God”, it does NOT mean that He is not God. Jesus NEVER said, ”I was born of a virgin”, yet we accept the testimony of Scripture which clearly states so. And again, Jesus NEVER said, ”I am the Word of God”, yet we (at least most of us) accept that he is clearly the Word of God by the testimony of Scripture. I can go on and on with more examples……..
A lot had already been said so I wont add too many Scriptures (especially since they have probably already been mentioned), but I will add
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
And compare it with Tanakh passages such as
Isaiah 42:8
I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
and,
Isaiah 48:11
For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it;For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another.
From these passages it should be clear that Jesus is either God (since He states that He will come in His glory), or, He is making a claim that couldn’t possibly apply to Him
And then, there is the overwhelming testimony throughout Scripture that Jesus is our Savior, in verses such as, Acts 13:23, Philippians 3:20, 2 Timothy 1:10 etc
And comparing it to some Tanakh verses
Hosea 13:4
“ Yet I am the LORD your God Ever since the land of Egypt, And you shall know no God but Me; For there is NO SAVIOR besides Me.
Isaiah 45:15
Truly You are God, who hide Yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior!
etc etc
We see AGAIN, that either Jesus IS God our the testimony of Scripture in the NT is false because it clearly contradicts the verses from the Tanakh which states that God is the ONLY savior, while in the NT this title (savior) is applied to Christ numerous times.
Obviously, there are stronger proofs as to why Jesus is divine but I think most of them have already been posted.
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:22 am
——-
I’m interested to know of your acquaintance with F.F. Bruce. Yes, I did have phone conversations with him, but more significantly I have written comments from him to the effect that he had doubts about Paul’s belief in a preexisting Son. Colin Brown, who worked with Bruce, quite explicitly says that reading John 1:1 to mean that “In the beginning was the Son” is patently wrong.
———
Thanks for the reply Anthony. My family knew the Bruce’s from their time, and Fred’s visit back, to Aberdeenshire. Fred actually stayed in our house several times, and knew him and his teaching very well from his numerous New Year Christian conferences in Aberdeen. Can I ask again why you think it right to be publishing something that Fred himself didn’t see fit to publish himself? Can you post this letter[s] in full please? I would be very grateful. I’m sure you are not misrepresenting Fred, but I would like to see the context.
In other publications of Fred’s near [and even some published directly after] the time of his death he doesn’t seem reticent in referencing a preexistent Christ. For example:
In 1990 Fred referenced Paul’s notion of ‘the pre-exsistent Christ’A mind for what matters: collected essays of F.F. Bruce, 129
‘The Johannine prologue is not the only place in the NT where this creative agency is ascribed to the pre-existent Christ.’ The Gospel of John Introduction, Exposition and Notes, 1994, 32
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:36 am
Anthony,
Previously I argued that you had created a non-falsifiable system, by claiming that every use of God must be prefaced with Jesus [and the Holy Spirit I presume], otherwise its just plain that scripture can only ever be interpreted as being Unitarian, allowing you to bypass texts that, when exegeted properly, make a strong case for Christ’s inclusion in the Godhead. We were thinking on 1 Cor 8. Your answer seems to be an extended verification that I was indeed correct:
‘ On 1 Cor 8, it is extraordinary to imagine Paul saying other than what he said in 1 Tim 2:5. Paul begins with a concentrated unitarian statement: “There is no God except the one God, the Father….”
Also can I ask that you comment on Gathercole’s book further. I would be very interested to know your opinions, although I know you must be busy.
February 11th, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Chuck,
I totally agree that The Son is Divine and is worshipped by the angels. This is true, but that said He also said of Himself that he was sent by the Father. This would make him a Messenger of the Father even though equal to the Father. And so it is clear that when scripture refers to the Messenger/ Angel of the LORD it is describing Him as a Distinct and Unique Messenger who serves God and yet is equal to Him. So he is worshipped by Angels, commands Angels and yet serves His Father by acting as The Father’s Representative in power, authority and fullness of Deity.
February 11th, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
I still have a question that is yet unanswered:
————
Carmen says:
February 10, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Dr. Brown, I would like to bring this question to your attention again:
Carmen says:
February 9, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Dr. Brown, if the Son IS God, just as the Father is God … how did God die for our sins when God cannot die?
How did Jesus (a God just like his father) die?
————-
This is the third time I have asked this question and it is very important to me. If Jesus is indeed God (YHVH) then he cannot die. If he cannot die, he cannot be resurrected from the dead.
The only answer that I can come up with is that YHVH is God alone (and not a complex being). Jesus is his human son; a man accredited by God to bring salvation to the world.
February 11th, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Carmen,
I answered your question directly already. Perhaps you missed the answer? The divine Son took on human flesh and was therefore fully divine and fully human. As a human being he was born, ate, slept, grew up, learned, preached, taught, and was ultimately killed. He died! As to his divine nature, just as our spirits live beyond physical death, so also his spirit.
That’s why I pointed you to the incarnation and to Phil 2:5-11.
February 11th, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
Chuck,
Thanks so much for your literate and thoughtful posts. Since time is precious on my end these days, may I ask if you’ve read where I have dealt with this in vol.2 of my series? If not, please do so and then let me know what issues you still have, OK? If that’s not an immediate option for you, then perhaps you can call into my show one day (especially on a Friday) and ask your question; otherwise, you’ll have to be patient waiting for an answer.
February 11th, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Sorry, this just makes no sense to me at all. I am going to insert my questions into your words to show you how confusing and complicated this is to me.
“The divine Son”
————
Who?
“… took on human flesh”
—————
Is this like a cop having a “throw down gun”? Does God have a “throw down man” that he can put on.
“… and was therefore fully divine and fully human.”
——————
What? This is not possible unless God goes against what is said in Genesis 1:24.
“As a human being he was born, ate, slept, grew up, learned, preached, taught, and was ultimately killed.”
—————
And while he laid down his divinity during this period while he (God) was a man named Jesus did he put the universe on automatic? When he prayed to the father was he praying to himself? When he answered himself did he need to take up his divinity again for that moment in time?
“He died!”
———-
If the God of the universe can die we are all in trouble.
“As to his divine nature, just as our spirits live beyond physical death, so also his spirit.”
——————
This is true. It is impossible to separate me from my spirit, because that is who I am. However you seem to expect me to believe that God somehow separated himself from himself, forsook himself on the cross, died for my sins, went to hell, took my punishment and all disguised in the earth suit of a man named Jesus.
Sorry, you are expecting me to believe things that are totally impossible, unreasonable, illogical, and contradictory.
February 11th, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
Carmen,
I can see what you are saying about John 8:56, saying that Abraham looked forward to Jesus’ resurrection. While this is a valid point, so is mine. It can have a dual application if you believe the Word of God in human form was pre-existent.
Also, your example of the use of “I am” in John 9:9 has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. John 9:9 quotes the blind beggar as saying “I am he”, not “I am”. For the purpose of my argument regarding Jesus’ pre-existence, the phrase “I am” has to do with God’s name, highlighting His eternal existence. For example, if I said to you “are you feeling okay?” and your response was “I am”, that clearly does not match the context of of a discussion about God’s existence. In the context of John 8:56, Jesus uses “I am” to follow up “before Abraham was born”.
You can try to use other verses to make your argument against John 17:5, but you can’t deny what this verse clearly says “the glory that I HAD WITH YOU before the world existed”.
I don’t see your point about Genesis 1:24 to Dr. Brown. Can you explain?
You said “And while he laid down his divinity during this period while he (God) was a man named Jesus did he put the universe on automatic? When he prayed to the father was he praying to himself? When he answered himself did he need to take up his divinity again for that moment in time?”
John 10:17-18 says “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” Also to answer your question, Jesus was not praying to himself. His human nature was praying to the Father because he could only do what his Father told him. Since he is the Word of God who was with God in the beginning as was God (John 1:1) this proves the element of his divine nature. Philippians 2:5-11 show that he purposely limited himself to take the form of a human servant.
You said “However you seem to expect me to believe that God somehow separated himself from himself, forsook himself on the cross, died for my sins, went to hell, took my punishment and all disguised in the earth suit of a man named Jesus.
Sorry, you are expecting me to believe things that are totally impossible, unreasonable, illogical, and contradictory.”
You need to understand that the Father separated His oneness from the physical body of His Son (not His spirit), who was taking the sin of the world on himself, because God cannot dwell in a temple of sin. Before Jesus took sin upon himself, there was no sin in him, so God’s oneness could dwell in him. For that matter, God’s “complete” glory cannot dwell on earth, in an realm of sin, so that’s why His Word was sent in flesh in limited divine power. Jesus shares the full glory of the Father not on earth, but in Heaven where there is no sin. This is not contradictory to Scripture. It’s only contradictory to your mind wanting to be make sense of God, which is not logical.
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
Hi Michael,
Of course there are aspects in which 2 or more people can become ‘one’ – especially verses which teach that the people had ‘one mind’ and ‘one heart’ – but this is a very poor example to use in regards to God. Adam and Eve were ‘one’ but no where near how your describing oneness to God. Anyone could still look at Adam and Eve and say they are still absolutely ‘two’ but in regards to being one in purpose, in flesh, in heart, in mind – we all know what it’s talking about since they can never again separate! But if I were to say, ‘Adam and Eve were ‘two’, you wouldn’t say, ‘no no no they are really one but with 2 persons’ – that would be silly, we all know they are distinct and seperate! Your example with the word ‘one’ in regards to Adam and Eve is the best example you have running for you, but if we use it like you are using it to say God is one, then we can say that the trinity is ‘one’, but we all know they are still absolutely and distinctly ‘3′. They are united as one in mind, heart, spirit but each is still absolutely God! So you have 3 God’s who are in some aspects ‘one’??? People may say, ‘no no no its still one, your using your mind too much it’s a mystery’! Since God never said it was a mystery and since he never clarified His oneness, i’m not prepared to throw out reason since I’m allowed to use it for every other doctrine.
Also it may not mention that Adam and Eve was a ‘couple’ but it clearly say, ‘the “”TWO”" shall become ‘one’ – since scripture has never done that once in regards to the Trinity, then a whole lot of teaching has been built up upon this ’small’ assumption – and thats doing gymnastics with the scriptures… One God but really three… it’s at this point where logic fails and where many teachers of the Word turn to the ‘egg illustration!
However I haven’t read your notes yet, I will do so, for all I know you may clarify that point (no sarcasm added)
Thanks
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Johnny,
I spend about 70,000 words on the subject in vol. 2. Glad to see you’ve moved beyond the sarcasm.
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Hey, Carmen, don’t worry; you’d be in good company with Abram who believed he could have a son even though his body was dead, with Gideon, who banged pots and blew trumpets and defeated an army, and with Namaan who was cured of leprosy (who also had trouble believing, like you and I have at times) by dipping into the Jordan River seven times, consecutively. Also, seems pretty nonsensical for the prophet Elisha to lay on a boy and the boy resurrect… Moses slapped the water with his staff and it split open, slapped a rock and water came out, these are all nonsensical (humanly speaking) but very wonderful realities. Praise the LORD because HE is GOOD!
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Carmen,
Sorry it doesn’t make sense to you! Keep wrestling with it.
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Michael K … I am not a theologian as it seems that 99% of the people posting here are. You all who believe that God is a complex God, a tri-un God, a son who is his father just make my head spin with all this double meaning stuff. After reading something like this I always go back to the Bible and look at the words there. They are simple. I can actually understand them without the help of a dictionary or a theologian. “God’s oneness could dwell in him”. What? “The Father separated His oneness from the physical body of His Son”. What? What is this “oneness”? It seems that people just cannot stop making up words that no one understands, starting with Justin Martyr … I’m out of time … Right now I have to go to work.
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Carmen, this is proven in the complex unity of nature itself. An ecosystem has interdepedent subsistence; your body itself is a single organism which can cease to exist if just ONE vital organ dies. Your single organism is made of billions of singular cells living in interdependent community. We are one with everything and yet we are each independent. Ever read any Hindu ideas?
God spoke of Himself in HIS artistic creation, nature. When a depressed painter paints, he paints depression; whatever is in the artist comes out in the creation – and so God has expressed Him complex unity in nature, itself. What is a fruit tree that doesn’t bear fruit? The fruit is the progeny of the tree, capable of reaching the same stature as the fruit tree: this was an echo of the Father-Son relationship; in the seed is all the instructions (WORD) to become mature.
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
not that GOD can be put on the level of a depressed painter… its just drawing a comparison between two expressionists…
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Thanks mike thats encouraging!
However, I’m confident to say it’s now sanctified sarcasm
Bless you bro
Johnny
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Who do you say the being is, in Daniel 7, where it speaks of 1) the Ancient of Days (blessed is HE forever and ever), and separately, it speaks of one who had “the appearance of a Son of Man” who was “brought to HIM (aforementioned GOD)” by the angels?? This is right as the court renders judgment, as it is written in John – the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and rise from their graves.
Also, it says that HIS voice sounds like many waters – ofcourse, this solidifies Paul’s idea that were existed in Christ before the foundations of the earth, and we were all speaking with one voice in Christ at that time, and it sounded like a stadium cheering – like many waters.
February 11th, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
It is untrue to say that the Hebrew word echad (one) in Deuteronomy 6:4 points to a compound or collective unity which comprises more than one person, i.e. one crowd, one people, one nation.” The above argument is fallacious. The sense of plurality is derived from the collective noun (herd, etc.), not from the word “one.” Echad in Hebrew is the numeral “one.” “Abraham was one [echad]” (Ezek. 33:24; “only one man,” NIB) Isaiah 51:2 also describes Abraham as “one” (echad, “alone,” KJV; “the only one,” NJB), where there is no possible misunderstanding about the meaning of this simple word. Echad appears in translation as the numeral “one,” “only,” “alone,” “entire, undivided,” “one single.” Its normal meaning is “one” and not two”.
The claim that “one” really means “compound oneness” is an example of argument by assertion without logical proof. The argument involves an easily detectable linguistic fallacy. Echad appears some 650 times in the Hebrew Bible and in no case does the word itself carry a hint of plurality. It means strictly “one” and not “two or more.” Echad is a numerical adjective and naturally enough, is sometimes found modifying a collective noun – one family, one herd, one bunch.
But we should carefully observe that the sense of plurality resides in the compound noun and not in the word echad (one).
Early on in Genesis we learn that “the two will become one flesh.” (Gen. 2 24). The word “one” here means precisely one and no more (one flesh and not two “fleshes”!). One bunch of grapes is just that – one and not two bunches, thus when God is said to be “one Lord” (Deut. 6:4) He then is a single Lord and no more.
Imagine someone claiming that the word “one” meant “compound one” in the words “one tripod.” Suppose someone thought that “the one United States of America” implied that “one” was really plural in meaning. The specious reasoning is obvious: the idea of plurality belongs to the words “tripod” and “States,” not to the word “one.” It is a subterfuge to transfer to “one” the plurality which belongs only to the following noun. It would be similar to saying that “one” really means “one hundred” when it appears in the combination of words,”one centipede”!
February 11th, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
I don’t know anything about echad; but it is evident that a man is one single being, and yet there are many vital organs working together within that one physical being – without one of which, the one single being is incomplete. Speaking of any ONE given object, you are always speaking of a collection of atoms, and never really anything singular – the singular object is always a community.
February 11th, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
Joelle,
I don’t think Dr. Brown is assuming that the term one is *always* talking about a unity which contains diversity. What he is saying is that the term does not always rule out diversity within unity.
But we should carefully observe that the sense of plurality resides in the compound noun and not in the word echad (one).
Early on in Genesis we learn that “the two will become one flesh.” (Gen. 2 24). The word “one” here means precisely one and no more (one flesh and not two “fleshes”!). One bunch of grapes is just that – one and not two bunches
The problem is with the context, i.e., the two shall become one flesh. Are you really suggesting to us that, in marriage, the flesh of the husband and the wife are fused together so that they make one “bunch” of flesh?????? No, such would be absurd.
You have the same problem in Genesis 33:13, where it is said that “if they are driven hard one day, all the flocks will die.” Apparently, according to your logic, because there is one day, there can be no hours minutes and seconds, since a day has to be totally one with no diversity in it at all. I can give you hundreds of instances where this occurs in the Bible. The Bible speaks of “one man,” but does that mean that this man cannot have any distinction with regards to his stomach, his liver, his intestines, his skull, his brain, etc.? One has to look at the context to decide the sense in which “one” is being used.
In this context, you clearly have a discussion of the human’s obligation to love the Lord with everything they have [6:5], and to teach it to their children. Hence, this is in the context of devition, and, more precisely, monolatry. The text if forbidding the worship of any other gods but the Lord. It is only the Lord who deserves true worship and honor; it is only him who is have his deeds told and retold to our children. However, that says nothing about whether the Lord God is unipersonal or tripersonal.
Again, I hear more circular argumentation from the unitarians on this board. It is not good enough to find the term “one” being used of God. You have to show that the term “one” is used in the context of God’s personhood. Unless you can do that, all you have done is begged the question.
God Bless,
Adam
February 11th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
Carmen,
Concerning Jesus being one with the Father, check out John 14:6-11:
“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
February 11th, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
Michael,
Thank you for your further thoughts on echad. I’m at a loss to know what you mean by absolute unity. Could you give us an example of absolute unity? Is absolute unity expressed anywhere in the Bible of anyone or anything – though you say it’s never applied to God? Please some examples to help us.
February 11th, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
Michael,
Since “Son of God” is used by Trinitarians to denote the divine nature of Jesus, would it be true to say that the Son of God died?
February 11th, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
The Word “Echad” CANNOT be referring to a complex unity for the following reson: A dinette is comprised of a table and chairs. But there is only ONE dinette! No matter how many components there are the chair is NOT a dinette. So there is ECHAD=ONE g-d. So even if this particular echad has components,these components are NOT in of itself g-d just as every time the word echad is used,the components are not cosidered to be the final product. Another wxample would be- there are 7 days that make up 1 week. So the week has 7 days that are it’s components. Would anybody suggest that there are 7 weeks within each week? Of course not! The components never live up to what the final product is. So even in the event that in this case,the word echad does have component-they are certainly not g-d itself.
February 11th, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
Michael,
I’m not suggesting for a moment that unitarian Messianic Jews are anything but a very small minority. However scholarly leaders of Judaism express the strongest disagreement with your analysis of the word echad. Nothing much is proved by our both pointing to the fact that large numbers of people approve both what you do and what we do.
My understanding is that echad means, as you say, simply “one.” Yes, it means one in the phrase “Abraham was one” and equally “one” in the phrase “one flesh.” How is it that BDB, Halot etc, standard lexicons of biblical Hebrew, know nothing about complex unity with reference to echad? This is because echad invariably means “one” and not more. One flesh is not two fleshes!
In the Greek Scripture, as recorded by Mark, YHWH is defined as one single Lord. To say the Father is YHWH and Jesus is YHWH makes two YHWH’s — one too many. The whole complicated distinction between “person” and “being” I reject on a biblical basis. God is one Person and one Being, signalled by thousands of singular personal pronouns.
Do you personally approve the Athanasian Creed?
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
Michael K,
Let me make these points:
1. Heb 1:1-2 says that God did not speak in a Son in OT times. You’re suggesting the opposite.
2. You say that the third in the group of 3 was God Himself, yet nobody has seen God at any time.
3. It is standard Jewish teaching that Abraham looked forward to Messiah’s day.
4. Ego eimi in John 8:58 means “I am he” (i.e. the Messiah) as in its first occurrence in John 4.
5. The rabbis said that the name of the Messiah was named before the creation in Genesis – his name not his person. As Peter says he was foreknown before the foundation of the world.
6. Since Jesus is the son of David, it should be obvious that he is not older than his own forefather. The coming into existence of the Son of God is carefully delineated in two full accounts in Matt and Luke.
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
Erlend,
Thank you for your remarks. Gathercole is suitably taken to task on a number of important issues by James Dunn’s review in Review of Biblical Literature 4/2007.
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5607_6160.pdf
My point was that none of the occurrences of the word God in the NT can be shown to mean the triune God. See the major studies by Catholic Rahner and Protestant Harris. This means that when NT writers say “God” they never mean the triune God.
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
Joelle,
It appears that you’re missing the whole point of the discussion about echad. The question is, What does the word “one” say about God, if echad, in and of itself, simply means “one” — whether referring to something of compound unity or absolute unity? We all agree that God is one, but what is the nature of this one God?
That is the point that the Unitarians here seem to be talking around.
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
To further explain what I mean-the word echad is not even speaking about its components. For example when I say “I own ONE car”am I referring to the tires?NO! The word echad means one so there is one car with many components,but the car is one when I said the word one I was discussing the car not the doors of the car.So when i say there is one g-d, I mean one and only one! So when you ask “well what about the components”? The answer is that even if there are components those COMPONENTS are NOT G-D, just like the tires are not a car!Yet the trinitarians want us to believe that the component namely -Jesus-was also g-d which is like saying that the chair is a dinette, the hand is a person,and the walls are a house.So basically when we say one we arent even speaking of the components.
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
Anthony,
I remained disturbed by your selective and misleading quotations of F. F. Bruce; I remained concerned about your failure to deal with the obvious contextual meaning of Ps 102 as quoted in Heb 1 (as affirmed by serious scholar after scholar); and I remain surprised that you are not aware of the point that is being made with regard to echad (see my brief note to Joelle, above).
As for being at a loss by what I mean by absolute unity, are you unaware of what traditional Jews mean by the word — which is why I use in my discussion as well?
Also, why do you continue to downplay the rabbinic exegesis — backed by biblical usage — of the meaning of echad in Deut 6:4, which is in harmony with the rest of the scriptural testimony of the fact that there is only one God?
As for multiple Yahwehs, that is simply your fallacious reading of what I and others believe, based on the testimony of the Word of God.
As for creeds, with all respect to Church history, I prefer not to focus on them but rather on the biblical text.
As to your some of your responses to Michael K. — e.g., your sixth point, above — it’s hard for me to take your points seriously, although I’m sure you intend them as such.
But again, I hesitate to have further dialog based on your utter disregard for clear scriptural testimony and your misleading citations of others.
Are you open to the real possibility that your position is wrong?
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Erlend,
Here are the precise words of F.F. Bruce, and I’m delighted that his keen insight can be more widely heard:
“On the preexistence question, one can at least accept the preexistence of the eternal Word or Wisdom of God, which (who?) became incarnate in Jesus. But whether any NT writer believed in his separate conscious existence as a second Divine Person before his incarnation, is not so clear. On balance I think the fourth evangelist did so believe; I am not nearly so sure about Paul. Paul identifies Christ with the created Word or Wisdom of God, which certainly existed as long as God did. The fourth evangelist goes further and speaks of the personal preexistence of the Son.” (June 1981 letter)
I would recommend a thorough reading of J.A.T. Robinson’s Priority of John, the section on Christology. An intense Bible study. He goes further than Bruce and denies that the Son as distinct from ‘word’ preexisted. Bruce has this good statement about Robinson:
“John Robinson’s strength lies in NT scholarship to which he brings a lively and well-informed mind, not too much hampered by deference to currently accepted wisdom” (1981).
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
Anthony,
One more point: What does it prove when people who wholeheartedly reject my position are not impressed with my arguments? No more than it proves the identical thing when scholars shake their head with incredulity at your arguments, yet you cite these points as if it somehow proves a point you are making. Obviously, that is not the case.
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
Anthony,
Your posting of Bruce’s correspondence came after my posts went up, so one further question for you:
Aside from the fact that we have a massive amount of published work by Bruce that deals with many of these issues — including his clear understanding that the author of Hebrews spoke of the preexistence of the Son — do you accept his testimony about John? If not, why quote him as an authority when, despite whatever cautions he communicated to you about some ideas, he made clear his views about John, views which I and a host of NT scholars affirm?
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
Dr.Brown,how would you respond to my point?
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Anthony,why do you keep proving your point from what the Rabbis say whan you don’t even believe in most of their teachings?
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
Michael,
Again, could you please provide an example phrase to illustrate what you mean by absolute unity?
Secondly, the Shema in the Greek scriptures speaks of one YHWH, and of God as the Father 1300 times. Paul constantly defines the one God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have difficulty in believing that a singular personal pronoun denotes a tri-personal being.
On Heb 1 may I ask you to carefully inspect ZNW 3 (1902) p. 280ff by B.W. Bacon of Yale. He points out that Psa 102 is Messianic and eschatological and fits exactly with Heb 2:5 “the world to come about which we are speaking.” The Hebrews writer of course is citing the LXX and not the Masoretic text.
I agree that Bruce does not confirm Bacon’s point in detail in regard to the future creation. Bruce however allows for the possibility that Hebrews ascribes creative agency to Christ “on other grounds [than his work in preexistence].” Bacon notes that Psa 102:18 (”the people which shall be created”) connects with the Pauline doctrine of the new creation. The past tense of course is a past tense of prophecy and in the context of Messianic eschatology in Psa 102 refers to the future redemption of Zion. The point is that Jesus is the head of the new creation and nowhere claims to have been the creator in Gen 1.
From Bruce’s words to me above you can see that he is weighing the options as between “who” and “which” as the proper pronoun for “Word.”
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Zvi,
What the rabbis have to say about the OT and the Messiah is extremely valuable as background information. All NT studies pay close attention to Jewish writings.
February 11th, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Anthony,
I’m quite surprised to hear that since they disagree with you about the fundamentals of Jesus and Moshiach.
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Michael,
My point about Bruce was that he is doubtful about the preexistent Son in Paul. He also equates word and wisdom which is standard in many commentaries as you know. I find it highly significant that Bruce does not share your confidence about Paul and the preexistent Son.
I still don’t understand how one can say the Father is YHWH and Jesus is YHWH yet this amounts to one YHWH. What am I missing here?
Dunn holds the view that to say Jesus is YHWH is heretical. Why all this conflict? It cries out for a solution. Thanks for making all this discussion possible here.
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
Anthony,
Alas, my last post just vanished and must be written again:
1) Let’s go by what Bruce put in print, OK? His views confirm what I believe and refute what you believe. Will you follow him here?
2) You continue to misrepresent (willfully or not, I do not know) what I have written about echad in vol. 2 of my series, and there is not a syllable in any of the lexicons that refutes a word of what I have written. (Adam’s post is quite on target in this regard.)
3) Why do you continue to obfuscate about Bruce’s position on Hebrews 1 and Psalm 102? Your reference to his footnote to Bacon in no way minimizes his 100% rejection of the interpretation you espouse, as I quoted earlier, and he thoroughly refutes your views on John 1 re: the preexistent Son. For the life of me, I can’t see why you continue to quote him, since you you reject what he does say clearly.
4) A rock is an absolute unity; “adam”, as created in Genesis 1, was a complex unity, having within him the reality of male and female.
5) Would you be kind enough to show me where I said the exact words “Jesus is YHWH”? I don’t recall using that specific phrase.
May I ask you once more: Since you are fond of quoting both Dunn and Bruce, yet neither of them were (or are) unitarians, are you willing to repudiate your research in place of their conclusions?
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
Adam,
Great post, and thanks for helping to help folks understand what we’re talking about here.
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
Dr Brown
Why not? Is it beacause at times you break with the creedal formulas when you confess “Jesus is YHWH”? Thus, “confounding the persons within the One God”?
As you know the creed says thus:
As far as I can understand this ’slippery slope’ of a doctrine, each member of the Godhead has a name [i.e. the Father's name is YHWH, the Son's name is Jesus], and its adherents cannot “confuse” the persons” by applying their respective name to one or the other.
Is this correct?
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
Dr.brown,again I ask, how would you respond to my point?
February 11th, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
Chuck,
My focus is on the biblical text, which keeps me busy enough. Others can interact with the creeds, but I’m not expert in them, so I keep my focus where I have my expertise. End of subject.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:00 am
Zvi,
Which comment, please? I have primarily focused on dealing with Anthony’s comments recently.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:03 am
Dr. Brown,
my point at 9:43 and 10:30
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:29 am
Zvi,
Just think of a triangle example……three separate corners but still one triangle. Without one corner, the triangle does not exist. God the Father does not exist without His Word and His Spirit.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:40 am
Michael,
A car cannot exist without a steering wheel, but a steering wheel is not a car. A triangle cannot exist without corners but a corner cannot be regarded as a triangle. According to you Jesus is a component of g-d but he himself is not g-d.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:49 am
Michael,
In other words whenever the ot mentions g-d he is referring to the triangle not to the corners just like when you address me you aren’t speaking about my fingers!
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:08 am
Anthony Buzzard,
You said:
“1. Heb 1:1-2 says that God did not speak in a Son in OT times. You’re suggesting the opposite.”
He may not have been referred to as the Son in old times, but God certainly appeared as a man in those days at different times, and there is only one who is known as the image of the invisible God.
You said:
“2. You say that the third in the group of 3 was God Himself, yet nobody has seen God at any time.”
Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He shared in God the Father’s glory before the world existed (John 17:5).
You said:
“3. It is standard Jewish teaching that Abraham looked forward to Messiah’s day.”
Abraham “looked forward” (future tense) and “saw it” (past tense)
You said:
“4. Ego eimi in John 8:58 means “I am he” (i.e. the Messiah) as in its first occurrence in John 4.”
Not one Bible translation from John 8:58 says “I am he”, not even the footnotes raise this possibility
You said:
“5. The rabbis said that the name of the Messiah was named before the creation in Genesis – his name not his person. As Peter says he was foreknown before the foundation of the world.”
The rabbis don’t even believe that Jesus is the Messiah nor do most of them believe in a suffering messiah, so why use the rabbis for your argument?
You said:
“6. Since Jesus is the son of David, it should be obvious that he is not older than his own forefather. The coming into existence of the Son of God is carefully delineated in two full accounts in Matt and Luke.”
See John 17:5
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:21 am
Zvi,
In the example, I address the Father, who uses His Word and Spirit to help me. They are part of Him.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:25 am
Michael,
g-d never appeared in human form.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:34 am
Michael,
So is the father a third corner or is he the complete triangle?
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:35 am
Zvi,
You seem pretty matter of fact there. Regarding God appearing in human form, see Genesis 18. You can assume this was an angel but the text never says that. And going back to God having multiple persons in His existence, Genesis 1:26 ought to give anyone a good indication. Genesis 3:8 says He was “walking” in the garden.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:39 am
Zvi,
You can’t perfectly explain God using a triangle….just trying to give you an example. Same way you can say God’s triunity is like water, trying to make the distinction that water has liquid, ice, and vapor forms, but it’s still water. These are just examples. We’d all be genuine know-it-alls if we could completely explain God’s existence.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:45 am
Genesis 18 cannot be referring to jesus since in chapter 19:2 the other 2 individuals are addressed as alef,daled,nun,yud and they all came in the form of man so all 3 had to have the same status and in christianity only one comes in human form! Genesis 1 does not speak of a human.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:48 am
Michael.
If one cannot explain how it fits with echad then the argument must be rejected.
February 12th, 2010 @ 2:02 am
Michael K
Gen18:1 The Lord appeared
18:2 Three Men
Gen19:1 We see two are Angels
19:10 Now one man left? The Angel of the Lord?
Two of the three men are with out doubt Angels?
That leaves the other man in 19:10 as ?
God appears consistently in the OT through the Angel of the Lord.
Ex3,Gen32,Hos12:3-4, Jud6,13 etc…
The Angel of the Lord is not the pre existent Christ.
When it says He walked in the cool of the day it is anthropomorphic language.
February 12th, 2010 @ 2:03 am
Hi Michael K – it’s very likely it was an Angel… and If God had a bodily form in Gen 1 then he also has wings, see psalm 91…
February 12th, 2010 @ 7:27 am
Anthony,
Thank you for the reply, and taking the time to type up the letter. I agree with Dr Brown though that we probably should rely on Bruce’s published works, rather than, as I have said, refer to thoughts he never thought fit to express in publication. As I have shown as well, in two books subsequent to your exchange F. F. references both John and Paul’s belief in the pre-existent Jesus. It would seem that Fred’s unvoiced ruminations about Christ’s pre-exstence were never taken any further- and that Fred never met for us to do this for him. Other than this we will need to reconstruct the ‘historical F. F. Bruce’ from written, oral and agrapha sources. Perhaps we will reach the F. F. Bruce of history and the F. F. Bruce of faith. This was also thirty-odd years ago, a lot of study has been done since then, most moving in the direction of pre-existence- although I understand wanting to get the ‘dean of evangelical scholarship” to appeal to. Have you read Aquila Lee’s From Messiah to Pre-Existent Son by the way?-another study by an Aberdonian scholar on Christ’s pre-existence].
I will read Dunn’s review in more detail. I was a student of Gathercole’s while his book was about to be published, and he lead us through it in a class or two. I remember hearing about the exchange between Gathercole and Dunn on the issue of pre-exstence at SBL.
I would also like to argue that refraining from considering Bauckham’s exegesis of 1 Cor 8 because of an overarching belief in the Unitarian belief of scripture is a handy ‘get out clause’ to engage with texts of scripture that do show that Jesus was seen to be part of the Godhead. I also rather think that Hurtado’s, and others, work on the monotheism of second temple Judaism has shown how Christ could be incorporated into their understanding of God, without creating a wholy unexplained fissure between Judaism and Christianity. Although I presume that somewhere you will have interacted with Hurtado.
February 12th, 2010 @ 7:39 am
Erlend,
Great post!
Zvi,
My book (vol. 2) which is on the way to you will clear these matters up — including Genesis 18.
February 12th, 2010 @ 7:46 am
Yeah Zvi – remember “The Arm of YHWH” and “The Angel of YHWH”? That is Yeshua in my opinion. A part of YHWH.
February 12th, 2010 @ 8:27 am
Dr Brown
I thought you base your beliefs on the creedal statements since “neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).” [Encyclopedia Britannica, "Trinity" article]
February 12th, 2010 @ 10:20 am
Chuck,
Please provide the full quote next time. Your selective quote was misleading. Talking about the later developments [such as the homoosian issue] the encyclopedia states:
‘Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4)’ BUT it goes on to state, as I and Dr Brown will affirm that: … ‘the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126, 1979)
So Scripture provides the basis and exegetical warrant for our understanding of the Trinity. I don’t know anyone, excluding perhaps some of the more Catholic persuasion, who believes in the Trinity just because a creed says it. The creeds themselves were based upon working with the text of scripture. Given that this entire conversation has been on what the Bible teaches I’m sure that you know that though. Presumably your question was framed as such so you could, inaccurately, cite an encyclopedia entry from over thirty years ago.
February 12th, 2010 @ 10:43 am
Erlend,
Modern commentators and historians universally agree with the simple fact that the doctrine of the Trinity “developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies”. Shouldn’t that in and of itself alert you to its spuriousness?
If you’re an honest truth seeker and God-fearing invidual you should at least do what some of us did when confronted with this fact, reexamine the Catholc creeds against what the biblical testimony says.
February 12th, 2010 @ 11:53 am
Chuck,
Thank you for the good advice. I whole heartedly agree. I heard about the Trinity from infancy, from scripture. I only heard the Nicean creed when I started studying theology. As for the developments, I am not particularly perturbed by this fact. Scripture is full of references and teachings that then need to be systematized and reflected upon. Think about the debate recently between Brown and White on election as a perfect example of this type of practice. Every theological faculty will (should) have a systematics department devoted to this. Indeed, almost every doctrine has undergone this process- can you name one that has not? I imagine you are referencing the creeds because it helps you paint the picture that it is all just the product of a man-made committee. It is not. Have a look at MacMullen’s book ‘Voting About God in Early Church Councils’ to look at the plethora of councils, and their topics, gathered from the 4th-6th centuries.
What is essential, for those of us committed to scripture as God’s inspired, timeless word, is to be as confident as we can in believing the creeds we recite could also be found comfortably expressed upon the lips of the apostle’s as well (as anachronism as that would be). From scripture I firmly believe the apostles would sign the Nicean creed. But lets talk about that. You are the only one referencing creeds.
February 12th, 2010 @ 11:58 am
I want to emphatically state that I am not confused or wrestling with my own beliefs. I know what I believe, and this is part of my beliefs:
There is one God; his name is Yahweh. He is also referred to as ‘elohiym, o theos, and God. These are titles, not names. The plurality of ‘elohiym is an indication of his overwhelming power as the sole creator of the universe.
There is one unique son of Yahweh; his name is Yeshua. He is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 1:24. Yeshua cannot be a “god/man”, the incarnate God, or whatever unbiblical term one chooses to use; he is fully human, just as his mother was fully human. To be anything else would violate Genesis 1:24 where Yahweh declared “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind”. Being fully human, as the rest of us are, he cannot physically pre-date his own birth. Yeshua is the human agent through which Yahweh brought reconciliation and salvation to the world. Yeshua is the first human to be resurrected from the dead, and he now sits at the right hand of Yahweh. He does not share the throne of Yahweh because Yahweh gave Yeshua his own throne.
The Holy Spirit is not the “third person of the trinity”. The Holy Spirit is the Ruach HaKodesh, or the “breath of Yahweh”. Just as my own breath does not become a separate entity when it leaves my body, neither does the “breath of Yahweh”, or the Ruach HaKodesh become a separate entity from Yahweh. The Ruach HaKodesh is one of the many powers of Yahweh hinted at in the title of ‘elohiym. The Ruach HaKodesh is the power of Yahweh residing in me, just as it resided in Yeshua. It is the Ruach HaKodesh who gives me the power to be just like my Lord and Savior, Yeshua.
The logos (word) of Yahweh is the spoken thoughts of Yahweh. Just as my logos does not become a separate individual from me after I speak them and “stand by them”, the logos of Yahweh did not become a separate physical person after they were spoken. The logos of Yahweh is another demonstration of his power. When Yahweh speaks, things happen. Yahweh said “light be”, and look at what happened. The logos of Yahweh “caused flesh to be” when the earth (ground) was created, but the logos of Yahweh did not “make” Adam. Yahweh formed Adam from the dust of the ground which was brought into existence through his logos. Therefore the logos of Yahweh cannot become a man because that is not how Yahweh created the first man, Adam.
The problems I have is with this “trinity” (a word not in the Bible) to place a “incarnate” (another word not in the Bible) in the “Godhead” (a misleading word with no basis) thereby creating a “god/man” (impossible) who is 100% God and 100% man (which would make him 200% and outside of any reasonable understanding). How can Yeshua be Yahweh, and the Father be Yahweh (making one Yahweh) without causing one or the other totally disappear?
Sir Isaac Newton once said “A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.” I believe this doctrine of the trinity to be one such example that cannot reasonably be understood or explained since it relies totally on the creation of new words, as well as the redefination of existing words in order to make it work.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Carmen,
Concerning Jesus being one with the Father, check out John 14:6-11:
——————-
Yes he did say that. Yeshua is in total agreement with his Father and thereby is “one” with him. Just as I am in agreement with my husband, and have become “one” with him.
Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
——————-
If Yeshua is Yahweh then when I reach Yeshua there is no need to go any farther because I have reached Yahweh. However, since Yeshua is “the door” and I must go through “the door” in order to reach Yahweh. When one declares Yeshua to be Yahweh then they have stopped outside the door and have not reached the very one Yeshua came to reconcile all of mankind to.
Michael K says:
February 11, 2010 at 8:11 pm
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
——————-
Yeshua said “the Father is in me”. I can say the same thing, “the Father is in me” because I have the deposit of the Ruach HaKodesh on the inside of me. Does that make me part of the “Godhead” like you are trying to make Yeshua part of the “Godhead”? Shouldn’t we as Christians reflect Yeshua, who is the reflection of Yahweh?
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
Zvi, Paul, and Johnny,
You should know that the Word of God can appear anyway he wants. Is it not possible to you that the man called Lord in Genesis 18 who spoke as God, WAS God in human appearance? And even if you assume this was an angel, there is nothing that absolutely says an angel must have wings, besides the point that the Lord here was never referred to as an angel. In fact, the 2 angels mentioned in Genesis 19 were described as men in Genesis 18, giving no indication of a winged-figure. Also, in Judges 13:16, it says Manoah was speaking to a man he did not know was the angel of the Lord, so he clearly thought he was speaking to a man. Now let’s take another look at how the Word of God can change forms. In Mark 9:2-3, you can see that Jesus was transfigured when Elijah and Moses appeared to him on the mountain. Also, Acts 9:3-7 shows Jesus appearing as a bright light to Paul.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο (John 1:14, Greek)
et verbum caro factum est (John 1:14, Latin)
and the word was made flesh (John 1:14, English)
Carmen, above is the biblical account of the incarnation. For something to be “made flesh” necessitates preexistence, and as we see in the preceding verses of John 1, the Word indeed preexisted. I’ve included the Latin to help you see where our English word “incarnate” (and all its cognates) come from. What is rendered σαρξ in Greek and “flesh” in English is rendered “caro” in Latin. “Caro” is the nominative case whereas in the genitive it becomes “carnis,” ablative “carne” etc. So you see, to be “in-carnate” (”incarnatus,” “having become flesh”) literally means to be “in the flesh.” The concept of incarnation appears in all translations of John 1:14, and to paraphrase the the verse as “the Word was incarnated” would certainly be correct.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
Carmen,
John 1:14 says the logos “became” flesh and dwelt among us. You said “the logos of Yahweh did not become a separate physical person”. How can you reconcile the two if you only believe Jesus was 100% human, discounting his divine nature? No one can logically make sense of this, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.
Also, Jesus said “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”. That’s because he is the image of the invisible God. It’s not something your brain can logically make sense of.
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Zvi,
Genesis 1:26 – “Let us….”
February 12th, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man
So I guess God only created one man in his image?
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
Carmen,
I think you know the answer to that, but I don’t see the point you are trying to make.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
Michael,
The next verse says “he” created, not they!
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Sirs,
Will you stipulate that YHVH is a God of order and discipline? Will you stipulate that YHVH is a God of logic, reason, and common sense?
I was born into a devote Catholic family and, of course, raised as one. One cannot be more Trinitarian than a Catholic. Yet, I struggled with this concept from day one. It defied logic, reason, and common sense. How can one equal three? Or how can three equal one? The math does not compute. Nuns and Priests could not explain this paradox to me. I was told to “have faith”. So I pushed it to the back of my mind and tried not to ponder upon it. Yet, I was nagged by it from time to time. No matter how I tried I could not make it fit. When I turned 18 years of age in 1971, I enlisted in the Marine Corps. In 1986 I was hired by the United States Border Patrol. Logic, reason, and common sense became integral to me simply because of the nature of my business, both as a Marine and as a Federal Agent. I drifted away from the “Church” because logic, reason and common sense seemed to be seriously lacking.
In the winter of 1978, I was sitting in a small Missionary Church in Glennallen, AK, (my wife at the time insisted I take her to church), when the logic, reason, and common sense of salvation dawned on me. I immediately asked for that salvation. I guess I expected fireworks and shouts of halleluiah, but nothing happened. I waited until the next Sunday and I prayed again. Then I heard a voice as clear as if someone were standing next to me and speaking, “I heard you the first time. It is taken care of”. I knew instinctively that this was the voice of YHVH.
I bought myself a Bible. I began to read it. I read it every day. I read it from cover to cover more than once. I went to church. Several different denominations. The concept of God the Son and a triune God was ever present in the teachings of the different churches. I could not reconcile these teaching with what I was reading in scripture. I tried. I tried very hard. Yet it still was not logical, reasonable, or common sense. Not for a God who is a God of good order and discipline.
One day while investigating another Christian discussion board I stumbled upon a fierce, hot debate about this very subject. Within the thread there were recommendations to different websites and books. I went to the websites and bought the books. What I learned is this; YHVH is not triune. He is one. Yeshua is the Son of God, not God the Son. The more Trinitarians try to explain that Yeshua is God the Son the more convoluted and confused the explanation becomes.
Once I discarded the triune God concept completely it all made sense to me. Logically, reasonability, and with common sense. I have learned the truth and the truth has set me free. I am a peace with it.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Zvi,
So why is “us” used at all then?
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
John 1:14 is a very interesting verse.
Kai o logos sarx egeneto
“And the word flesh caused to be”
It cannot be “became flesh”, nor can it be “made flesh” because the logos never “made flesh”. Yahweh formed man from the dust of the earth. The dust of the earth was brought into existence by the logos of Yahweh. Therefore the “logos flesh caused to be”.
kai eskenosen en emin
“and dwelt inside (as a tent) us”
This sounds like the deposit or earnest of the Ruach HaKodesh to me.
kai etheasametha
“and we saw (or beheld)”
Now these next words are very interesting to me. It seems as if the translators suffered from some form of dyslexia here. It was the rearrangement of these words that caused me to take a closer look at this verse and question the motivation of the translators:
Ten doxan autou doxan
It literally reads “the glory his glory”, however it is translated as “his glory the glory”. There are words “the” and “his” are transposed which brings the attention back to the logos when the attention should be on the glory of the flesh in which Yahweh dwells inside as one would dwell inside a tent. And I believe Yeshua was the first human to house the glory of Yahweh (the Ruach HaKodesh) in this manner.
Os monogenous para patros
“as the unique son of the Father”
Yeshua is not the only son. He is the unique son. It is through this unique human son that many sons are brought unto glory.
Pleres chariots kai aletheias
“complete in grace and truth”
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
If one uses Genesis 1:27 to define “man” as plural …
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
… then one must also take note of the singular pronoun used to define God.
February 12th, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Michael K, the divine nature in Yeshua is the same divine nature inside all Christians. The divine nature is the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit). I guess one could call this a supernatural phenomenon.
February 12th, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
Carmen,
It still never answers the question about “us” in Genesis 1:26. And your analysis of John 1:14 is an incredible example of special pleading, especially attributing dyslexia to the translators. To make things fit the logic you covet, there seems to always be an issue with translation anywhere Scripture mentions divinity of the Son. You might as well throw out the whole Bible with that logic.
February 12th, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Francis,
Thanks for you post. You ask, “Will you stipulate that YHVH is a God of order and discipline? Will you stipulate that YHVH is a God of logic, reason, and common sense?” I will stipulate that I am captive to God’s Word, which often is beyond my small, human thinking, and whatever Scriptures teaches, I must embrace.
As a Jew, reading the Hebrew Scriptures with great intensity and interest, what caused things to fall in place for me was God’s complex unity (or, tri-unity).
February 12th, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
No Michael K, my logic does not mean I throw out the whole Bible. I am not questioning the validity of the Bible. I am questioning the validity of the doctrines of men, starting with the Council of Nicaea.
Just as singular “man” in Genesis 1:26 is defined as “them” in 1:27 the plural “us” used by God in Genesis 1:26 is defined by the singular “his” and “he” in Genesis 1:27.
I have run out of time and must get ready for work. I will return tomorrow to continue this delightful discussion.
February 12th, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
Francis,
In the words of C. S. Lewis, when talking about the Trinity:
‘This definition is not something we have made up; Theology is, in a sense, an experimental science. It is simple religions that are the made-up ones….If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we?’- Mere Christianity, Chapter Twenty-Four
What do you expect Francis if you believe you are dealing with almighty God? Simplicity? No, of course not. The sign of a man-made religion is its simplicity, because it is exactly what man wants to make God into.
February 12th, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Carmen, ‘man’ is a ‘generic singular’ if you will, talking about mankind as a whole. If I want to argue that ‘man has destroyed the planet’ I don’t mean one particular man has done this. It is singular because I am talking about the totality of man. That is why there is the interplay between plural and singular.
February 12th, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Carmen,
The doctrines of men, even starting with the Council of Nicaea, show no sign of original texual change of the NT, regarding the divine nature of Jesus. Nor does it change the fact of the divine nature of the man called Lord in Genesis 18.
Your attempt to dance around “us” in Genesis 1:26 only continues to make your logic fester. Countless amounts of Scripture point to God’s tri-personal existence. It doesn’t make perfect sense to everyone, so they’re gonna do what they can to make it fit right in their mind, even going so far as to make every divine reference to Jesus a “mistranslation”.
February 12th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
Dr. Brown
I thank you for your response. Most interesting. I am, sir, aware of your academic acumen. I had, at one time, considered applying to attend your school, based on your Jewish background and your expertise in the original languages of the Scriptures. Although I do not possess your knowledge of near eastern Semitic Languages, I have taken it upon myself to learn Hebrew and am reading the Tanach in that language as best I can. I am not fluent in the language.
Although you repeated my questions in your response, you made no stipulations one way or the other.
It is not my desire, not my place to try and convince anyone of my position on this subject. My sincere belief is in one God who is indeed complex in his nature and intellect just as I am complex in nature and intellect. Not that God is a complex God because he is composed of three distinct people.
Yeshua is indeed made in the image of the invisible God, but then so am I, as stated in Genesis 1:26.
February 12th, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
Erlend:
I have read C. S. Lewis. We are not discussing religion here. We are discussing the nature and/or divinity of Jesus. I would expect more than an ad hominem attack on my intelligence in this forum simply because I don’t agree with you.
Scripture reads that YHVH’s ways are higher than our ways and that his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. YHVH has condescended to us, his creation, since the beginning of time so that we can understand him as he has gradually revealed himself to us.
Scripture also states that YHVH uses the simple things of the world to confound the wise.
It is as simple or complicated as you want make it.
February 12th, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Francis,
Yeshua was not “made” in the image of God. He IS the image of the invisible God. Not a good idea to rewrite Scripture. (Proverbs 30:5-6)
February 12th, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
Francis,
Looking at your response just now to me I was immediately shamed by the fact that I must have misunderstood you, but I still can’t see this. You argued that:
_______
‘The more Trinitarians try to explain that Yeshua is God the Son the more convoluted and confused the explanation becomes.Once I discarded the triune God concept completely it all made sense to me. Logically, reasonability, and with common sense.’
______
That seems to be the thrust of your post. I replied that the fact that the Trinity is ‘convoluted’ and not simple or ‘common sens[icle]‘ is a major indication to me that this is, indeed, the revelation of an almighty God. Its exactly what we should expect from a divine power. I have re-read my statements and I can’t see how making that point implies you are of a lesser intelligence, or why you lambasted me for making an ad hominen and apparently degrading the board. Please re-read what I have said. I am quite used to engaging with people, and I know the proper decorum to employ and respect due to people. If you still wish to maintain that the fact that understanding the nature of God is too complex so can’t be scriptural I would like to discuss that with you- especially as you presented that as your primary reason for discarding the Trinity- although I know you will have other reasons.
February 12th, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
Francis,
Keep plugging away in the Hebrew. It’s worth it!
February 12th, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
Erlend,
Where in scripture is it mentioned that God is triune? Where is the word “trinity”?
I cited the creeds because their the ones who teach and define the Trinity. No where in scripture, as the commentaries, dictionaries and history books agree, is it taught. I would imagine that as a believer of any doctrine you would cite whatever confession of faith you adhere to, wouldn’t you? As we unitarians do when we cite the exclusive monotheistic creed of Jesus and the Apostles [Mar 12.29; 1Cor 8.4-6; James 2.19; Jude 25].
Yet, no Catholic-Protestant church teaches it nor even mentions such a foundational belief. A belief which we are told you must belief in in order not only to be accepted into the “Christian community” but in order to be saved!
Thank you for the book advice. How about When Jesus Became God?The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein?
February 12th, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
After listening to the broadcast and reading comments, I want to go back to this ’special pleading’ allegation on Hebrews 1. The context from the first 9 verses helps us when we get to verse 10.
Observations from Hebrews 1:1-9, that the Son:
1) spoke to us in these last days (inferring he didn’t speak prior)
2) has become greater than angels
3) got an inheritance
4) was begotten (as in brought into existence)
5) was anointed by his God
Is it just me or does anyone else see a contrast between the Son and the self-existant, God of Israel ?
The O.T. clearly tells us God was alone when He made the heavens and the earth (there is no co-creator).
‘Special pleading’ seems to be rampant when we get to clear N.T. verses that should have no room to misunderstand.
John 17:3 – “This is eternal life, that they know you the ONLY true God, and Messiah Yeshua who you have sent”
1 Cor 8:6 – “To us there is one God, the Father…”
Eph 1:3 – “Blessed be the God and Father of our Messiah Yeshua….”
Rev 3:12 – “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
John 8:17-18 “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true.”I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
Yeshua saw himself and the Father as 2 individuals not one!
There is one God and Yeshua has a God. If Yeshua is God, then there are certainly 2 Gods and the Shema of Israel is a fraud.
Dr Brown said:
‘Denying Yeshua’s deity’ sounds bad. It’s kinda like when pro-abortion activists say to us pro-lifers ‘ You’re denying a woman’s right to choose’ The truth is we simply are standing up for life and consider abortion murder. Likewise, ‘denying Yeshua’s deity’ really is affirming the identity and supremacy of the one true God of Israel.
I am very grateful that by the grace of God, I have apostatized from the apostasy.
Paul tells us in Romans 10 and 11 that the Gentiles are to provoke the Jews to jealousy. I assure you that non-hellenistic Jews that are remotely Torah observant have never been or will be jealous of people that have for their God – a god that is tri-une, under the guise that He is also the same God that Abraham, Moses and David knew and loved.
It’s time to once again to, as put in Jude 3 “…stoutly defend the truth that God gave once for all to his people to keep without change through the years” (TLB)
Let’s no longer mistake Yeshua for Almighty God, but acknowledge that he is the Lord Messiah (Ps 110:1, Matt 16:16, Acts 2:36)
February 12th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Michael,
Thank you for giving an example of absolute unity in the phrase “a rock.” Do you mean “one rock”? If so then “one” can mean absolute unity (cp. “one rod” in Num. 17:3). Yet on page 4 of your book you say, “Echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity.”
The semantic value of “one” in the phrase “one rock” is exactly the same as in “one flesh.” I’m astonished that this discussion fails to see that the numeral one means one and not more than one! Yes, the adjective “one” can modify a collective noun — but the meaning of “one” is not changed by the collective noun (or determined by the context)! One could have one triune God, in which phrase the word “one” is still only “one.”
What convinces the biblical unitarian are the thousands of pronouns and verbs which are grammatically singular and thus define God as one Person. That is what singular personal pronouns do. We need to turn our attention to the Greek text of the Shema where YHWH is defined as “one Lord.”
I’m heartened to hear you say, Michael, that you never said “Jesus is YHWH.” However Trinitarians constantly maintain exactly that. If you ask them how, since the Father is YHWH, Jesus is YHWH, that makes 2 YHWH’s, they then go silent and retreat into “mystery.” The phrase “I am YHWH” tells us that YHWH is one Person since “I” is a singular personal pronoun. This has been the major point of unitarians for centuries, and extensively written on in the 1800s.
Bruce is no less informative in private letters than he is in printed books, and I’m honored that he provided me with such valuable information.
May I ask you to tell me please whether you subscribe to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son? Do you approve the idea that “Today” in Psalm 2:7 means an eternal, endless day? This as you know has been a main pillar of classical Trinitarianism. Generation has to do with origin as we know, and so it is important to see what the Bible has to say about the coming into existence or origin of the Son of God.
February 12th, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Michael K,
Yes, Abraham “saw” the Messiah’s future day with the eyes of faith and rejoiced at the prospect of the Messiah.
Was that the Son of God in the Old Testament or not? How do you know it wasn’t an angel representing God?
You are misreading John 17:5. Glory there is glory as promised, and the same glory had already been given to disciples not yet even born in 17:22!
The main difficulty with your position is you have not started by examining the origin of the Son in Matthew and Luke. So let me point out that the “genesis,” coming into existence of the Son is described in Matt 1:18. In 1:20 “that which was caused to come into existence” is the work of the holy spirit, God’s operational presence and power. It would be contradictory therefore to say that the Son was already in existence when both Matthew and Luke describe the point of time when he was caused to come into existence.
Why is “ego eimi” translated “I am he” on every other occasion except John 8:58? Is this consistent? Barrett says, “Ego eimi does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. ‘I am the one – the one you must look at and listen to if you would know God.’” Consistency requires that ego eimi be translated here as everywhere else as “I am he, I am the one.” Taking our cue from John 4:26 we find that it means “I am the Messiah.” John wrote his whole book to prove that Jesus is the Messiah (20:31).
What the rabbis say about the promised Messiah is still relevant – he was “foreknown” as Peter said but not actually existing.
February 12th, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
Anthony,
I must confess my frustration with the fact that you really fail to engage key issues I have raised. So, let me ask you some direct questions for response:
1) Do you accept what F. F. Bruce put in print as representing his position, in particular regarding the preexistent Son in Hebrews 1, in John, and, as Erlend pointed out, in Paul as well?
2) Since neither Dunn nor Bruce were/are Unitarians, why cite them to back your cause? Will you follow them where they differ with you?
3) Are you willing to admit that your interpretation of Heb 1:10-12 violates the plain meaning of the text (and I remind you again of arche in the LXX!)? If not, and I’ll say this yet again, when you refuse to acknowledge a glaringly clear statement because of your presupposed beliefs, I find little reason to argue over niceties of grammar and lexicography in other, more disputable texts — and thus, see no possibility of true dialog. It would be one thing if you accepted the overwhelmingly clear scriptural testimony of the preexistence of the Son and then argued for his prior creation or begetting (as JW’s do. Then we could have a discussion. As long as you reject His preexistence, I see no possibility of discussion until you recant that first, massive erroneous part of your belief.
4) Why do you continue to ignore my discussion about echad as “alone” in vol. 2, despite my frequent references to it?
5) I refer to God with singular pronouns and never think of addressing the Lord as “they.” Why do you feel that your constant reference to these pronouns proves that He is not a tri-unity?
As for Ps 2:7, that is originally a coronation psalm of the Davidic king in the OT and is then applied to Yeshua’s resurrection in the NT.
One more re: echad: I’m truly astonished that you still don’t get my point: Echad neither speaks of absolute unity nor compound unity. That has been repeated ad infinitum, and I stated it explicitly in my book (which you still cite in less than forthcoming ways, which also is disconcerting in terms of academic integrity). And so, with “one rock,” one tells me how many rocks there are, not what is the nature of the one rock. “One God” tells me how many true and real gods/Gods there are — only One! — not the nature of that God. That’s why traditional Jews, even operating with an alleged absolute unity concept of God, still saw other aspects to His being, as documented in vol. 2), because He was the Eyn Sof, the Infinite One.
Again, I’m sorry to express my frustration with your posts here, but your evasion of the plain (and irresistible) sense of Hebrews 1, coupled with your misleading and selective quotations of Bruce, make me doubtful that we can have a constructive and fully honest dialog here.
February 12th, 2010 @ 10:12 pm
Thanks for your reply Chuck.
————-
Where in scripture is it mentioned that God is triune? Where is the word “trinity”?
————–
Theword ‘monotheism’ or ‘unitarian’ is not mentioned in the Bible either. You have to, as you have done, show scriptural support for your position. As neither ‘Trinity’ or ‘Unitarian/Monotheism’ is a scriptural term we are left in the same place. I don’t see why you think this is a problem for me, but not for you. Perhaps I am missing something.
I was taught the term Trinity and the scriptural warrant for it, not through any creeds- as I stated. In any case I can’t see the point in raising this question in the context in which it was asked as the Nicean creed itself doesn’t use the word ‘Trinity’! I am not sure when later creeds started using it.
——–
I cited the creeds because their the ones who teach and define the Trinity. No where in scripture, as the commentaries, dictionaries and history books agree, is it taught. I would imagine that as a believer of any doctrine you would cite whatever confession of faith you adhere to, wouldn’t you? As we unitarians do when we cite the exclusive monotheistic creed of Jesus and the Apostles [Mar 12.29; 1Cor 8.4-6; James 2.19; Jude 25].
———-
Well growing up in the Plymouth Brethren we have no confessions of faith. I didn’t really know there existed such things! Also you will know from this board that I believe that 1 Cor 8.4-6 perfectly demonsrates Jesus as God, which you have listed as a creed!
I do believe that practically all the teachings of the Trinity are outlined in scripture- at least the ones we will dispute. Whether Jesus sent the Spirit or the Father did, whether the homoousians or the homonianists were correct, that is more ambigious for me. But then I dont think it is those issues were are in conflict about.
I have not read Rubenstein’s work, or seen it referenced in any recent study on the Nicene Creed. I see he is a professor of conflict analysis and that it is more of a narrative account, so am I right in thinking this is a popular work, rather than a scholarly one? [a terrible distinction to make I know, but you know what I mean]. Why did you chose this source? Because it is most friendly to your position? Now nothing wrong with this, don’t get me wrong. None of those things are valid reasons to discredit someone’s opinions, but it is interesting to note what sources are utilized and why. Anyway, what especially about his quote do you think I would object to?
February 12th, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
Michael,
1. Yes, I accept both what Bruce put in print and what he wrote to me.
2. One is perfectly entitled to cite the strengths of someone else’s position without agreeing with every part of it.
3. No, and I don’t think you’ve had time to consider it fully or read the article by Bacon.
4. I fully understand that God is God alone, but in the NT quotation of the Shema, God is “one Lord.” One Lord is one Person.
5. Since you refer to God as “He” you are telling me, based on our common language, that you think He is one Person. That has been my point all along. If you believe in 3 Persons, wouldn’t the appropriate pronoun be “they”? Or if you are referring to God as an Essence, a “what,” the appropriate pronoun is “it.”
1300 references to God as the Father are decisive. You have not provided a single text in which the word God signifies the triune God. Will you please produce one?
Since you don’t say “Jesus is YHWH” what is the referent for YHWH in your thinking?
Ps 2:7 is applied to the beginning of Messiah’s life in Acts 13:33. See Bruce’s good comment in his Greek NT. Acts 13:34 refers to resurrection. Ps 2:7 also refers to the beginning of the Son in Heb 1:5 where it confirms 2 Sam 7:14.
Again I ask, do you believe in the eternal generation of the Son by which “today” does not register a point in time?
February 12th, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
Erlend,
Yes your right, but before the Catholic church twisted Jesus’ words regarding the meaning of the Shema and his Messianic titles of “Son of God, son of man, Messiah” [denoting a human being and not the Deity], scripture was understood as an exclusive monotheistic belief system. Note that all the so-called “Church Fathers” of antiquity were Gentiles from Greek philosophical hubs such as Alexandria and Rome.
And you never once doubted or questioned it? I’m surprised since you sound like a very discerning individual. I questioned it solely on the grounds that it contradicts the clear Jewish monotheistic belief of people such as Abraham, Moses and David. I am sure you would agree that they were not aware of a triune God. As Jesus and the teacher who asked him what the greatest commandment was in Mar 12.29.
So we are in agreement then that “the Father” is “the only one true God of Israel” and that Jesus is “the only one who is that God’s Messiah”?
In terms of the historical arguments and information of Rubinstein’s work, he is pretty spot on I think. You can check it out for yourself if your interested. It reads like a novel though, but that is not to say its a work of fiction.
The work is popular, as you might gather, among anti-trinitarians. But its interesting that Rubinstein himself is not a Christian, as far as I know his a non-practicing Jew. His interests lie in political conflict resolutions. Hence his involvement in the Christological controversies of the 4th-5th centuries.
You tell me if you object to any of the statements I posted, if you don’t then you agree?
February 12th, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Anthony,
Just for clarity re: #1, you then accept that Bruce believed that, at the least, John believed in preexistent Son and Hebrews believed in a preexistent Son? Correct?
Also, do you accept that what Bruce may have expressed a question about in private writing in 1980 should yield to his final writing on the subject after that date? In that case, you would also have to accept that Bruce ultimately believed that Paul believed in a preexistent Son.
So, Bruce becomes a strong witness AGAINST your position, making your citation of him although the more counterproductive for your viewpoint.
More to come after we nail down this point. Let’s clarify one at a time.
February 13th, 2010 @ 2:03 am
Rich L.,
You said “The O.T. clearly tells us God was alone when He made the heavens and the earth (there is no co-creator).” How do you interpret Genesis 1:26?
February 13th, 2010 @ 2:18 am
Anthony Buzzard,
You said: “In Matt 1:20 ‘that which was caused to come into existence’ is the work of the holy spirit, God’s operational presence and power.”
How do you explain that the Holy Spirit is referred to as “He” so often in the NT instead of “it”? Based on Scripture, the Holy Spirit is part of God, yet regarded as “He”. I have a feeling your response is that there is a mistranslation in the text. If not, does that make you a bi-tarian who believes in one bi-une God?
Also, John 1:2 refers to the Word as “He”, and says the Word was God in verse 1, while at the same time was with God. How do you reconcile this? Another mistranslation perhaps?
February 13th, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Michael K, would it surprise you that I disagree with your statement that “the Council of Nicaea, show no sign of original textural change of the NT, regarding the divine nature of Jesus”? I will explain:
First there is nothing in the NT that demonstrates the early church taught the trinity of three eternal persons. The apostles believed in the fullness of Yahweh as dwelling in Yeshua bodily.
The writers Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Hermas said nothing about a trinity of three eternal persons.
It is in the Greek Apologists from AD 130-180 where the first clear changeover from the biblical concept of One God towards the trinitarian concept occurred. This is the first appearance of the changed logos from verbal to the physical Jesus. These Apologists entered Christianity in the second century and promoted this pagan idea into the church. The first roots of Trinity belief came in this age through the modification of the baptismal formula. They began baptizing in the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost, rather than invoke the name Jesus as we find it in Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5. They did deny the absolute deity of Jesus; however they held to the logos being a second divine person; the logos was begotten before creation at a certain point of time; the logos is the Son of God; a baptismal formula that consisted of a three-fold invocation; and the idea that the Spirit somehow linked the Father and the Son together. As of this point the trinity doctrine was not invented as the solution.
And all this was before the Council of Nicaea. Sorry I don’t have time to write more. I will have to return later as time permits.
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:52 am
Carmen,
No, it does not surprise me that you disagree with me.
You said: “They began baptizing in the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost, RATHER THAN invoke the name Jesus…”
In the very words of Jesus himself, he specifically said in Matthew 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. How can you dismiss this? Again, you’re only showing text that supports your logic.
Also, the fact that you tend to narrow God to one person instead of what Scripture clearly shows as having three, you completely ignore Genesis 1:26 where God refers to Himself as “us”. Could it not make sense to you that “us” fits perfectly in line with the Holy Spirit and Word of God being referred to as “he” in the NT? From previous comments, even you believe God’s Word is part of who He is, and I assume you believe that about His Spirit. Yet the Word and Holy Spirit are regarded as “he”, not “it”.
February 13th, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
Unitarian interlocutors (Sir Anthony, Carmen, Chuck et al):
Kindly share your views regarding the tri-personal baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19. Do you regard this verse as completely authentic or do you suspect later redaction? Any other comments regarding the implications of this formula would be welcome as well.
February 13th, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Carmen,
Are you aware of the fact that some of the earliest and most respected Church leaders testified clearly to the deity of the Son, including disciples of the apostles?
See an excellent article here: http://www.risenjesus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=109.
February 13th, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Carmen:
“This is the first appearance of the changed logos from verbal to the physical Jesus…”
You mean John 1:14, of course..
“And the Word (”logos”) was made flesh, and dwelt among us”
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
Michael K
As an act of modesty g-d was cosulting with the angels.
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
consulting
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
The problem with believing in the trinity besides for the evidence against it is that if Jesus was able to appear in human form before 2000 years ago, then there was absolutely no need for the alleged virgin birth since he was able to descend without it!!
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
John,
Based on several previous posts I truly view you as a truth seeker.
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
Hi TJ. When I was talking about the first appearance of the changed logos from verbal to the physical Jesus I was not talking about John 1:14. I was talking about one of Justin Martyr’s letters. Please look at the comments I made on February 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm concerning John 1:14 verse. This is what I see when I read the Greek: “And the word flesh caused to be and dwelt inside (as a tent) us and we saw (or beheld)” the glory his glory as the unique son of the Father complete in grace and truth”.
February 14th, 2010 @ 12:03 am
Carmen,
May I ask you what your background is in NT Greek? I’m just curious as to what you mean by “This is what I see when I read the Greek,” since your translation strikes me as highly peculiar, to say the least.
I mean no offense, but understanding your level of proficiency helps me to know how to respond.
February 14th, 2010 @ 12:13 am
Zvi,
You said: “The problem with believing in the trinity besides for the evidence against it is that if Jesus was able to appear in human form before 2000 years ago, then there was absolutely no need for the alleged virgin birth since he was able to descend without it!!”
The Word wasn’t called Jesus before 2000 years ago, but it was still the same person who was the image of the invisible God. The difference was that before 2000 years ago, the Word “appeared” as a man but wasn’t actually flesh (for example, in Judges 13:16, Manoah thought he was speaking with a man, but it says he did not know he was speaking with the angel of the Lord…..at that time, the Word simply “looked” like a man). Later, the Word was caused to be born among us as fully human flesh so that he could live as one of us and die as one of us for us. He has always existed. He is the Word of God, who is also the image of the invisible God.
As for Genesis 1:26, God did not need to consult His angels for any reason, nor did His angels help Him create anything. He alone creates and gives His glory to no one else but Himself. And He said “let US make men in OUR image, after OUR likeness”, not the angel’s likeness. So in Genesis 1:26, God is consulting with Himself, and He is self-sufficient. There’s no doubt that the one true God consults with Himself through His Spirit to His Word who is His visible image.
February 14th, 2010 @ 12:16 am
Carmen, that’s not what the Greek says.
February 14th, 2010 @ 12:35 am
By the way, we trinitarians rejoice at the implied reference to the Tabernacle of old embodied by the phrase εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν. What a sublime affirmation of our Lord Jesus’ divinity! The evangelist says so much in so few words! I can never stop rejoicing when I read John 1–especially in Greek, but the English does just fine!
February 14th, 2010 @ 12:52 am
Michael k,
If jesus preexisted as g-d and one of the spiritual factors that is absolutely neccessary for the existence of g-d, is the word-namely Jesus,then if he were to become a human being then that integral spiritual part would be missing since Jesus was a human being with limited knowledge. In other words, the third link so to speak of g-d would be missing and thereby causing the existence of g-d to disappear. As for the verse in Gen. says who that angels are not the image of g-d thus being=to the image of man? Besides you can’t use the verses to your advantage when convenient. It should either always be we or never. If g-d felt it so important to let us know about the trinity then on Mt.Sinai he would have said, “we are g-d” or”G-d is 3 and 1 or 1 is 3″,why would g-d delete such important information? And why do you think that have a better idea who g-d is than 2000000 people that stood at mt Sinai and REJECTED a trinity? You arrived at the scene 1300 yers later and derive from extremely vauge verses that g-d is a man when the torah explicitly says not so. I mean what would you expect g-d to write in the event that Jesus is not g-d? It already says G-d is one many times,it also says there are no other g-d’s, itr also says g-d is not a man. So what more do you want want it to say? Jesus is not g-d? Would that prove it? yet it doesn’t bother you that it doesn’t say “Jesus is g-d!! Also even if somhow you can justify based on your own understanding that Jesus is g-d from the ot, why in the world wouldn’t g-d deliver the message clearly without any other choice but to conclude that he is g-d? All 3 religions figured out who the “father is without difficulty! So why is this matter so unclear in the ot?
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:24 am
Zvi,
Really, some of this will become clearer to you when you study vol. 2 of my series. I pray that God will give you insight as you read.
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:56 am
I have recently rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, due mainly to Sir Anthony’s ministry. It seems to me that it takes someone to just state the obvious which leads to an “aha” moment. (i.e. lightbulb goes on.), like when that one person told me the simple gospel, I could receive Jesus, that He came for sinners-so I qualify. The truth was always there, someone just had to lead me . This is all in the Father’s timing. In His light we see light.
The One God arguements are airtight, logical, simple and beautiful. I love the Lord Jesus MORE now, because He was vulnerable, He was actually tempted, that was not a charade. He was like us in ALL points. Our brother. The bible says when He is revealed we shall be like Him. So we’re going to be like God? Can you please address that Dr. Brown?
Also, have you studied the influence of Greek thought on the early church? This also helped convince me. (vain philosophies)
Dr. Brown, in Acts, when the pagans wanted to worship Paul and Barnabas (the gods have come down…Hermes and Zeus), the apostles pointed to the Father. Why would they not say, “Hey, we’re not god-men but Jesus is!” Just food for thought.
Dr. Brown, constructive criticism, your hostility is painful to read. That hurts your position. (Not meant to be an ad hominin attack).
Thanks for your consideration to my thoughts.
February 14th, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Dr. Brown,
I won’t let you down. I’ll go through each book cover to cover!
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Oh my gosh Michael K … you keep pounding on this one verse (Genesis 1:26), so I will attempt a response. (Why do I feel like I should be read my Miranda rights at this point. Perhaps because I feel that anything I say will be twisted and used against me in the court of your own opinion.)
In Genesis 1:1 we are introduced to Yahweh through the word ‘elohiym. Verses 1 through 25 display the awesome power of Yahweh’s speech (logos). He spoke and caused everything I see to come into existence. The next verse I see is Genesis 1:26, “let us”, and I find that most interesting; so I check the Geneva Bible Notes and I find:
(1) God commanded the water and the earth to bring forth other creatures: but of man he says, “Let us make…” signifying that God takes counsel with his wisdom and virtue purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
(2) This image and likeness of God in man is expounded in where it is written that man was created after God in righteousness and true holiness meaning by these two words, all perfection, as wisdom, truth, innocency, power, etc.
Nothing there to indicate a tri-un God, so I continue to read the next verse (27): So God created man in his (own) image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”, taking note of the singular pronouns used here for Yahweh; and it arrests my attention. I started my search with the word ‘’elohiym, and learn that it is translated in different places as “God” 2346 times, “god” 244 times, “judge” 5 times, “GOD” once, “goddess” twice, “great” twice, “mighty” twice, “angels” once, “exceeding” once, “God-ward + 04136” once, and “godly” once; total usage of ‘elohiym is 2606 times. This leads me (not you, me) to believe that the word ‘elohiym is a title and not a name. Then I take note of the multiple usage of the singular pronoun which overall accompany the title of ‘elohiym when speaking of the creator of the universe and I have come to the conclusion that Yahweh ‘Elohiym is supreme; the ‘Elohiym of all powers and there is nothing or no one above him. There is nothing or no one equal to him.
If I understood your question correctly you wanted an explanation of why Yahweh choose to us the plural form “us”. I believe it is to arrest our attention, draw our natural curiosity so we would diligently search for the answers. Proverbs 25:2 tells us: (It is) the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings (is) to search out a matter. Now I have given you a condensed version of my search and the conclusions I have drawn from them. Please share your search and study of this subject. Do you have anything else on which you have based your conclusions of a tri-un God, or is it based solely the word “us” in Genesis 1:26. If that is the case I believe you are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole simply to fit your own theology.
Right now I am going to fix breakfast and enjoy Valentine’s day with my sweetheart with whom I am one. I’ll try to be back a little later to address the other things you have brought to my attention.
February 14th, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Zvi,
Wonderful! That’s all I can ask, and I’m sure you will go through them carefully. BTW, as you’re reading, if you’d like to ask a direct question for clarification, contact me at the drbrown@askdrbrown.org email address rather than posting the question here. We can save the public posts for the public debating stuff.
February 14th, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Dr. Brown, I take no umbrage to your question, however, I have no desire to turn this into an involvement of credentials. In my experience it always degrades into arguments over who has the better and the most esteemed certification. The importance of the original topic is totally lost in the fray. You sir have already displayed a tendency of diversion in your discourse with Sir Anthony. I bring a snippet of them to attention:
February 10, 2010 at 12:05 am
“… then I fear we can have no intelligent dialog”
“… we have no basis for discussion.”
February 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm
“I cannot take your position with the least bit of seriousness …”
“… for me, that puts an end to dialog and reason, since we no longer speaking the same language.”
February 10, 2010 at 10:23 pm
“I hesitate to accuse you of outright duplicity …”
“I can state plainly here that you do not believe in the Son of God of the Scriptures.”
“I certainly cannot put much confidence in your reading of private correspondence with him.”
February 10, 2010 at 10:51 pm
“Please see my last post to you about duplicity, which deeply concerns me. As for true dialog, I can only marvel at what you write here …”
“I corrected your misrepresentation on the radio …”
“… since you reject the explicit testimony of Scripture …”
“And I state these things here not to draw attention to that fact but to expose the vacuous nature of your statements.”
“Really now, Anthony. At this point, you have gone over the top.”
February 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm
“But again, I hesitate to have further dialog based on your utter disregard for clear scriptural testimony and your misleading citations of others.”
February 12, 2010 at 9:22 pm
“I’m truly astonished that you still don’t get my point …”
“… coupled with your misleading and selective quotations of Bruce, make me doubtful that we can have a constructive and fully honest dialog here.”
In my opinion you have been condescending and arrogant in your responses to Sir Anthony. Are these ad hominem attacks really necessary to your argument, or are you performing this in order to cover up the possibility that you have run out of argument?
Now if you please, could you address this portion of what I wrote:
February 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm
“Now these next words are very interesting to me. It seems as if the translators suffered from some form of dyslexia here. It was the rearrangement of these words that caused me to take a closer look at this verse and question the motivation of the translators:
Ten doxan autou doxan
It literally reads “the glory his glory”, however it is translated as “his glory the glory”. There are words “the” and “his” are transposed which brings the attention back to the logos when the attention should be on the glory of the flesh in which Yahweh dwells inside as one would dwell inside a tent. And I believe Yeshua was the first human to house the glory of Yahweh (the Ruach HaKodesh) in this manner.”
Why has “ten doxan autou doxan” (“the glory his glory”) been changed by the translators to read “his glory the glory”?
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Michael K,
I think reading the next verse sheds some light on the answer to your question.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Why did God start using ‘His’ and ‘He’ in verse 27? (and throughout the rest of the bible)
You can read what the (trinatarian) commentators of the Net Bible say about Gen 1:26:
I will quote part of it:
Don’t try this at home, but I am going to change three words in Isaiah 44:24 to make my point…
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and We who formed you from the womb: “We are the LORD, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by Ourselves
* disclaimer – the verse as presented above is not in the bible *
Contrary to your comment to Zvi today, there should be ALL doubt that the one true God is consulting with himself in Gen 1:26
Question back for you Michael K, Do you think Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses ever knew their God as tri-une? Or as any kind of plurality of persons, wills, or consciousness?
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
Here is the link to the net bible commentary on Gen 1:26:
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=26
I don’t know the html command to show it as a link.
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
Dr. brown,didn’t we agree that I can post on the shmuly Boteach Blog until the debate forum gets underway?
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
Zvi,
Of course you can, and thanks for your desire to “play within the rules.”
I was simply stating that if you had questions needing clarification (as opposed to issues to debate) that you contact me (and/or my ministry) privately.
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
Carmen,
It appears you’re missing the point of my question. (For the record, my primary academic credentials are in the Semitic languages as opposed to in NT Greek.) Simply stated, when you claim that the Greek says something that is clearly does not, one has to wonder how much Greek you actually know, hence my question. If you were a serious Greek scholar claiming to find something in the text that others had not found, that would be one thing. If you are an amateur reader of the Greek making obvious errors, that’s another thing. Fair enough?
As for diverting from the issues with Anthony, to the contrary, I have been terribly frustrated by his skirting of issues that I have been pressing on him, hence my comments.
You write, “In my opinion you have been condescending and arrogant in your responses to Sir Anthony. Are these ad hominem attacks really necessary to your argument, or are you performing this in order to cover up the possibility that you have run out of argument?”
Carmen, if you will read my comments to scores of other posters, you will see that I go out of my way not to be condescending, and I not being condescending to Anthony. But when someone comes here to correct almost the entire Body of Messiah and uses citations that can only be called misleading (at best) and fails to deal fairly with evidence presented, not to mention consistently misrepresents things I myself have written, that calls for some level of correction.
Bear in mind that the Foreword to his “Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian” book states that there are two billion Christians who must be “evangelized” in terms of our alleged incorrect beliefs about Jesus, so when an evangelist for that camp comes here at my invitation and engages in what appears to me to be disingenuous posting and arguing, I will call that on the carpet.
I was fully aware that when I invited Kermit and Anthony on to my show that this forum would be flooded by folks agreeing with their viewpoints (which is quite welcome here in this forum for discussion). I also expected that some of them would be here to “correct” me and others, sometimes in a condescending tone on their part. I am simply speaking into the issues and the integrity of the posts, and doing it as clearly as possible within the time constraints I have.
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Rich L.,
Are you aware that Zvi’s reading of Gen. 1:26 is just one of several put forth in the rabbinic commentaries (as Zvi himself knows, of course).
So, if the consultation with the heavenly court is so clear, why didn’t the rabbis agree on this?
Just for the record, I don’t use Gen 1:26 to argue for a Trinitarian understanding in vol. 2 of my series, but I do say that the language is in harmony with such beliefs. Either way, it’s not a key text in my own arsenal, but I do appreciate Michael K. pressing the issue and I do appreciate your comments here as well.
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Carmen,
Even your quote from the Geneva Bible notes regarding Genesis 1:26 says “God commanded the water and the earth to bring forth other creatures: but of man he says, “Let us make…” signifying that God takes counsel with his wisdom and virtue purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.”
The highlight of this that sounded an deafening siren was …”signifying that God takes counsel with his wisdom”. How would you see this as being any different than God taking counsel with His Spirt and/or Word?
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
Michael k,
Even in the case that this would prove a complex unity,there is no mention of how complex it is,in other words there can be 4,5 or even 10 others and there is no mention has to whom we are referring to. There were many pagan beliefs. So how in the world should a unbiased reader conclude that we are discussing the trinity?
February 14th, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
Michael,
Until you explain what the definition of a complex unity is then you have no case. I can also tell you 1 is not really 1 but rather there are 3 components to the number one it is really 3! Does that make sense? How about this: I cannot answer you untill I consult with my word and my wisdom. Does that make sense? Before you attempt to prove something you must understand what you’re proving!
February 14th, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Zvi,
To respond to your question to Michael K., we deduce God’s tri-unity based on the totality of the evidence of the Scriptures, beginning with the Tanakh and then moving into the NT. Again, you’ll see the arguments for this in vol. 2.
February 14th, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
Zvi,
No one here argues that there is one God. And to my knowledge, no one here is arguing that God is a man. God Himself can appear as a man to us though, to reach us in certain ways, which is what He did through Jesus, not to mention how he appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18. One thing you’re failing to recognize is that all throughout the Holy Scriptures, God has interacted with His creation through His Spirit and His Word. Would you not agree that His Spirit and His Word are part of who He is? These are two persons of His single being. So you are mistaken to think Christians worship 3 gods. I worship everything about God because it’s part of who He is. Do you not think God has the power to cause His Word to become flesh and live among us as He did with Jesus to be the prophesied Messiah?
Also, when Jesus died, there was no divine part of him that died, only his flesh. Because there is nothing of God that can die or make Him incomplete. You have to remember that the Holy Spirit left Jesus’ fleshly body when he died on the cross because Jesus was taking on the sin of the world, and God cannot dwell in a bodily temple of sin because He is too holy.
Regarding Genesis 1:26, I want to make the point to you that there is no evidence that God is talking to angels, referring to Himself in the company of angels as “us”. Please consider that. In another sense, nor does He need to check with angelic hosts to “let” Him do anything.
February 14th, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Rich L.,
You said: “Question back for you Michael K, Do you think Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses ever knew their God as tri-une? Or as any kind of plurality of persons, wills, or consciousness?”
If you want to call it “tri-une” or whatever, it is clear to me that Abraham, Moses, or whoever, was aware that God manifested Himself in various ways. Abraham spoke to God as a “man” and Moses spoke to God as a burning bush. Jesus (the Word of God) appeared to Paul as a blinding light. It’s all the same God being spoken to.
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:20 pm
Michael,if I prove to you that Gen. 18 is not speaking of g-d (which I have done and you completely ignored) will you agree that Jesus is not g-d?
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
If Genesis1:26 is not a proof text to your understanding of God being triune in nature, can you please provide the verses that are?
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
Dr. Brown,
Are you aware that Zvi’s reading of Gen. 1:26 is just one of several put forth in the rabbinic commentaries (as Zvi himself knows, of course).
I didn’t realize Zvi had commented on Gen 1:26…I had responded to Michael K. Although I think it interesting to see what the rabbi’s said about this and that, I ultimately don’t put much stock in it. There is one ultimately who we look to as Rabbi (Matt 23:8). I suggest ‘the rabbi’s’ have missed the Messiah’s first engagement. Yeshua had issue with many Jewish traditions that made the Word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13).
As a 3rd party observer of the events of the bible I have to use good hermeneutics to come to proper interpretation of the scriptures. (we all say we are doing this)
Rabbi Yeshua reaffirmed the Shema of Israel in a fiercely monotheistic time. He also in John 4:22 told a Samaritan woman that ‘the Jews know who they worship’ and verse 23 says “the Father”.
I think you even mentioned on the broadcast with Sir Anthony that you agree that the scribe that talked to Yeshua about the Shema wouldn’t have seen God in a tri-une way. Yeshua said the Torah says not to commit adultery, then dealt with the heart issues. Yeshua never even hinted to say “the Torah says God is one, but I say He is actually Us” or ANYTHING different about WHO the God of Israel is.
After reading some 20,000 singular personal pronouns and singular verbs when referencing God (including the next verse, 27), it shouldn’t be hard to look at Gen 1:26 and say God is not talking to another part of himself. I’m glad you do not use this ‘in your arsenal’. An arsenal I suggest is ultimately ineffective to counter the solid truth that there is in the absolute sense, only one God. And that God is as Col 1:3 puts it – “The God and Father of our Lord Messiah Yeshua”
LOL…. 2 rabbis=3 opinions
Maybe you or Zvi can answer this…but I think most rabbi’s have actually agreed on the meaning of Deut 6:4. At least, Rabbi Yeshua and the scribe in Mark 12 agreed.
I appreciate your comments as well….. it”s good to know that you are willing to change your positions on certain things like you have in the past – pre trib, etc. I pray that one day you will like me, repent by ‘apostatizing from the apostasy’ and embrace the true-Jew monotheism that Yeshua HaMashiach clearly taught.
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
Also Michael,you contradict yourself in the previous post.because when I questioned you as to why the virgin birth was needed if g-d introduced himself as a human to Abraham many years before the virgin birth,you responded by saying that by Abraham g-d did not BECOME a man-he merely appeared as one. Yet in the previous post you COMPARE both as a mere appearance!!
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
The first paragraph of my last post should have shown to be a quote from Dr. Brown. Please excuse the mistake.
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
Rich L,
If you can find me one reason why Jesus was more believable than “other” rabbis, than please provide it!
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
Zvi,
Sorry my words appeared as a contradiction to you. I didn’t think I had to go into more detail with you on that notion since I assumed you understood what I was saying. I still stand by what I say about the Word of God “appearing” as a man, though not truly flesh in Genesis 18, yet the Word of God become fully flesh in the virgin birth.
Why would you offer to explain that Genesis 18 is not speaking of God if you said you’ve already explained it to me? I’m not aware that I ignored anything you said. Feel free to re-emphasize your point, but if I respond to your disliking, just know that I’m not ignoring you.
Also, do you still stand by your point that Genesis 1:26 is referring to God conversing with angels? Just curious.
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
Paul, I think you are asking someone else, but I will add my 2 cents worth
You said:
If you are looking for proof-texts from the ‘Old Testament’, which is some 77% of the bible, I think you will be disappointed. The ‘OT’, which is the bible that Messiah and the disciples had, simply declares that there is one God as referenced by thousands of singular personal pronouns and singular verbs. (as well as quite a few explicitly clear verses starting with Deut 6:4). Any so called trinitarian verses from the OT have to be explained as ‘hints’ of possibility.
Keep asking good questions.
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
Paul,
Genesis 3:8 – “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.”
Point 1: God was “walking” in the garden
Point 2: they hid themselves from the “presence” of the Lord God
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
Michael,
3:8 we are speaking of the VOICE of g-d, not the sound of g-d,huge difference! And the presence is the shechinah-not a human presence.
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
OK thanks MK, but is that a proof text to God being triune in Nature? Gen3:8? Feel free to explain.
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
Paul,
I think you might be getting too hung up on the terminology. The Old Testament certainly hints at the various persons of God’s one being, namely His Word and Spirit. The New Testament confirms this.
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Zvi,
How can a voice walk? Regardless, what’s the reason for reference to “walking” in Genesis 3:8?
In addition, what do you have to say about Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8?
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Michael,
The first step is to figure out what the nature of your g-d is. Only then can we work on proving it. You claim that g-d appeared to Abraham as a human being in other words g-d himself is not human but rather he merely appeared human-therefore you claim that there is no cotradiction to the fact that g-d is not a man. The question becomes what is the importance then of the virgin birth? To which you respond, that here g-d actually becomes flesh! so the question is, is this also not a cotradiction to the fact that g-d is not a man? what is the breaking point? Also if the 2 cases are not similar than why prove that Abrham saw a physical g-d of what importance is it if it doesn’t count anyway since he didn’t become flesh at that point?? Also,as I pointed out, if the trinity as a spiritual force needed that all 3 parts be integral for the existence of g-d as a SPIRITUAL being,then it is impossible for it to become flesh since that spiritual link would be missing.
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
Hi MK, it has been said it cannot be proved in scripture that God is an absolute unity.
I am asking you to please prove with clear proof text scripture that God is triune in nature?
Echad and the personal pronouns do not prove to you that God is ONE in nature, so what scriptures prove to you that God is triune?
I am not getting hung up on terminology, i am just wanting to see how you can believe God is not an absolute unity. I dont doubt God is complex, but thats very different to saying He is 3 persons in one being.
So IN the OT where are the Hints, are you saying there is no proof text in the OT?
The new testament Confirms triunity, please provide the verses?
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
Zvi, we may be getting off topic (please forgive me Dr. Brown)
To your question:
A lot could be said. I will let Yeshua’s words answer:
John 15:13
“Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”
What other rabbi has laid down his life for his talmidim like Yeshua did? Yeshua carried the convictions of His rabbinic teachings all the way to the execution stake….especially for Jews like us! (Matt 15:24)
Perhaps Zvi, you don’t just post on Dr. Brown’s website to try and correct Judaic thought?
Matt 12:23
“And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
Deep down, you know there is something about the one called Yeshua of Natzaret.
Could this be the Son of David ?
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
Zvi,
Nothing is impossible for God.
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
Michael,
I’ll get to all these verses in a timely manner. but first we must realize that there are many spiritual terms that refer to g-d like “outsteched hand” “voice” presence,spirit, etc….so its either all or none,you have no right to decide that there are 3 and nothing more,-if your’e trying to define each term that the ot and nt express as g-d then there are many more than 3 g-d’s, like son,or “avdi’ my slave,”emanuel,”sar shalom, all according to you of course!
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
Rich,
since Dr.Brown doesn’t approve of this topic being brought up here, I should not have raised the issue,but you can take a look at my arguments against Jesus on the “debate with shmuly Boteach” blog.
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
Paul,
I think at this point it is pretty clear the there is ZERO evidence that is forthcoming. And even if there is a claim of a hint-a hint is not good enough when dealing with the single most important issue -namely-who is g-d?
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
Paul,
If this will make you happy, the Bible does not say verbatim that God is triune in nature. I can play this game on many points of the Bible if you wish. Does that disprove the Bible? No. I don’t know your background, so it’s hard to know to what extent I should respond to you. Based on your comments, I can only assume you are unitarian.
Before I answer your queries, I’d like to know your take on Matthew 28:19, and how you feel this does not confirm the triune nature of God. While you’re at, flatter me with John 1:1-2, and tell me how you don’t see the Word, referred to as “He” being God, implying a separate person of God’s one being.
February 14th, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Hi MK,
Ok so there is no verse in the bible which cleary teaches God is triune?
In 1600 or so period of bible writing not one clear proof text that says God is a triune being.
I am not trying to play a game MK, rather i am wanting to understand what verses in the bible cleary prove to you and others that God is triune and not an absolute unity?
Matt 28:19 In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holyspirit.
This statement says nothing at all about God being triune in nature.
John1:1 -2
The word is not identical with God. It is distinguished from God in some sense by being “with Him”. The Word was not a second God. If, then, the Word is neither identical with God (how can it be if it is also “with God”?). Nor is it an independent God. The phrase “the Word was with God” can only mean, as A.E. Harvey points out, “that the word was an expression or reflection of God, which was in some sense divine, i.e. of God. It says “The Word was with THE GOD” (Grk). According to trinity “The God” with the definite article is referring to the whole of Deity which in this case is all three persons. Then we have all three persons included in “The God” and one more which is called “the Word” which is with “the God”. So then we have three in trinity and one more, “the Word” makes four! This is absurd! The only way that all scripture is harmonized is to say that John wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote. He meant plainly “the Word of God, the index of His mind and purpose for creation, whose sole expression, beginning and end is Christ”!
February 14th, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
all,
Without evidence from the ot,all the evidence from the nt is useless since all jews had to follow it well before Jesus arrived at the scene.
February 14th, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Paul,
There is a mountain of scriptural evidence that the Son is preexistent and is also God; that the Spirit is eternal and is also God; and that the Father is everywhere represented as God — and we know throughout the Bible that God is One. That’s what we call God’s tri-unity. It is not based on one verse in particular but is the rightful deduction to what the Scriptures teach.
I would also say that you are seriously (and I mean seriously) misreading John 1 in terms of the evidence presented there — but you can re-read the hundreds of previous posts for discussion of those key verses.
BTW, what books or commentaries have you read that explicate God’s tri-unity or, more to the point, the deity of the Son? This way I can know what to refer you to and what not to refer you to.
February 14th, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
Dr.Brown,
As I plan to read your book,I ask-Do you honestly believe that when an individual opens up the ot,there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that g-d is triune, with these 3 facts in mind 1.the complex unity 2.there are 3 within 1 and not 4 or 5 3. that these 3 include Jesus and Mary. 4.this is all drystal clear and there is NO WAY to read the verses otherwise?
February 14th, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
Michael,
It would be good if you could tell me how i am seriously misreading John 1:1
I have read many articles and books over the years, so i could not clearly remember authors names.
Over the week gone past I read your 70,000 words three times over. It was very interesting in a good way, yet i was at times in disagreement.
I dont think you could prove the Angel of the Lord was not an Angel indeed, a separate entity as all other Angels, yet with a unique ministry.
The God of Israel who revealed Himself through Fire and Cloud etc, could also reveal Himself through this Angel. This expression of God is rightly identified as God. Ex3, Jud6,13, Gen32,Hos12:4.
The Holy of Israel is Omnipresent.
February 14th, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
michael,
how many g-d figures do you believe appeared to abraham in gen.18 1 or 3?
February 14th, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
Paul,
Thanks for reading my material carefully. I can’t ask for more than that. Obviously, I differ with your assessment, and when YHWH is clearly seen (as in Exod 24, and not in a prophetic vision), or when He clearly appears in bodily form in Gen 18, I cannot say that this was an angel.
As for John 1, I’ll see if I can cut and past some useful commentary for you.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
Zvi,
If you’ve been address me recently, I may have missed it, since you normally referred to me as Dr. Brown rather than Michael. (If you’ve changed styles, fine with me!)
I deal at length with Gen 18 in vol. 2, OK? What I demonstrate there is that Gen 18-19 indicate clearly that YHWH appeared to Abraham with two angels, the former staying to talk with Abraham face to face and the latter going to Sodom. Again, once you digest my discussion there, we can interact further.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
Zvi,
OK. I spotted your question to me. No, I do not believe it is crystal clear and totally impossible to miss in the OT that God is triune; I believe the evidence points in that direction clearly.
That being said, I believe the evidence for God’s tri-unity, based on the Tanakh, is massively stronger than the arguments for an Oral Law going back to Moses.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
Dr. brown,
How many g-d forms do you believe appeared to Abraham 1 or 3?
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
in Gen. 18
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
Dr.brown,
If it isn’t so clear from the ot,then how can a jew living before the time of Jesus be expected to believe in the trinity?
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
mickael k,
In chapter 18:3 the verse says that g-d spoke to alef,daled,nun,yud…. if you claim that this “individual” is g-d,then the other 2 “individuals must also be since in chapter 19 verse 2 the same alef,daled,nun,yud is used in reference to them as well.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
Zvi, am I misreading your earlier post or did you in fact ask Dr. Brown if he regards Mary as a person of the trinity?
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
Zvi,
You asked, “If it isn’t so clear from the ot,then how can a jew living before the time of Jesus be expected to believe in the trinity?”
When did I say that a Jew living before the time of Jesus was expected to believe in the Trinity?
Also, when you get vol. 2, you will also see that your comments to Michael K. about the use of adonay in Genesis 18-19 are wrong. Note here that in Genesis 18, one of the three is addressed as YHWH; also, Gen 18:3 uses adonay with qametz, used only of YHWH in the Tanakh; 19:2 uses adonay with patah, meaning “lords,” as opposed to “the Lord.” But, to repeat, when you get vol. 2 you will see that even this point is not as significant as the other points raised indisputably by the plain reading of the account.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
Michael,
I am familiar with Ex 24, 18, should we not interpret those scriptures in light of the others.
You say you cannot say this was an angel. Is that because it does not mention the angel of the Lord. It does every where else.
Stephen in Acts 7 says it was an angel, Hosea 12:4 tells us it was an angel, beacuse Ex24, 18 do not, should we assume other wise. Gen 32, Judges 3, 16 etc. Gen18, 19 at least tell us two of three were angels Gen 19 tells us?
So except for Gen18, Ex24.
Do you believe Manoah saw God?
How about Jacob, Gideon?
I am extremely curious how you can prove the angel of the Lord is not an ANGEL, yes with aunique Ministry.
Does not Heb 1 specifically say God has spoken to Us in His Son in the Last days.
1Pet 1:20 he appeared in these last times.
Zech 1:7-21 this is very interesting.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
To all,
I hope to be checking out of this forum soon (at least for a while) as other, pressing matters are clamoring for my attention. So, if I don’t get back to you — – which is normally the case here, since for the most part I leave it to others to discuss things here without my detailed involvement — please understand the constraints of life and ministry.
If I’m able to finalize a few points with Anthony, however, I will still try to do that.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
Ex 24 Gen 18 – forgot to add Gen infront of 18.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
Dr. brown,
First, if jews did not have to believe in a trinity,woudn’t that suggest that the whole idea is new? Wouldn’t that itself diprove the trinity? And as far as Gen. 18, i knew that you would respond in that way,but the problem is that the vowel system is what we received at mt. Sinai,rejecters of the oral law cannot use this as a proof! besides when a kumetz is used, it means my master-singular and with a pasaach=my masters. but if your’e using it as a reference to g-d then as I said the vowel system is ours!
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
tj,
I believe you were misreading,since I was only asking for the proof to it in the ot.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:53 pm
Ok Zvi, but just to clarify, you do realize that Christians believe that the trinity is comprised of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, right?
i.e. Mary’s not a member of the trinity.
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
Dr.Brown, also the other name of g-d (I don’t mention for religious reasons) only appears after the angel leaves!
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
tj,
absolutely!
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
Ok thanks Zvi
February 15th, 2010 @ 12:03 am
tj,
Do you believe in the trinity?
February 15th, 2010 @ 12:06 am
Zvi, yes I do.
February 15th, 2010 @ 12:11 am
Zvi, may I ask you a question–have you read the New Testament? If so, how much of it?
February 15th, 2010 @ 1:14 am
Zvi,
First, I was simply using the MT since that’s what you quoted.
Second, as I mentioned, the MT vocalization is not a big issue here, since the point can be proved easily without.
Third, you might as well believe in Santa Claus as argue that the current vowel pointing in the MT was received at Sinai! (Vol. 5 will help you with this.)
Fourth, nowhere does the Tanakh state that a Jew must believe in the Oral Torah, yet according to the Talmud, denying that the Oral Torah is from heaven is enough to get one excluded from the world to come!
Fifth, the Torah does not explicitly state that a Jew must believe in the Messiah, but the rest of the Tanakh develops these themes, and when he came, to reject him was to reject God’s witness. In any case, my argument to you here is not, “Believe in the trinity” but find out who Yeshua is and then turn to him in repentance and faith. The rest will fall into place after that.
Sixth, you are wrong about the mention of YHWH in Gen 18. His name first appears in v. 1, then in conversation with Abraham and Sarah in v. 13, before the angels leave.
BTW, let’s refrain from extraneous arguments here (e.g., about the vowels of the Tanakh going back to Sinai!), and please understand that, for the most, I will be out of this forum for a bit, so it’s best to save your comments for the near future, God willing.
February 15th, 2010 @ 1:19 am
Paul,
Hebrews 1 is telling us that in terms of national revelation, God spoke in times past through the prophets but now through His Son (the indisputably preexistent Son), not that His Son never appeared or spoke before. (John 12:37ff. argues against this, pointing to the Isaiah 6 vision as seeing Jesus.)
As for Exod 24 (just to use that text), it says that they saw the God of Israel, not His angel. That’s clear enough! Moreover, it says that He didn’t smite them, which would have been expected had they seen God, which is why it is mentioned. (There was death penalty in the context of Exod 19-24 for seeing an angel.)
Anyway, if the text can’t speak for itself, we can’t argue anything, since you can say it means whatever you want it to mean. For example, if three times my assistant came on here and said, “I’m posting for Dr. Brown, at his request,” and then I came on and said, “Hey folks, this is Dr. Brown here. I’d love to interact,” that would be pretty clear, just like Exod 24, which is all the more clear.
I’m happy just to quote the scriptures, without explanation, and let them speak for themselves.
February 15th, 2010 @ 1:27 am
Paul,
In John 1:1, why do you try to prove your point only stating “the Word was WITH God”? Aren’t you forgetting it also says “The Word WAS God”?
February 15th, 2010 @ 5:01 am
Zvi,
You say you dont mention the name of God for religious reasons. What is the religious reason for NOT mentioning God’s name?
The Torah is clear about that. It rather is a religious duty to mention the Name, YHWH, and to NOT mention it is a violation of that duty. The Torah tells us to pronounce and speak in the Name of YHWH and NOT to mention the names of other gods. Yet, due to rabbinic influence, Jews do the exact opposite: They refuse to do as the Torah says (i.e. mention the Divine Name YHWH) and have no problem mentioning the profane names of false gods (which the Torah tells us NOT to do!). So please tell us what your religious reason is that you dont mention the Name Yahweh.
Nakdimon
February 15th, 2010 @ 6:44 am
Hi MK
Yes, the word was God. The express image of the invisible God. God with us. The exact representation of Gods nature. The morphe of God.
February 15th, 2010 @ 7:09 am
Dr Michael
Heb 1 , in the last days He has spoken to us in His Son.
Where does Jesus speak before His birth?
Ex24 they saw God, Judges 13, Manoah saw God.
Ok then, no Son is mentioned here.
John12:40 Isaiah had a vision, as did Daniel 7.
February 15th, 2010 @ 7:41 am
Dr Brown
I thought the oppositie would be in view, seeing as how these seemingly staunch trinitarian scholars throw doubts as to some of the things the doctrine asks people to believe.
So I don’t really see what your trying to proof with emphasizing this one point if not to skewe the issues and dodge the questions Anthony Buzzard keeps asking you. Hoping you can at least interact on the basis of scripture alone.
February 15th, 2010 @ 8:12 am
Good morning. I hope everyone enjoyed Valentine’s Day with someone special. Before I go to work this morning I want to make two comments:
******************
Michael K, of course Yahweh takes counsel with his wisdom because there is none greater than his own wisdom. Just as Yahweh made an oath to himself because there is none greater:
Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
So what is wisdom?
Proverbs 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
Proverbs 8:14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
Proverbs 8:22-30 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Yahweh’s wisdom is no more a separate entity from himself than his word (logos) or his spirit. All these are the power of Yahweh “Elohiym, the one creator of the universe.
As far as “God taking counsel with His Spirit and/or Word” you will have to enlighten me since I must have overlooked these verses. I see in Psalm 33:6:
“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth”.
Which is an indication of the power(s) of Yahweh at work in the creation. I don’t see how one can separate the power(s) of Yahweh from himself.
********************
Dr. Brown, you say my assertion and question on the text “ten doxan autou doxan” does not say what I stated it does. As a Greek speaking Jew will you please, word for word, tell me what does it say if it does not say “the glory his glory”? If it does indeed say what I have put forth, then why have the translators transposed words if not for spurious reasons?
February 15th, 2010 @ 9:49 am
Dr Brown,
Firstly, you are correct that g-d was still there with Abraham before the men left-my mistake. However, I think the verses are quite clear that there were 2 distinct conversations going on. The very first verse describes the g-d of Israel appearing to Abraham, it was only AFTER that appearance that the 3 beings came to visit.These people were not mentioned as g-d but rather alef,daled,…etc,for a good reason….since they or he was not g-d. The verse right before the angels leave is the same g-d that appeared in verse one as the letters to describe g-d demonstrate.
As far as the fact that the jews need to believe in the oral law without it being mentioned,the first thing I say is-that this is a false statement that when can debate at a later date,but the second thing is as follows: Since the jews believe in the oral law,it is not neccessary to have everything written in an extremely clear fashion since,we follow the tradition of the oral law. so since we believe that g-d conveyed these messages, that suffices. However,for somone that denies in the oral law,their ONLY source for anything MUST be the text alone,and if the text is unclear about the single most important christian idea then it must be rejected! It makes no sense,did g-d play a trick on us?for over a thousand years the jews knew nothing about a trinity,and all of a sudden, g-d says Ha ha! you guys all failed?
February 15th, 2010 @ 10:07 am
Nakdimon,
The oral law tells us that we may not utter the name of g-d without it being in the context of a verse or a blessing. there is no prohibiton to write the name of g-d in that manner,however we refrain from doing so for fear of the name getting erased.
As far as the mentioning of other god’s the talmud teaches us that the prohibition is only to uphold it,but anything else is permitted.
February 15th, 2010 @ 10:09 am
tj,
Iv’e seen parts of it.
February 15th, 2010 @ 10:50 am
Carmen,
We seem to be on the same page that God’s Word and Spirit are part of who He is. From John 1, we also know that God’s Word became flesh in the person of Jesus who is the image of the invisible God.
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Chuck,
One quick comment (as I need to exit for a while, as mentioned earlier):
I was attempting to argue based on Scripture alone and was terribly disappointed by Anthony’s treatment of certain passages which were so forthright in their meaning that only with the greatest effort could their clear sense be avoided.
Moreover, it was Anthony who constantly made reference to other scholars (beginning on my radio show, to the consternation of some listeners), and when he quoted Bruce (on Hebrews 1, leaving out where Bruce flatly rejected Anthony’s interpretation and supported mine, then in alleged private correspondence, also in a way that was disingenuous at first, as he supplied only a part of the quote), I wanted to hold him accountable for these quotes, the point of which was, “You’re quoting Bruce, but he’s arguing against your position, yet you’re making it as if he’s a witness in your defense. It is quite the contrary!”
So, not only did I find a lack of exegetical integrity in our discussion, I found a lack of integrity in the use of other quotes, including my own. Because of that, and because he comes onto this forum as an evangelist for a heterodox position, I found it necessary to confront those points. Simple enough.
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Carmen,
I remain utterly baffled by your reading of John 1:14. Simply read the words in question with a comma between them, and the meaning is quite clear, as recognized in virtually all translations. The NET rendering is correct here: “Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory– the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.”
Do you see how you’re misreading it? (The Greek text I have before has a comma between the two doxa’s, which again is the obvious and natural meaning of the passage. But even without the comma, it would be natural to supply it in translation and interpretation.)
Again, the text is quite straightforward here, and even a stiffly literal translation would end up coming to the same conclusion as the major translations.
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:26 am
Paul,
I’m glad you believe John 1:1, that the Word is God as it says. Verse 14 says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, who was Jesus (aka Immanuel). He had glory with the Father before the world existed in John 17:5. Who else can share in God’s glory but God Himself? Don’t you see a multi-nature of the one true God of the Bible through these verses?
You said: “Heb 1 , in the last days He has spoken to us in His Son.
Where does Jesus speak before His birth?”
As we both agree, the Word has always existed with God and IS God, according to John 1:1. You are correct in saying that the Word “as Jesus” did not speak “as Jesus” before His birth. God called His Word “Jesus” and “Son” at a particular point in time, but the person of the Word has always existed, and had even manifested Himself in appearance as man in the OT, not yet referred to as Jesus or fully known as the Son of God.
The fact that it is Jesus speaking in Matthew 28:19 about being baptized in the name of three distinct persons of the one true God, gives further indication of God’s tri-une nature. If we know that Jesus (the Word) is part of God, we should also know the Holy Spirit whom Jesus sent to his disciples is part of God (the Spirit is referred to as “he”, btw). If you believe the Word and Holy Spirit are part of God, what would you call it, if not “tri-une”? After all, Jesus didn’t include any other names we should be baptized by. “The Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS God”.
February 15th, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
Michael K,
You replied:
In Ex. 3:2, it says this was an angel that spoke to Moses. It’s the Hebrew idea of divine agency as found in Ex. 23:20-23.
God was in the still small voice that Elijah heard. I think we can agree about God being able to manifest Himself in various ways.
We may also agree that this is much different than having more than one will, consciousness, or mind, thus for Abraham or Moses to know God in a ‘tri-une or whatever’ (way), as you put it, still appears foreign to the scriptures. Do you see my point ?
I welcome everyone to comment on this.
February 15th, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
Rich,
Well said!
February 15th, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Rich L.,
A suffering Messiah is foreign to most scripturally-learned jews. Does that discount Jesus as Messiah? Or try to argue with them about Jeremiah 31 regarding God’s new covenant through Jesus. This appears foreign to the scriptures to them, unless they see the fullness of context, especially in NT revelation. For example, what do you have to say about Jesus’ very words in Matthew 28:19? Looks like he’s pointing out three divine persons of God to me. This concept could definitely appear fuzzy without NT revelation.
Also, I think it’s clear that Genesis 18 never said the person speaking with Abraham was an angel. See Dr. Brown’s response to Zvi above for details.
February 15th, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
then see my response
February 15th, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
Michael K,
I do want to talk about Jesus with you, but not yet… I will be glad to talk to you about Matt 28:19 after we get on the same page from the foundation of the O.T. (the bible that Jesus had)
Can you agree with me that although God has manifested himself in different ways in the O.T, that Moses and Abraham didn’t know their God as more than one non-human person with one mind, one will, and one consciousness ? (or put another way- one single all powerful individual)
February 15th, 2010 @ 8:59 pm
Michael k,
The answer to your first question to Rich at 6:13 is, a resounding yes.Besides the jews don’t only claim that it is unclear whether or not he is Moshiach,but rather scripture is quite clear that he is not!
February 15th, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
Here I go getting off topic with Zvi again (but I will bring it around).
MK and Zvi,
Obviously, the first century were full of Jews including the disciples of Jesus that did come to believe in a suffering Messiah (I would say as spoken of in Isaiah 53). I think Messianic Judaism could have found it’s way to being another sect of Judaism if it wasn’t for the Gentiles coming in and cutting off all Jewish roots. The main root being the strict monotheism that the Jews have always embraced (when not living in idolatry).
I believe that scripturally learned Jews who search out the truth, not through a pagan saturated Christianity, but in a completely Jewish context, can and do as I have, found that Jesus is David’s Lord of Psalm 110:1. He is the one spoken of in Daniel 7 who will ultimately receive a kingdom from the Ancient of Days.
What scripturally-learned Jews do rightfully reject, is the claim that Jesus is co-equal and co-creator with the God of Israel when the Hebrew bible testifies otherwise. It’s very sad that the person and message of Jesus has become clouded to Jews much in thanks to the whole trinity discombobulation.
February 15th, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Rich,
Your whole basis for disproving the trinity is partially based on what the text implies and based on that you question the trinity by arguing that the pre Jesus jews did not believe in him as g-d. So using the same logic I think you should also conclude that he wasn’t moshiach since most religious jews did not follow him and clearly understood the meaning of the text not to point in Jesus’ direction. So again-although you believe that the verses to indicate that he was moshiach,(which we can debate on the other blog) still in all the logic remains the same,since Jesus being messiah was CLEARLY a new idea to most jews. Had the jews understood the verse to be pointing to Jesus,they would have gladly accepted him. After all they even had an incentive to accept him,since we all know that it’s alot easier to live as a christian than to observe 613 mitzvot. But again if you’d like to debate the issue,we can do it on the other blog. in fact many Rabbis believed that christians do not believe in the trinity,like maimonides believed that Jesus was killed because he was a false prophet,nothing to do with the trinity, yet he was rejected.
February 15th, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
Rich,
If you are 100 percent sure about him being moshiach, I know from experience that people don’t just change their mind even given the evidence against their position. But if you have any doubt about this issue, I’ll be glad to clarify things for you.
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
Zvi,
Are you trying to get me in trouble? Good thing Dr. Brown is away
I will reply to you, but to end this detour of a conversation, lest our rebuke be swift and painful.
Yes I believe echad means echad and Jews as a whole haven’t known the God of Israel in any other way.
The Tanach is crystal clear about monotheism. It’s less clear about the Moshiach, therefore I cannot use the same logic.
Just because most Jews have rejected Yeshua for different reasons, does not negate that Yeshua could be the Son of man identified in Daniel 7, as I believe he is.
If I did follow your logic…both Joshua and Caleb were wrong just because they were all alone in believing God would help them defeat their enemies and inhabit the promise land.
Ok, let me think of something to get back on topic…..
Mal 2:10
Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another by profaning the covenant of the fathers?
I don’t see how anyone could read the Tanach without the N.T., and actually think there could be more than one person who is the living God of Israel. Blessed be His Name forever!
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Rich,
I can respond to your point,however you have confirmed to me that you have made up your mind,therefore there is no point in me responding.
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
Rich,
Think of it,the point we are both raising regarding the ot and the trinity, is basically undisputable,yet any believer here on the blog will not budge! Why is that? People do NOT change their religion based on evidence if it goes against their belief. So while you say the the ot is “not clear” about the moshiach issue, I say it is crystal clear that he is not.
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
Rich L,
I’ve been saying all along that God is one single all powerful being. Of course Abraham and Moses believed this. I’m not following you.
February 16th, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Zvi, people do change their minds, it just takes time. People act like they won’t budge, but you don’t know if God is working in their hearts and minds to bring them to a knowledge of the truth concerning who the God of Israel really is. As for you, you can say you are 100% sure Yeshua is not Moshiach. What if God shows you that he is?…perhaps you have misread the scriptures and interpreted them through an anti-Yeshua bias that has come through the rabbi’s? (don’t answer that, …it’s off topic, but do think about it)
MK,
My original question to you was:
You answered:
then you later said
For me, there is a BIG difference between your first answer, that they did see God as ‘tri-une or whatever’, and your next comment ‘of course God is one single all personal being’
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but according to your answers, you think Abraham and Moses knew God as:
One single all personal being, but also with more than one center of consciousness (possibly even tri-une) ?
Please correct me if I have mis-stated this. I think this is an important point to clarify…and thanks for engaging in the dialogue.
February 16th, 2010 @ 11:31 am
Rich,
You speak as if you’re above that line of reasoning regarding your position,that’s the core issue here, especialy since you yourself don’t even claim do be 100 percent sure,but again that’s irrelevant.
February 16th, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
Rich L,
In Old Testament, I agree that it is not clear whether or not Abraham or Moses understood God to have more than one person of His one Being. They knew of His various manifestations, but not sure how they personally interpreted this. A lot of unitarians here like to point to the appearance of God as a man (Genesis 18 among others) mentioned in Old Testament as God’s agent(s). They’re saying the same about Jesus in the New Testament, that he is an agent. Depending on interpretation of “agent” and which “agent” is being mentioned in context, you can either believe this was God Himself or a separate messenger from God. If indeed God’s Word mentioned in John 1:1 became flesh as mentioned in NT or appeared as man in OT, why couldn’t this be God in a different person since the Word was WITH God, yet WAS God? I believe Jesus provided the clear answer in Matthew 28:19. Jesus the Word of God even says in John 17:5 he had glory WITH the Father before the world existed. Who else shares glory WITH God, but God Himself?
February 16th, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Zvi,
I didn’t say that the Tanach was not clear about the Moshiach. I said it was LESS CLEAR. When you have 7800+ times in the Tanach where God’s personal Name is used…almost always with singular personal pronouns and verbs, that’s called a MOUNTAIN of evidence for the strict monotheism for the God of Israel being one single individual. There isn’t even close to the same amount of text given to subject of the Moshiach. Obviously you want to talk about Yeshua’s claim to Messiahship. We will have to save that for another place and time.
My observation from the scriptures is that most Jews are right about who God is but wrong about the identity of Moshiach.
Most Christians are wrong about who God is (triune), and wrong about Moshiach (both God and man).
The good news is the Kingdom of God will one day be established on earth. The Ancient of Days will delegate rulership of this kingdom to his anointed Son of Man. (Daniel 7). Truth will be the norm and no longer the exception.
February 16th, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
The authenticity of a given belief is determined by the quality of the evidence NOT the quantity, if there is even one proven misquoted verse,or one aspect of messianic prophecy that wasn’t fulfilled, or one contradiction that has not been properly addressed,then the whole idea must be dismissed,now even myself that fully believes that the trinitarian idea is false,have a much easier time disproving Jesus as the Moshiach,then of g-d. So even in the event that you believe 100 percent in the validity of him being moshiach,when you instructed me to think that perhaps I maybe wrong,did you go ahead and do the same about your own position? my MAIN point is that you advise others to think that we may be wrong,as if you are above that.
February 16th, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
Rich L,
Just curious, how do you interpret Matthew 28:19 when Jesus refers to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, if not a tri-une possibility?
Zvi,
This forum is not meant to question Jesus’ Messiahship. I think there was a Debate with Schmuley forum for that. I’m surprised you even participate in this forum when you do not even believe Jesus is Messiah. Your comments as a nonbeliever hold no weight here in that case. Regardless of everyone else’s unitarian or trinitarian beliefs, Jesus’ Messiahship is not in question by anyone else here, although relating this to his divine nature is. It’s an important topic for those of us who believe he is Messiah. So feel free to watch and learn, as you stay busy reading Dr. Brown’s books. I say this with respect.
February 16th, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Zvi,
Sure quality is important of which I believe the Tanach has from cover to cover. I think the sheer number of references of God being one through singular personal pronouns alone, is an overwhelming testimony of how many God is. Winning a football game 121-3 is a little more convincing than 7-0.
Yeah I’m 100% sure Yeshua is Moshiach, just like you would say you are 100% he is not. That doesn’t mean that I won’t listen to your point of view and even change it if I came to the conclusion that I have erred in some way. Yes, I have to examine my own beliefs, as I expect others to examine theirs.
3 years ago I subscribed to the thought that God is a trinity because that is what was taught to me. I couldn’t articulate or defend it from the scriptures. I thought I was 100% sure because John 1:1 read from the KJV “The Word was with God, and the Word was God”. If you didn’t believe that you must be a Jehovah’s Witness I was told. None of us should be above thinking that we can’t be wrong. If our beliefs can’t withstand legitimate questioning and scrutiny then they probably need to be changed.
As far as Yeshua, I believe that God rose him from the dead which seems to me validates his Messiahship. Yeshua still has prophecies to fulfill…like sitting on the throne of David.
If time permits, I will talk to you about Yeshua as Moshiach where it’s not so off topic. On this thread however, it’s back to… “Dr. Brown Debates Sir Anthony Buzzard on the Deity of Jesus”
February 16th, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
MK,
You said:
You agreeing is not with me, when you say it is not clear. To me it couldn’t be clearer that Abraham and Moses knew God as one person.
I sincerely hope you study this out further. It’s taken me years for God to show me these things I have been sharing.
Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!
The word one (echad), is telling ushow manyThe LORD is. It’s not a statement about the unity of himself with another part of himself. That is a Hellenistic and thoroughly Gentile (no offense) idea that has no basis in the Hebrew bible.
In additional to the gazillion singular personal pronouns and singular verbs in the O.T., many more verses could be brought forth.
I assert that Moses did not know their God in any kind of pluralistic way as far as 2 or 3 persons in one essence, or however you want to put it.
God told Moses what His Name is forever in Ex. 3:15. This Name (denoting one individual- translated ‘the LORD’, the same Name used in Deut 6:4) is used some 7800+ times in the O.T. again with all the singular usages.
Here is heart of my point and then I will comment later about the N.T.
Deut 13:6-8
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers,
7 “of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth,
8 “you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him” (NKJ)
Moses and the patriarchs did not know their God in any kind of triune or pluralistic way. Moses warned the Israelites in the passage above, not to serve or know God in any other way other than how they have known Him. There wasn’t going to be a ‘progressive revelation’. Sure God’s ways are above our ways, as far as the heavens are above the earth. Sure God can be mysterious, sure God can and does things to blow our minds. But who God is, has always been, and always will be is the same one God with one mind, one consciousness, and one will. (see Mal. 3:6)
Much more could be said. Has what I wrote here made some sense to you?
The reason I wanted to address this first is because I think a proper foundation of the O.T. (the bible that Jesus had) is paramount to to our understanding of the N.T. Or put another way, the O.T is the context for the N.T.
February 16th, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Rich L,
I’m curious as to know why, in your thinking, it was necessary to tell the people of Israel that God was “one” in terms of absolute unity vs. tri-unity or bi-unity, etc. As we know, there were many so-called gods worshiped by people in the ANE, all of whom were each “one,” and there were different manifestations of the same god in different cities (e.g., the Baal’s of different locations), so it would seem that the point is that Yahweh alone is God, and there are many different Yahweh’s in many different locales. No, He is one. (For support for this position from ANE and rabbinic sources, see my oft-mentioned vol. 2.)
Obviously, you see it differently. On what basis? Against which contextual and historical backdrop?
February 16th, 2010 @ 5:34 pm
Rich L,
I continue to see your train of thought, which you’ve made clear from the beginning. By me saying it’s not clear that Abraham and Moses understood God to have more than one person of His one Being, I simply mean that OT does not go into this kind of detail for what they may have been thinking when God manifested Himself in certain ways, so it’s fine for me that they never considered this concept. I’m not hung up on Moses or Abraham having never seen God as tri-personal.
I’m ready for you to move on to Jesus’ words now from Matthew 28:19. It should also be noted that the authors of NT were jews who followed Jesus and were dedicated to Tanakh, so there is no reason to think they would compromise their testimony with Hellenistic or Greek ideas.
February 16th, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
Michael,
You have not responded to Rich’s question. He asked the following: If in fact the jews at that time did not follow Jesus as g-d then the jews would be forbidden to worship him since they have not known him as the verse clearly tells us in Deut.13:6.
February 16th, 2010 @ 7:58 pm
Zvi,
Yet another point dealt with in vol. 2!
February 16th, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
Zvi,
I’ll let Rich L be the judge of whether I answered his question or not. If you had read the New Testament, you would know there are plenty of examples of where Jesus receives worship from Tanakh-committed jews and is talked of as honorable of worship. Since he’s the Word of God who is of God, why wouldn’t he recieve worship? Just something to consider, not that I want you to answer since I know you don’t believe.
February 16th, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Rich L,
Again I say “I’m ready for you to move on to Jesus’ words now from Matthew 28:19. It should also be noted that the authors of NT were jews who followed Jesus and were dedicated to Tanakh, so there is no reason to think they would compromise their testimony with Hellenistic or Greek ideas.” I’d really like to know your thoughts on the words of Jesus here.
February 16th, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
Rich L.
Apparently you don’t understand that personal attacks are not permitted on this forum, as per your closing words.
We’ll pull your post for that reason, and if you choose to repost your arguments in a respectful way (towards me or others), I’ll be happy to correct your erroneous statements and interpretations.
February 16th, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
MK,
I appreciate that you see where I’m coming from. I agree, surely God doesn’t expect us to try and figure out what Moses was thinking. I’m glad you concur that Moses and Abraham likely never considered this ‘concept’. I don’t think the idea of God being one being or multiple beings can be reduced to just a concept. There is mile-wide difference between the 2 whether they knew God as one or more than one. You may not be hung up on it, but I contend that God is hung up on it from what He said through Moses in Deut 13:6-8.
Ok, Matt 28:19 says:
1) If my foundation is the Hebrew Bible as it was for Jesus (Matt 5:17, 18), I already know that God is one individual with one covenant Name (Ex. 3:15).
2) In the beginning of the same book of Matthew, chapter 1 we read in verse 18 “Now the birth (greek-genesis) of Jesus…” We’re told of Jesus’ “genesis”, which doesn’t quite square with the God who has always been, right? Were told of Jesus later in Acts 13:33 ‘Today, I have begotten you” To be eternally begotten is about as sensible as saying ‘a married bachelor’
3) Continuing in Matthew 16, we have the account of Jesus asking his disciples ‘who do you say that I am?’. After Peter says “you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”, Jesus said that it was the Father who showed this to Peter. The confession of Peter was nothing near a confession of deity.
4) Also in Matt 16:27, Jesus referenced himself as ‘the Son of Man’ coming in the glory of His Father. I think a reference to Daniel 7 where the Son of Man approaches the Ancient of Days. (not deity approaching deity).
5) Continuing to Matt to 27:46, Jesus calls out to his God from the execution stake. If Jesus is God, then is he a lesser God? Clearly in verse 50, Jesus died. It’s problematic to say the least that God the Son, died.
6) Almost there….Matt 28:18. Did Jesus have authority innate of himelf? No, all authority has been given to him….it’s not exactly meshing with the co-equal God idea.
7) Finally… Matt 28:19,
A) After coming to this text with the above in mind, why would you read this in a trinitarian way?
B) What is the name of the Holy Spirit?
C) All throughout the book of Acts we are never told people were being baptized in a 3 fold name. Which baptismal ‘formula’ is right? This is the only verse. Which leads me to point ‘D’
D) Is it possible as some scholars have researched that the verse as we have it may be a corruption? We had the fraudulent 1 John 5:7 that was put in by trinitarian scribes to beef up the argument. I consider Matt 28:19 at least suspect.
As you can see, I don’t just read a verse…but have to take the context of the whole bible (starting with the O.T) as well as that particular book of the bible. Excuse my long winded reply.
So MK, how about a verse like John 17:3, words that we’re told are from ‘the second member of the trinity’
What say you?
February 16th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
Dr. Brown,
My apologies. I certainly meant no personal attack on you or anyone. It’s one thing to know what you mean when you write something, but another when someone reads it in a different way.
I will edit and repost below:
I have vol.2 right here, and I don’t see a direct argument about Deut 13:6-8. As per my discussion with MK, I don’t see anything in the Torah that would indicate Moses or Abraham knew their God in any kind of pluralistic way (or remotely close to a trinitarian sense). Thus Jews should rightfully reject the idea of the trinity from Deut 13:6-8 alone.
You often talk about ‘a plain reading of the text’. I think any 7 year old child that reads the Torah (especially in Hebrew) without any theological baggage, would never come to a conclusion that ‘God is one, but also more than one’ as you write on page 4 of the oft-mentioned vol. 2. BTW, a book that is well worth the read!
The discussion about the word ‘echad’ is like a former president asking what the meaning of the word is, is. The one God with a Name written over 7800 times in the Tanach with all the singular pronouns shouldn’t take a PH’D to figure out God is a single being (without multiple personalties).
Assuming what Yeshua said is true when He affirmed the Torah in Matt 5:18, then the words and pronouns God used mean what they say. This would be a totally different discussion if God had used plural pronouns/verbs for Himself 10000+ times in the Tanach instead of the singulars that He did. Even when we use echad for a man and woman, and then refer to them, we say what I just said…’them’ and not ‘him or her’. So the pronouns exclude the complex unity (code for a plurality of wills, consciousness, or minds) idea for God. This is almost like we are trying to figure out if the world is flat or not while orbiting it from space…
I want to tie in to my comments, the words of Rabbi Yeshua from John 4:22 “…we know who we worship for salvation is of the Jews”
Could we take ‘the plain meaning of the text’ and reasonably conclude: The Jews have the identity of their God right… ?
I appreciate the opportunity to post my ‘erroneous statements and interpretations’.
February 16th, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
Rich L.,
Apologies accepted.
Re: Deut 13, what about obj. 3.4, “According to the Law (Deut 13), Jesus was a false prophet, because he taught us to follow other gods (namely, the Trinity, including the god Jesus), gods our fathers have never known or worshiped. This makes all his miracles utterly meaningless.” So, that is what I was referring to.
You wrote, “I think any 7 year old child that reads the Torah (especially in Hebrew) without any theological baggage, would never come to a conclusion that ‘God is one, but also more than one’ as you write on page 4 of the oft-mentioned vol. 2. BTW, a book that is well worth the read!”
Obviously, I differ (but thanks for the kind words about the book!). I see everywhere in the Torah aspects of God’s complex unity, He being hidden and yet revealed; His appearing in human form while remaining enthroned in heaven; His manifest presence being on the earth and upon the prophets and yet filling the universe. It’s for good reason that the Tanakh was communicated in Hebrew, a Semitic language, that used compound plural nouns to convey majesty and power. How well this fits our God!
Once we get into the NT, all this becomes more clear than ever, to the point that the chief priest wants Yeshua condemned to death for what he considers blasphemy from his lips, where other Jews take him to be making himself equal to God with his statements — statements which, I believe, point clearly to his preexistence, if we follow the plain sense of the text — and statements which also explain how the Messiah could be called “God” in the Tanakh (as many scholars recognize). Rich L., any 7 year old reading Ps 45:7 knows what the text says, “Your throne, O God, lasts forever and ever” — and that is just one text.
As for Jewish views of God, what of the ten sefirot if not divine emanations, not totally unlike the Gnostic Demiurge (although the latter was a downgrade from the true God)? Do we embrace that kind of monotheism? Or what of Philo’s logos, one of whose titles was the second-god? Do we embrace that Jewish form of monotheism?
I am a monotheist to the core of my being, and my God is One, and, according to the Bible, beginning with the Torah, that unity is complex. That is the One God I worship, adored everywhere as the Father, revealed to us by His Son, touching us by His Spirit. At His feet I bow.
In all candor, the disingenuous of some of the arguments on this thread against the preexistence of the Son were so extreme to me — part of the reason I really challenged Anthony here — that anyone on your side claiming to champion the plain meaning of the text was thereby shooting himself in the foot.
Thanks for the interaction, and I apologize that I can’t do this as consistently as I would like to.
February 17th, 2010 @ 12:08 am
Dr.Brown,
On feb.14 11:30 pm you said “When did I say that a jew living before the time of Jesus was expected to believe in the trinity”. So with that being the case, Deut. 13:6 remains unanswered.
February 17th, 2010 @ 12:24 am
Zvi,
Wrong. I worship the God of the Tanakh, the God of my fathers. Through the Messiah coming into the world, I have better insight into His nature and being, and I invite you to have that greater insight as well.
We’re talking about the same one and only God, just with better understanding. Simple.
February 17th, 2010 @ 12:25 am
Zvi,
One more thing: The Hasidim believe in the Sefirot; the Talmudic rabbis spoke often of the Shekhinah; the Targums speak of the Memra’.
What evidence do you have, based on the written Torah, that any of these concepts relating to God were known to Moses?
February 17th, 2010 @ 12:38 am
Dr.brown,
If you would be telling me that to believe in jesus would be optional,and if someone doesn’t recognize g-d as Jesus that would be ok,then I can maybe understand where you’d be coming from. But according to christianity,the single most important teaching is to recognize jesus as a deity,otherwise you end up in hell for all eternity! So moses missed on on the key issues of g-d,. So if moses did not know him then we are obligated to reject him as g-d as the verse tells us,this is not merely a clarification of a small matter. Besides according to you it would come out that moses who g-d spoke to was an idol worshiper since he didn’t know jesus!!
As far as your question regarding the shechinah moses knew it all from his experiences and we knew it from the oral law.
February 17th, 2010 @ 1:10 am
Rich L,
Your speculation of corrupted NT says a lot about your beliefs. I’m actually surprised that you believe any of the NT because of that.
Regarding your point #2, keep in mind that you’re only referring to Jesus in flesh. I have no argument that “as Jesus”, the Word never existed “as Jesus” until he was born of the flesh. Regarding “today I have begotten you”, I don’t believe that means eternally begotten, because of the word “today”. Dr. Brown can correct me here, but I believe it simply means that there was a point in time where the Father called His Word “Son”.
Regarding your point #5, this has been answered plenty of times in previous posts. Jesus’ physical body died, but not His spirit, so God did not die, only Jesus’ physical body. It was Jesus’ human nature crying out to the Father because Jesus felt the Holy Spirit leave him as he was taking the sin of the world on himself. The Holy Spirit does not dwell in a temple of sin, which is what Jesus’ body became on the cross. Also keep in mind that Jesus was the Word who became flesh. Do you not associate God’s Word as being equal with God? Can you not see that since Jesus is the Word, that he also has a diving nature? Or are you suspect of John 1 as well?
Regarding your Point C, whether someone is baptized in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit doesn’t matter because they are one. The fact that Jesus points out Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ought to give indication that God is being identified in three ways here. Be reminded that the Son is also the Word of God. God is not separated from His Word or His Spirit. Thus recognition of the Son as co-equal with God should be obvious. Afterall, why should we be saved by anyone else’s name except God Himself? All glory goes to God! John 17:3 is no different since we know that Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
February 17th, 2010 @ 1:55 am
Dr Brown
Passages such as Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29; John 17.3?
February 17th, 2010 @ 7:55 am
Chuck,
I wholeheartedly affirm those verses and have my entire believing life. For the verses I was referring to (e.g., Heb 1:10-12), just look at the forum here. And I was not the one constantly trying to name-drop other scholars who, in fact, didn’t even support Anthony’s position.
February 17th, 2010 @ 7:56 am
Zvi,
There you go with the Oral Law myth again! Every time you use that as an argument, you defeat yourself.
As for believing in Yeshua as Messiah and Lord, that is according to the Tanakh. If you reject him, you reject God.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:04 am
Dr.Brown,
You keep attacking the oral law,but as far as this blog is concerned you’re being very general without any specific evidence. You have not responded to my argument about Deut.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:14 am
“you’re being very general without any specific evidence. ”
Maybe its because its addressed in the book that he is sending you?
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:15 am
gen 4:8 kayin says to his brother hevel,and when they were in the field….. WHAT DID KAYIN TELL HEVEL? Did the torah forget the rest of the sentence?? The answer lies in the oral law,without it we are completely lost!
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:23 am
Zvi,
Lets keep in line with the topic of the debate. There will be a time to debate about the Oral law.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:31 am
Ben kc,
I have no problem with that,however if the oral law gets an unjustly attack without teeth on this forum then the only fair thing to do would be to staunchly defend it!
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:32 am
Ben kc,
Do you work for Dr. Brown?
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:34 am
Zvi,
No I dont work for Dr. Brown.
As a reminder, let stay in line with the topic of the debate.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:38 am
Ben Kc,
I politely ask you to please back off,as Dr. brown will decide what and when I can post.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:40 am
Zvi,
The rules has been set by Dr. Brown. Im only reminding you.
Simple Rules To Abide By When Commenting
1. No Profanity
2. No Attacks on an Individual
3. No Attacks on a Group of People
4. Stay on topic with regard to the radio show being discussed
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:47 am
Ben,
I’m well aware of the rules,but again Dr.Brown will enforce them,he doesn’t need you as his spokesmen or his lawer when I question him.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:55 am
Zvi,
Dr. Brown doesnt mind if we do emphasize it here. If you can abide by the rules, you not only disrespect Dr. Brown, but you also disrespect those that has been debating on this topic faithfully while you interrupt with another topic. Stop being selfish and wait until your time comes for the topic on the Oral law. If you cant do that, there is no point for the community to interact with you.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:55 am
typo… I meant to say “If you cant abide by the rules….”
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:23 am
Ben kc,
Virtually every interaction between us has consisted of you serving as a go between between myself and Dr.brown (without his insruction of course) including this last time when Dr.Brown attacked the oral law’s authenticity to which I reponded and that was obviously ON topic. You also violated rule #2 as you called me “selfish,so apparently that is not your concern. So again I ask, please do not intervene when I have a discussion with Dr.Brown.
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:04 am
Zvi,
I know that you are referring to the word “Elohim” which is not a name. I am talking about the Sacred Name Yahweh. There is no excuse not to say God instead of G-d, because God is not a name.
Furthermore, the so-called oral law can say all it wants, sir, but the fact is that there was only one Torah given at Mt Sinai. That is the written Torah. And the written Torah says that we are to swear in the name of YHWH always. This has nothing to do with references to blessings only. There is nothing in Scripture that says such a thing.
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:40 am
Nakidimon,
First of all, I see that you are very unfamiliar with the oral law. The oral law has a few functions. 1.The oral law explains what the definition of the verses are. 2.There are certain laws that were said at mt. Sinai that were not written in the torah 3. The Rabbis were given a power to prohibit certain practices to safegaurd aginst violating the Torah. 4.The rabbis were given the power to give us certain commandments like the celebration of chanukah,and purim,etc… Now, you certainly don’t have the power to decide which names are holy and which are not. You also do not have the authority to decide what g-d meant when he said the word name,whether it must be holy or not. Lastly, The torah does NOT use the word SWEAR, but rather don’t take his name in vain! As far as what I said about the blessing, since Jews do bless g-d and use the utter the name of hashem all I’m saying is that we don’t consider it in vain since it is used in the context of a blessing.
But I do ask of you,that if you have any further questions on this topic, please ask it on the other blog.
February 17th, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
Zvi,
I responded to your argument about Deut., and I deal with it in vol. 2 as well. As for the Oral Law, of course I