February 8, 2010
February 8, 2010 | 668 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
668 Responses to “February 8, 2010”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
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’m being general here, since that is not our topic. Plus, vol. 5 has almost 350 pages of material dealing with the Oral Law.
And I do appreciate you and Ben KC being zealous for the purpose of this forum here. I believe we’re all doing OK.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
MK,
Do you know about 1 John 5:7 in the KJV? I hope you see that corruptions in the N.T. have occurred. I don’t think this changes the message, ideas, and themes. Just because I question a verse or two doesn’t mean I have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I recognize the overall inspiration of the N.T.
For point #2, Do you understand ‘the Word’ as an actual person like the Father is a person ?
For point #5, John 1:1 is not going to overturn the overwhelming testimony of the O.T. that God is one single individual. If God has 1 mind, 1 will and 1 consciousness in 77% of the bible (the O.T.), I hope it’s safe to say He is still the same in the N.T.
It is an interesting fact that John 1:1 was translated in 8 English translations of the bible before KJV as “In the beginning was the word (small w)….all things were made by it. The Greek word ‘logos’ has never been a person up to this point. It can also be translated ‘plan’. John 1:1 can be legitimately translated in different ways as I just demonstrated. John 17:3 however, has no room to mis-translate and shouldn’t have any room to misunderstand.
Yes I God’s Word is equal with God…..just like your word is equal with you. However, the word is not a separate person. Jesus is what the logos became and is clearly a separate person with a separate will. It would be like saying you had a plan to build a bridge, and that plan is with you….then the plan became flesh…you built the bridge. The bridge is not 1:1 equal with the plan is it? We are of course reading John 1 with a Western mindset, I think John 1 is a very Hebrew form of communicating. In Revelation, were told that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world….was he literally or just in the plan of God? There are many Hebraisms that must be understood to get the correct sense of what’s written in the N.T.
And point C:
So it would be ok to be baptized in the name of the Spirit only, since they are all 3 are one?… and what is the name of the Spirit? (We know the names of the Father and Son). Even if the text is true as we read it in most English translations, it doesn’t even say baptized in water, just baptized or immersed. The Complete Jewish Bible translation says something like “be immersed into the reality of the Father, Son, and Spirit”. That in and of itself doesn’t teach that all 3 are deity, does it?
Don’t you think we should take the clear and plain verses about who God is and interpret the less clear ones through them instead of vise-versa? If Jesus prays to the Father in John 17:3 “This is eternal life: that they may know you the ONLY true God, and Messiah Jesus who you have sent”. In one simple verse, Rabbi Jesus gives us the answer of what eternal life is, and who the one true God is. I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation for this verse to interpret that Jesus was not excluding himself from also being the ONLY true God. The word ONLY is a very exclusive word as I’m sure you know.
You bring up things that are worth talking about. I hope we can continue the conversation.
February 17th, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
Dr Brown
Your trinitarian “affirmation” of these verses goes against their unitarian meanings. As you yourself have stated, neither the patriarchs, nor the Pharisees or even Jesus himself and his Apostles knew anything about a triune God.
And your efforts to turn the whole of scripture due to 1 debatable verse is the deifnition of “special pleading”. Your lack of scholarly support to back the claims you make in your books is further evidence to this.
February 17th, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Dr.Brown,
It is not sufficient to you if I tell you that I believe in the ONE G-d as you do,you insist that I see Jesus as g-d yet when it comes to g-d’s commandment warning jews not to follow gods that you have not known all of A sudden here it’s in reference to the “final product”of g-d. You see the irony here, christian’s who arrive at the scene over a thousand years after Sinai, have it all figured out,yet Moses who spoke to g-d of whom g-d says “in my home he is trustworthy” couldn’t figure it out!!
February 17th, 2010 @ 9:37 pm
Chuck,
To be candid, your comments do not deserve a response, but for the sake of other readers here, I will set the record straight. What your post basically illustrates is this: When your argument is weak or you run out of things to say, just shout louder. In reality, it only exposes the weakness of your own position.
You write, “Your trinitarian ‘affirmation’ of these verses goes against their unitarian meanings.” You are stating here what you want to prove. In fact, I have provided ample evidence that this is not the case.
You write, “As you yourself have stated, neither the patriarchs, nor the Pharisees or even Jesus himself and his Apostles knew anything about a triune God.” Please tell me where I stated this, in writing or on the air. In point of fact, I stated that Jesus had full understanding of God’s tri-unity (of course!) and that the OT believers, while not having all the pieces put together, had the building blocks of God’s tri-unity before them.
You claim, “And your efforts to turn the whole of scripture due to 1 debatable verse is the deifnition of ‘special pleading’. Your lack of scholarly support to back the claims you make in your books is further evidence to this.”
Chuck, again, this does not deserve a response, but as stated, for the sake of other readers here, I will respond. First, I singled out Hebrews 1:10-12 because Anthony’s treatment of this verse was so impossible (on the air, in writing, and on this forum) that it was best to focus on this one text to expose the serious nature of the eisegesis taking place. Second, Anthony’s treatment of John 1:15 (in context!) was also terribly flawed, as is his reading of John 8:58 (denying preexistence, whether on a “I am” or “I am he” rendering) – among many, many other clear verses in the OT and NT. But I felt it was the better part of wisdom to focus on one, massively glaring error which completely undermines his denial of the Son’s preexistence, before focusing on other verses, one at a time.
As for my alleged “lack of scholarly support,” would you care to be more specific to enlighten our readers here? Although dealing with Unitarian “Christians” was not the focus of my apologetics series, they do total more than 1,500 pages with several thousand endnotes. So, where was the lack of scholarship?
Really, Chuck, it’s easy to fling empty charges around, but if you want to continue to interact here, I would counsel you to come with substance and exegesis and not posts like this.
February 17th, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
Zvi,
Yes, I understand your position well! I worship the God of the Tanakh, fully revealed in the Messiah. You read the Tanakh based on the traditions of men. When you put aside those human traditions, truth will arise in your heart and life.
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
Rich L,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out about a corruption in 1 John 5:7. Please explain.
For points #2 and #5, yes I understand the Word as a person according to John 1:2. Also, John 1:18 refers to Jesus as the only God who is at the Father’s side. As I’m sure you are aware, being at the Father’s side makes him equal with God. What confuses people is that this is referring to separate persons, yet one God. Admittedly, most people who believe in monotheism would naturally have a hard time with this, but then again, we’re trying to have this discussion about Almighty God’s essence, as if we know how to dissect Him and figure Him out. There are plenty of times in the OT where God refers to Himself in the plural.
I’m not sure how you can narrow Jesus’ will down as separate from God’s will, especially when he says he can only do the will of the Father. We see that his human nature tries to pull him from God’s will at times such as during his prayer with the Father in the garden before his death, but he still followed the Father’s will then, as his divine nature overcame his human nature to carry through the Father’s purpose, continuing to render him sinless, the Lamb of God.
Regarding God’s essence again, Scripture, especially NT, highlights God working things through His Spirit and His Son (aka Word). They are equal with Him, and are both referred to as “He”. Nonetheless, we see that God is still one. He’s just operating in different forms. So the fact that we see from NT, that God operates in a tri-personal way, doesn’t affect our understanding that this is still the one true God of the universe at work. From a unitarian’s viewpoint, they fail to recognize that Jesus has a divine nature that is equal with the Father, greatly reducing the true honor that is due Jesus, the Word of God.
Your pinpointing to John 17:3 is best understood in context when read up to verse 5.
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Michael,
You said:
I do not read the evidence that way. What Bruce expressed to me privately he may not – for whatever reason – have wanted to put in print. I think that Bruce’s doubts about preexistence should cause us all to think hard about this issue.
Similar views on preexistence have been clearly aired in James Dunn’s Christology in the Making. He says of John, “It would be better to speak of the Johannine Christ as the incarnation of God, as God making himself known in human flesh, not as the incarnation of the Son of God” (Intro to second edition, p. xviii).
This brings me to an earlier question I asked you. Do you believe in the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son?
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
Dr Brown
Whose “shouting”? I am simply pointing out a point of fact that I see in your interaction with people like Anthony. You seem to dodge the direct scriptural references regarding the exclusive monotheistic claims inherent in the Shema and its usage by both Old and New Testament writers with oblique, debatable verses such as Heb 1.10, and your continuing emphasis on what people like Bruce may or may not have said.
Where is your evidence to prove that the scriptures are presenting a triune God or that God is an “essence” [a What instead of a Who, as Anthony suggests]. All you have shown me, and others on this thread, is to what extent your “special pleading” of simple, exlusive monotheistic texts such as the ones mentioned do not align [and will never align] with later trinitrarian ideas regarding the “Godhead”.
I stand corrected, you implied that the scriptures hold to an understanding of “the Father as the one and only God”:
No, you and many other trinitarians single it out because it is the only text you can use to support your view that Jesus is God. Since others, like the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5.7-8 have been decisively proven to be either flat out orthodox corruptions, or texts whose grammatical structure makes them umbigous to say the least.
In one of your past posts you actually praised my “scholarly and well thought out” posts Doctor. It seems that whenever you disagree or are challenged on your views they are not scholarly or exegetically sound.
BTW: Thanx for deeming my undeserving comments as warranting an answer from you for the sake of other readers. I am also using this forum not so much to influence or let alone persuade you to the sound doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ [although it is still my hope and prayer], but for the sake of those aforementioned readers who are still hungry for the truth and seek it out “as a deer to water”.
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Another proof that Jesus is not divine, is that the verse in john says that the word became flesh. That means he went from not being a man to being a man-and we know from Malachi 3:6 that the virtue of g-d is that he does not change.
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Anthony,
Obviously, I feel you’re misusing Bruce in a very serious way, hence my insistence on that point. So, let’s go back to what he is quite sure of: John believed in a preexistence Son, as did Hebrews, and based on his final writings, he points to Paul believing that way as will. That means you should be giving careful consideration to that point.
As to the eternal generation of the Son, please give me your definition of that so I can respond properly. Thanks.
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Dr. Brown,
As an observer of other posts, I personally see no need for you to respond to Chuck. I think you’ve made yourself quite clear in previous posts to his arguments, and as busy as you are, there’s no need to waste your time responding. It’s almost like there is a taunting going on, just to see if you’ll respond. I do see a good reason to respond to someone like Anthony Buzzard though. Just my take, but all the responses are great nonetheless.
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
Zvi,
Debate with Schmuley forum
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
zvi
You say “he went from not being a man to being a man”. Are you referring to the logos of John 1.1? If so, “Who” is in view here, do you mean a preexistent person or did you mean to say “it went from not being a person…”?
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
Chuck,
I’m actually spending more time in this forum than I should be, as per my normal policies and as per my schedule, hence my need to be selective in my responses and to qualify my last interaction with you.
That being said, I know why you’re in the forum, which is fine. The purpose here is interaction, exposing interested folks to all sides of an issue so they can come to sound conclusions before the Lord. I welcome the challenge to what I believe! But when you post blanket statements and accusations, that is “shouting” to me.
As to Hebrews 1:10-12, please check my previous writings and see how often I cited it in terms of a proof for Messiah’s preexistence and divinity. In point of fact, I rarely cited the verse because there were so many other ones to cite, but it is anything but debatable. As for something like 1 John 5:7 — when did I ever point to this non-existent verse? Even to reference it is to set up a straw man.
In vol. 2 of my series I presented ample evidence for God’s complex unity according to the Tanakh and then brought into more full light in the NT. You can reject the evidence but you cannot claim that I did not provide it.
As for the nature of your posts, when they are scholarly and well thought out, I will say so. When they are vacuous and inaccurate, I will say so as well. Fair enough?
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Zvi,
Save yourself time with all these posts and wait until you go through the materials I sent you. This is what I was trying to avoid getting into when the posts on the Shmuley blog here went over 1,000.
February 17th, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Dr Brown
Again, thank you for your time and most of all for the gracious spirit you have shown and continue to show with those similarly likemided “Christians” who disagree with some of your views regarding our theology. It is a welcome change from people like James White and others who end up attacking the person and not what they have to say.
Thank you as well for taking the time to interact with people like myself. Average “Joes” who, whilst not a “name” as such in the world of biblical studies, do our best with what we have [in my case the little intelligence God has so graciously afforeded me] to be as true and sound and faithful to the same scriptures we all believe were inspired by the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
PS: seeing as how this show has generated such a response [is this the most you have received in the forum?] will you be willing to have Anthony Buzzard come back for Round 2?
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Michael,
I mean the standard Trinitarian definition of eternal generation – that the Son was timelessly generated by the Father in the “today” which with God has no beginning or end.
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
Anthony Buzzard,
I’m even trying to figure out your reclarification of your question to Dr. Brown, and this reclarification is still a bit ambiguous to me. Where are you getting this “standard Trinitarian definition”? Would it be fair to say your reclarification could be restated to Dr. Brown as “do you believe the Son is eternally begotten, or do you believe he was begotten on a particular day?”…..just wondering what you mean so I can also consider what you’re saying.
FYI, it is my understanding that God called His Word “Son” at a particular point in time (although it was always known as such to God before the world existed), however the Word who was WITH God has always existed, and is the same person as the Son, who is also God (John 1:1).
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:32 pm
Chuck,
Thanks for saying that I’ve been gracious here! I have actually been a bit stronger in some of my interaction than as is the norm, so I do appreciate the fact that you realize that my goal here is open and honest interaction and, to the extent that more Trinitarians were posting here, I’d be posting even less and letting others “have it out.”
I think the combined posts on the Calvinist debates may have generated even more response, and a Jewish-related one generated more than 1,000 responses thanks our tireless friend Zvi — but this is definitely a hot one, beginning with my talks with Kermit. (BTW, when I do a debate of this kind, my assumption is that many folks who take the minority position will flood the site, so you’re not just welcome here but expected!)
So would I have Anthony on the air again? Of course, although this time I would try to focus on a few texts and wrestle them down one way or the other to sharpen the debate. Most gladly!
One more point: As a Jew in constant debate with the Jewish community, and as one who recognizes many mistakes and errors in Church history, I would gladly embrace Unitarianism if I felt that’s what the Word taught. I embrace God’s tri-unity because I see it as the best evidence we can deduce from the Scriptures.
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
Anthony,
First, I don’t interpret Psalm 2 in terms of a literal begetting but rather of the son of David (ultimately, the Messiah) being recognized as God’s son/Son at the time of coronation. In that respect, I do follow the majority of scholars who interpret Acts 13:33 in terms of the Messiah’s resurrection rather than birth; see most recently Bock’s commentary for the sifting of the evidence. (I’m aware, of course, of the debate there, as noted duly by Bruce and others.)
Second, because of that, I don’t read the “today” in terms of “eternity past.”
Third, I do not see clear scriptural teaching (to my satisfaction) that explains the “when” of the “generation” of the Son. Perhaps those who composed the creeds saw it clearly, but I don’t. (As I have stated before, I’m a philologian and exegete rather than a systematic theologian.)
Fourth, I understand that the one God we serve was eternally triune, known to us as Father, Son, and Spirit. In that respect, I concur with the comments of Michael K., above. Beyond that, I cannot answer based on the Scriptures.
Without question the Son is God; without question the Son is eternal (as I have often stated in this forum, if you came here with the biblical view of the Son’s preexistence but denied His eternal deity, I would feel that we could have a discussion and work through these other questions. Things break down for me, however, in terms of constructive interaction, when explicit statements re: the Son’s preexistence are denied.); in some way, the Son proceeds from the Father and returns to Him so that “God may be all in all.” I do not claim to understand the exact nature of how that will take place, except for the fact that Revelation 22, speaking of the “God and the Lamb” together, indicate that we will see one face — one God!
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
RE: What is meant by “the eternal generation of the Son”?
The issue is, when it comes to the language of the Bible, what does the Messianic Psalm 2.7 mean when it says YHWH has declared:
You are my son [because] today I have begotten [Sept. gennao, generate, brought into existence] you. [cp. Acts 13.33; Heb 1.5; 5.5]
February 17th, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
I too would like to come out and thank you Dr.Brown for the great hopitality and for allowing my views to be posted freely depite the fact that you are well aware that I oppose everything about christiany. This is in contrast to when I debated athiests,as they have told me that although I am pretty good at making fallacious arguments,they aren’t interested. The reason I came here is because I consider Dr. Brown to be the most scholarly Jewish and christian apologist in the world and I know that he knows where I come from since he has gone through the issues himself. So,thanks again!
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:05 am
Chuck,
Well we agree on this: The Bible, not the creeds, must be our standard. If they are in harmony, great; if not, so be it. We follow the Word.
Two quick points:
1) The NT speaks of the eternally preexistent Son.
2) In keeping with the language of Psalm 2 (discussed in vols. 2 and 3 of my series), the last point you cite is more to the point: “Others have viewed the language more figuratively and connected it with Christ’s role as Messiah. Upon Christ’s exaltation to the Father’s right hand, God is said to have appointed, declared or officially installed Christ as a king (Act 13:33; Rom 1:4; Heb 1:5; Heb 5:5; Sept.: Psa2:6-8 [cf. huiós, son]).” Again, Psalm 2 is a coronation psalm, not a birth psalm.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Dr Brown
But Doctor, as you yourself have pointed out here and in your book many times, the Bible presents monotheism at its best. And you write that Jesus and the Apostles “emphatically [and] clearly” taught “that the Father was the one and only God”!
You know there are clear instances of theological bias in the NT scriptures as well, as per your comment regarding 1 Jn 5.7-8. As to “Church history”, well, it speaks for itself.
Who are these “majority scholars”?
Again, respectfully I ask you, where is this triune God or God as an essence and not an individual Person taught in the scriptures? You yourself recognized that Jesus’ statement at Jn 17.3 concurs with the rest of the Apostolic confession that “the Father is the only one God”.
This sounds alot like Oneness theology.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:09 am
Zvi,
Wow. This is really turning into a love fest here!
Just this week, I was on the phone with two ultra-orthodox rabbis who are counter-missionaries, so serious debate and dialog remains a major part of my life.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:14 am
Dr Brown
From the context of the Hebrew scriptures both statements apply when it comes to this verse. i.e. in the OT the Davidic King was proclaimed by YHWH through a prophet King of Israel and made “son of God” by “adoption” [shall we say, similarly to the nation of Israel], because he shared a special relationship with YHWH.
How much more His “one-of-a-kind, only-begotten”, hence natural Son? I think this is how the NT writers use this Messianic Psalm, to explain how the natural Son of God is both crowned King [as you suggest] because of his birth right!
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:15 am
Chuck,
Oneness? Hardly! As for the majority of the scholars re: Acts 13:33, check the most recent scholarly commentaries where they are listed. You can surely do that research for yourself. I mentioned Darrell’s Bock’s commentary as one of the most recent Acts commentaries by a world-class NT scholar. He writes, “Most scholars think that it is slightly more likely that the reference is to the resurrection [as opposed to Jesus beings raised up "onto the stage of history]. . . .” The lexicons point in this direction as well.
That’s it for now. Out of time and out of here.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:20 am
Chuck,
I’m not quite sure what your question was at 10:50. If you don’t mind,please explain.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:30 am
Dr Brown
You said that “in some way, the Son proceeds from the Father and returns to Him so that “God may be all in all.”…Revelation 22, speaking of the “God and the Lamb” together, indicate that we will see one face — one God!”
Sounds like the Son will somehow return to the Father and become One! Compare this with Oneness which states:
Zvi
When you mention the logos of Jn 1.1 as a he and not an it, are you suggesting its a person or a quality of the one God personified?
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:36 am
Chuck,
I’m refferring to John1 14 where it says that the word became flesh,so if the word became flesh- namely-g-d became a man ,that would have to mean that g-d went from not being a man to the state of being a man which would indicate change which is in direct contrast to the verse in Malachi that says that g-d does not change.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:52 am
Chuck,
When you argue against “And you write that Jesus and the Apostles “emphatically [and] clearly” taught “that the Father was the one and only God”!, doesn’t it make sense that the Jesus (the Word of God) would teach that the Father He speaks of is the one true God? God’s Word bears testimony about God and is not separate from His Being.
February 18th, 2010 @ 1:48 am
zvi
The writer of John seems to be saying that the logos of God was made “flesh” [sarx, also denoting a human being]. Of course the word is also God in so far as it originates with and proceedes from the one God. Which is not to say that it is one to one equal with God, i.e. logos is a being in and of itself, the same way Wisdom in Pro 8 is personified as a female person.
I am simply reinterating Jewish principles that one can find in the Hebrew scriptures. Thus, it does not break with the exclusive monotheism of the Shema and biblical texts such as the one in Malachi.
Michael K
I don’t understand what your trying to say here. Are you implying that the Son and the Father are one and the same “Being”?
February 18th, 2010 @ 9:04 am
Chuck,
Apparently you missed my discussion of Rev 22 in vol. 2?
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:04 am
chuck, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you saying that the word is g-d but not as powerful as the “real g-d? What do you mean by that?
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:13 am
Dr Brown
In your book you conclude that the “One throne, One God, one face” equals “the one God of Abraham and Moses is the one God of Peter and Paul”. Still sounds like Oneness theology to me Doctor since this interpretation implies that the Son is the Father is the Son.
BTW: where is the “third person” of the triune God in the final sequence of events that covers Rev 21-22? Where is “his throne”? What is “his name”?
All this proves is the simple fact that the Lamb is closely associated with “the throne of God.” When the risen Lamb of God ascended into heaven, he was exalted and glorified by his God and Father. Christ is the most highly exalted and glorious person in the universe, next to God. He is located very near the throne, for he “has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Heb. 12:2; see also Ps. 110:1; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33, 34; 5:31; 7:55, 56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 2:9; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21).
Throughout the book of Revelation Jesus is not God, but he is next to God, sitting or standing beside God, near God, close to God. As per the most cited OT verse Ps 110.1, which explains to the reader not only the relationship between the 2 Lords in view, but who each one of them is in relation to the other.
The following texts also describe the Lamb’s close proximity to the throne of God. In all cases we note that God – not “the Lamb” – is on the throne and the Lamb is near the throne:
Rev. 5:13: “Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever!”
Rev. 6:16: “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!”
Rev. 7:9: “Behold, a great multitude . . . standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands.”
Rev. 7:10: “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
We note that the One sitting upon the throne is “God” and that “the Lamb” is separate and distinct from the One is identified as “God” and “Him who sits on the throne.” Therefore, “the Lamb” cannot be God.
Because he speaks for God as his chief representative, Jesus is described in the following two verses as being “in the midst of the throne.”
Rev. 5:6: “And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth.”
Rev. 7:17: “for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”
God is never described as being “in the midst of the throne,” but creatures are:
Rev. 4:6: “Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.”
Jesus is also said to sit upon God’s throne, but that does not make him God. If it does, then we must conclude that David and Solomon also were members of the Godhead:
1 Chron. 29:23: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.”
Jesus sits upon God’s throne, not because he is God, but because God has granted him that wonderful honour, just as Jesus grants his disciples the honour of sitting upon his own throne:
Rev. 3:21: “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.”
The exaltation of Jesus to a glorious throne is described in the following way. We note that he is not God (the Ancient of Days), but he is the Son of Man who is brought before and glorified by God (the Ancient of Days):
Dan. 7:13-14: “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.”
In conclusion, we note that in Rev. 22:1-5, the “servants,” “face,” and “name” of only one Person are mentioned. That one Person is obviously “the Lord God” who sits upon “the throne of God.” (Verse 5)
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:17 am
zvi
When someone uses the expression “my word is with me”, does that mean that your “word” is a seperate being from you?
All the writer of John is communicating is the simple fact that the word of God had finally found fulfillment in the birth of His “one-of-a-kind, begotten” son. In other words, all the Messianic prophecies of the OT had finally found their fulfillment. It also seems to suggest that those divine qualities that describe the one God of Israel had been embodied in the man Jesus of Nazareth. Since Jesus went on to speak the words of God, and was likewise given authority as if he was God himself. Similar to the prophets and kings of the OT.
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:36 am
Chuck,
You are simply ignoring the word “became”. If I say that I became a doctor,that means that I went from not being a Doctor to being a doctor. Likewise, if the word (which is g-d) “became “man that in affect would mean that g-d went from not being a man to becoming a man which constitutes change-this is contrast to the fact that the verse in Malachi says,that g-d does not change!
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:43 am
zvi
What underwent a “change” was the “word” of God and not God Himself. God is not a man nor can His nature change or be transformed. The text is clear, it is not talking about the Son but the “word”.
February 18th, 2010 @ 11:07 am
Chuck,
Your analogy does not apply here,since you say that just as my word is a part of me and not a separate entity, so to the word of g-d is his word and is not a separate being from g-d. Using that same analogy, can your word “become” something? If your word simply means “the words that come out of your mouth”,then what does the word of g-d mean-the words that come out of his mouth,correct? Well if that’s the case then how do his words become flesh? Obviously we are not speaking of the simplictic term “word’ the way me and you know it as but rather it is a divinity of g-d in some way that the nt is referring to it as. Which brings by my original question as to how that changes.
February 18th, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Chuck,
One thing is clear, the Word is not the Father and vise versa. However, they are directly connected and cannot be separated. This is why Jesus says he is one with the Father, the same way Jesus sits at the Father’s right hand. Do you really understand what Jesus sitting WITH His Father on His throne means? John 17:5 makes clear that Jesus shared His Father’s glory before the world existed. The book of Revelation even shows Jesus is worshiped the same as the Father. It’s more complex than you make it out to be.
Consider Jesus’ birth. He was born of a virgin because the Holy Spirit caused her to conceive. Who does that make Jesus’ father to be? So you see, his human nature comes from the line of David through Mary, while his divine nature comes directly from His heavenly Father. He is directly connected to the Father, and as the Word, has always been. Because of direct connection with the Father, there is no one else who can fit the description of Isaiah 9:6-7.
He is called the image of the invisible God, not he “will be” the image, but “is” the image! God’s direct image is connected to God and cannot be separated. His image was even seen in the Old Testament. John 6:46 says “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.” John 1:18 is another good example of who has seen the Father and been at His side from the beginning.
February 18th, 2010 @ 11:49 am
zvi
I think your applying an English-Westernized interpretation to the Ancient Near Eastern understading of the Hebrew/Greek scriptures.
February 18th, 2010 @ 11:54 am
Chuck,
Your comments are not addressing the issues.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
Michael K
Yes, the same way believers are said to be one even as the Father and Son are one [John 17.11, 21]. Since “the person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit” with them [1Cor 6.17].
This is why to him who overcomes Jesus will grant them to sit with him in the throne of the Father [Rev 3.21].
No, Jesus is given honor, glory etc., as “the Lamb, the Messiah of God” and not God. See my previous post regarding Rev 22.1.
Where? Can you cite some verses where this preexistent Son of God is already existing?
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
zvi
I am trying to address the issues but it is hard to understand what it is your really wanting me to answer. I am simply disagreeing with the traditionalist view that “the word of God” is referring to some preexistent being who has always been alongside God. If this were the case, then this is clearly a binitarian theology in view, or, as per the ancient heresy, “two powers in heaven”.
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
MK,
The verse is simply a forgery. I hope you are not a ‘KJV only’ guy
You can google ‘Johannine Comma’ and get a link like this to get more info:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html
No, I’m not aware. The fact that Jesus is at the right hand of God makes him equal…ontologically I assume you mean?
Joseph was at the right hand of Pharoah, were they one? In a sense they were, like one in purpose… Joseph was given authority by Pharoah (ultimately God of course). Wow, that sounds kinda like what Jesus said about the authority given to him and Jesus also said he can do nothing of himself. (I’m seeing some contrast here between Jesus and His God)
Yes, you are right. Although most Jews aren’t confused. The Jews have known their God as one individual with one Name. So yes, seperate persons have the distinct ring of polytheism.
I think this is part of the problem, God is never ‘an essense’ in the Hebrew bible. He is not an ‘it’ God is not 3 who’s in 1 what. We are leaving Hebrew thought and going into Platonism with that concept.
Do you have any question about Ezekiel 33:24, if Abraham is one person, or a complex unity?
“Son of man, they who inhabit those ruins in the land of Israel are saying, ‘Abraham was only one, and he inherited the land. But we are many; the land has been given to us as a possession.’
But Deut 6:4 refers to a complex unity???
Luke 22:42
“Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”
Jesus has a seperate will because He is a seperate person! Not a distinction with the Godhead.
Yes we fail to recognize it, because it’s hard to recognize something that doesn’t exist…
Which leads me to our discussion of John 17:3, which you link to 17:5.
So how should I translate 17:3? Maybe as ” This is eternal life, that they may know US, the only true God” ? (and where is the Spirit?)
John 17:5 obviously references a pre-existence. Does pre-existence automatically mean that Jesus is deity? ESPECIALLY in context of 17:3 ? Maybe, just maybe Jesus spoke 17:5 just 2 verses later because we have a short memory and wants us to know the reference to pre-existance does not change the fact the the Father is the only true God.
Don’t you see the difference between verses like 17:3 and 17:5? One is explicit, the other has some room for interpretation. Kinda like when Jesus said “Lazurus is sleeping”, which is not as explicit as when Jesus said plainly right after “Lazurus is dead”
Jeremiah was known of God before his birth, that doesn’t make him deity, does it?
2 Tim 1:9 “who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began”
Are we God since we pre-existed in some way to receive grace before time began?
February 18th, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
Chuck,
Thanks for your lengthy post. Much appreciated! One quick note.
You stated: “In your book you conclude that the “One throne, One God, one face” equals “the one God of Abraham and Moses is the one God of Peter and Paul”. Still sounds like Oneness theology to me Doctor since this interpretation implies that the Son is the Father is the Son.”
Perhaps it sounds like Oneness theology to you because you don’t understand Trinitarian beliefs? Could that be possible?
There is absolute distinction between the persons in Scripture — just read John 14-16 in its most natural, obvious sense — but only one God.
In any case, more than you realize, we agree that there is only one God, who is not divisible. I hope to respond further if time permits but schedule is getting very tight again, but I do appreciate you taking time to post here.
February 18th, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Chuck,
Revelation 3:21 seems to be talking about two thrones. Jesus moves up to the Father’s throne from a previous throne, while believers move up to Jesus’ previous throne.
It also ought to be understood that we cannot come to God unless it is through God. John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except THROUGH me.” We cannot be one with God except through Jesus, His Word who is not separate from God.
As for the pre-existent “Son” concept, I’m not caught up in that as much as this person pre-existed as the “Word” who was WITH God and WAS God.
I’d like a response about the previous comments I made regarding Jesus’ divine nature through the virgin birth.
February 18th, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
Rich L,
No, I’m not a KJV guy, that’s why I couldn’t see what you were saying. Nonetheless, your point is noted regarding this particular verse. The mounds of other Scripture regarding God’s personal operatives still causes me to hold to my view, as mentioned in many other previous posts. Your other comparisons are also noted, but cannot exactly match the divine nature of the issue. Also, maybe I should not use the term “essence”, since that seems to be confusing the issue. I don’t think of God as merely an “essense”. What I was trying to point to, was what is stated in NT Scripture about God’s make-up of a divine Father, Son (Word), Holy Spirit.
Jesus said “When you have seen me, you have seen the Father”.
Read my previous comments to Chuck at 11:48 about Jesus’ divine nature through the virgin birth. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
February 18th, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
chuck,
There are 2 choices 1. The word is divine-you don’t believe in the trinity,therefore this would have to mean either g-d himself or part of g-d himself wich I see as being himself since the trinity does not exist or it’s divine in some other way that I don’t understand. This is all part of choice#1. choice 2. The word is not divine it is a completely separate entity. If chice #1 is true,then the question is if he is divine then he cannot change! if choice# 2 is true,then what does the word mean?
February 18th, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Dr. Brown, I wish to thank you for being bold enough to address this controversial subject, and allowing me to take part. Obviously I am more closely aligned with Sir Anthony’s teachings than I am with yours. It is evident from the number of responses that this issue has not been resolved. I look for ward to the day when we are in total agreement with Yahweh and not segregated into our own little splintered denominational groups of human traditions. I am glad that Yahweh judges the heart and not the extent or the accuracy of our knowledge. Regardless of our differences I pray that Adonai Yahweh ‘Elohiym grant you an abundant life full of his mercy and grace through his son, Adoni Yeshua HaMashiach, Sar Shalom.
February 18th, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Carmen, you are quite welcome, and I hope that over time, there will be more light than heat from all of our interactions. Thanks for posting here, and thanks for your prayers. I pray the same for you. In fact, can we all pray this together?
Father, wherever we are preaching and teaching Your truth, confirm that and strengthen us in our resolve to stand; wherever we are in error, open our eyes to see and give us the grace to repent and get things right in accordance with Your Word. In Yeshua’s name, amen!
February 18th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Michael K,
Sounds reasonable for the Hebrew idea of agency. We have “power of attorney” that conveys a similar idea.
Jesus also said “the Father is GREATER than I”. Not exactly a statement of co-equality.
I had addressed John 17:3 with John 17:5 earlier (12:06). Would you mind commenting on it? I would like to know how you translate/interpret 17:3 to mesh with the idea I think you espouse that ‘The God and Father of Jesus is NOT the only God, but Jesus is also God as well as the Holy Spirit” (3 beings in 1 God that are co-eternal, co-creators, co-essential). Forgive me if have I mis-stated your belief on this.
I will try and comment later on your comments to Chuck about Jesus’ divine nature through the virgin birth.
February 18th, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Rich L,
Regarding the “idea of agency”, I think this is an important issue to address. Obviously, we don’t all see this the same way. I have no problem referring to it as “agency” with the understanding that some Scriptural agents are God Himself manifested. Obviously, the angels Michael or Gabriel are not God Himself, having personal names. However, you can’t exactly put the angel of the Lord in this category, who at times ascribes to honor only received by God Himself. Another instance is the Commander of the Army of the Lord mentioned in the book of Joshua. Other angelic agents have refused such worship, but not necessarily the angel of the Lord. Nor has Jesus ever refused worship from others. With this in mind, one certainly should ask the question whether or not this relates to God referring to Himself in plural at different times in Tanakh.
Regarding John 17:3, you say: “So how should I translate 17:3? Maybe as ” This is eternal life, that they may know US, the only true God” ? (and where is the Spirit?)” There needs to be a better understanding of this verse. By Jesus singling out the one true God AND himself, this point is made to clarify to everyone who the one true God is, to avoid misunderstandings with other other monotheistic religions. Jesus adds his name in this statement so there is no confusion by whom men must be saved in order to come to the Father. To label Jesus as only man would contradict his sinless nature. There is only one who cannot sin, and that is God. If Jesus did not have divine nature, he would have surely sinned and his reason for being here would have no purpose. Jesus did not have to point out the Spirit in this verse. John 15:26 through 16:15 gives a better idea about the Holy Spirit, and how he will testify about Jesus, which is in harmony with John 17:3. I say that if the Spirit is testifying to us about Jesus, that certainly qualifies as us knowing the Spirit. As believers, if we don’t recognize the Holy Spirit moving in our lives, we miss out big time, and disregard who Jesus said he would send to us. The Son and Holy Spirit bear witness about the Father that no other “agents” are capable of. Who else can be in the presence of the Father and live? Yet the Son (the Word) and Holy Spirit bear witness, and they can only do so by proceeding directly from the person of God.
February 18th, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
Dr Brown
Because I keep referring back to the ancient Catholic creeds as the standard for Trinitarian beliefs is the reason why I think you express a Oneness theology in this instance. As you well know, according to trinitarianism, the “one God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, but here we only have the Father and the Son. Where is the 3rd person? His throne? His name?
If at the end all of end all we only see “one God, one throne” composed of only the Father and the Son, according to trini beliefs, the Godhead seems to be incomplete wouldn’t you agree?
Michael K
The scriptures do not state that the only way to God is through that same God. I do not know if you have noticed but all through the scriptures God uses intermediators. In the OT he used angels and Moses was God’s “intermediary” in the gift of the law to Israel (Lev. 26:46; John 1:17).
Now that the promise of God’s supreme agent and intermediator has come, Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, is the one and only mediator, the only way to salvation (cf. Acts 4:12).
NOTE: The “one God” is clearly distinguished in each of these passages from “the one mediator, human being”, lord Messiah Jesus!
zvi
All John’s prologue is telling me is that the logos [God's plan, purpose] finally came to fruition in the coming of Jesus. This also implies that God’s qualities [such as his word, wisdom, glory etc.] were embodied in this one human being in a way that is unprecedented. Why? Because Jesus is God’s “one-of-a-kind-only-begotten” Son!
February 18th, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
Dr Brown
Because I keep referring back to the ancient Catholic creeds as the standard for Trinitarian beliefs is the reason why I think you express a Oneness theology in this instance. As you well know, according to trinitarianism, the “one God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, but here we only have the Father and the Son. Where is the 3rd person? His throne? His name?
If at the end all of end all we only see “one God, one throne” composed of only the Father and the Son, according to trini beliefs, the Godhead seems to be incomplete wouldn’t you agree?
Michael K
The scriptures do not state that the only way to God is through that same God. I do not know if you have noticed but all through the scriptures God uses intermediators. In the OT he used angels and Moses was God’s “intermediary” in the gift of the law to Israel (Lev. 26:46; John 1:17).
Now that the promise of God’s supreme agent and intermediator has come, Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, is the one and only mediator, the only way to salvation (cf. Acts 4:12).
NOTE: The “one God” is clearly distinguished in each of these passages from “the one mediator, human being”, lord Messiah Jesus!
zvi
All John’s prologue is telling me is that the logos [God's plan, purpose] finally came to fruition in the coming of Jesus. This also implies that God’s qualities [such as his word, wisdom, glory etc.] were embodied in this one human being in a way that is unprecedented. Why? Because Jesus is God’s “one-of-a-kind-only-begotten” Son!
Carmen
Jesus taught, among many other things, that of primce importance we must seek to worship God “in spirit and in truth”. If we will be judged solely on some abstract moral or ethical content of our “hearts”, then why are we here trying to persuade people to the sound doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, which [according to the scriptures] “accords with godliness” [Titus 1.1; cp. 1 Timothy 2:4 : 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 10:26]?
February 18th, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
Michael Brown and Michael K,
The eternal generation of the Son was and continues to be a major building block in Trinitarian theology. Origen as you know is normally taken to be the first to speak of this though there is a strong element of subordination in his theology. Barnes, Dakes Bible, Walter Martin and John McArthur (before he changed his mind) denied the preexistence of the Son and insisted only on the preexistence of the Word.
Orthodoxy has normally told us that “today” means in eternity as viewed by God. As you perhaps know the two Hodges and Warfield abandoned this major pillar of orthodox Trinitarianism. There is not a word of Scripture to support the idea of a generation of the Son outside of time. The origin and beginning of the Son is laid out most fully for us in Matthew and Luke. The concept is easy: God caused the existence of His Son by biological miracle. Luke 1:35 should be the starting point for a rational discussion about why and how Jesus is the Son of God.
The begetting of the Son fits perfectly with Acts 13:33, Rom 1:3 where the son of David is also God’s Son. And Heb 1 produces 3 proof texts to mark the beginning of the Son. 2 Sam 7:14 speaks of the Son of God in the future.
All this is straightforward. If Dunn’s caution were heeded we should speak of Jesus as “the incarnation of God and not of the incarnation of God the Son.” Word and wisdom preexist, not the Son of God.
The overwhelming point of the NT is that we believe in Jesus as the Messiah, so called 550 times. The difference between the lord Messiah (Lk 2:11) and the LORD’s Messiah (Lk 2:26) is perfectly clear. I do not understand how a Jew could be brought to believe that the Messiah is YHWH. He is YHWH’s Messiah, the anointed one. The marvelous thing about Jesus is what God has achieved through him and in him, with his cooperation of course.
Would that we could all unite around the creed expressed by Paul in 1 Tim 2:5: “There is one God [i.e. the Father] and one mediator between God and man, the man Messiah Jesus.” Paul did not believe in a triune God.
February 18th, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
Anthony,
First, I fully embrace Paul’s words in 1 Tim. 2:5, speaking of the incarnate Son who is the man Christ Jesus. I also fully embrace his words in Phil. 2:5-11, along with all of Hebrews 1, along with John 1:1-18 and many other passages. As for Dunn, again, he is not a Unitarian, and in his Theology of the Apostle Paul, he dances quite closely to a preexistent Son there. I am glad, however, that you have stopped citing Bruce, since he is a definite witness against you, not for you. At least we have cleaned that up.
Second, I agree with you that, “The overwhelming point of the NT is that we believe in Jesus as the Messiah, so called 550 times,” or more precisely, Messiah and Lord, as I wrote clearly in vol. 2. That is not in doubt. We also see, however, that this God-appointed Messiah, Yeshua, bears the divine image in a unique way since he is the Word made flesh, the Son incarnate, thus the one true God walking in our midst — all while the Father sits enthroned in heaven. We call this God’s tri-unity!
Third, you state, “I do not understand how a Jew could be brought to believe that the Messiah is YHWH.” Well, there are plenty of Jews who believe that very thing, including some who were raised in very religious homes. The operative line here is, “I do not understand.” I will continue to attempt to enlighten you!
That being said, this is not the primary statement of the NT but a deduction based on the nature of God and the fact that for a Jew, God alone is Savior.
Fourth, your interpretation of Acts 13:33 remains flawed, not to mention your reading of Romans 1 and, in particular, your reading of Psalm 2. One of the world’s leading NT scholars (who has done massive work on Acts) wrote to me today concerning Acts 13:33 and stated, “Clearly the issue in context is Jesus’ resurrection/enthronement/exaltation rather than his birth; that’s also the case with the application of Ps 2 in Heb 1:5; 5:5. While Jesus is enthroned as God’s Son, however, He was already God’s Son before being publicly declared/vindicated as such in the resurrection (Rom 1:2-4).” Precisely!
Fifth, You write, “If Dunn’s caution were heeded we should speak of Jesus as ‘the incarnation of God and not of the incarnation of God the Son.’ I can assure you, Anthony, after almost forty years of dealing with my Jewish people, once you talk about “the incarnation of God,” you might as well talk about God’s triunity. You have just scandalized your Jewish listener until God, by His Spirit and through the Word, opens his eyes to the truth.
Sixth, you write, “Word and wisdom preexist, not the Son of God.” Wrong. These are abstract, non-personal concepts, spoken of in hypostatized form in the ancient literature. These “its” did not become human in the form of Jesus! Moreover, “wisdom” or “the word” did not eternally preexist ALONGSIDE the Father, which John 1:1 requires; the Son, however, did.
Seventh, you now set up a system in which I am supposed to bow down before an exalted human and give him the honor that only God is supposed to receive, calling him “my Lord and my God,” offering him the same praise that the heavenly Father receives, praying to him to return, etc. Never! When Saul of Tarsus cried out on the road to Damascus, “Who are you Lord?” and “What will you have me to do, Lord?”, he may not have fully recognized the only confronting him as God, but he certainly was not saying to an exalted human! You write, “Paul did not believe in a triune God,” but Paul’s writings say the opposite, even in the way he speaks of the Father and Jesus in some of his letters using the singular grammatical forms in the Greek, as B. B. Warfield pointed out long ago.
Anthony, what I have learned in my brief interaction with you is that you must skirt explicit statements in Scripture (re: the Son’s preexistence, as in John 1 and Hebrews 1), appeal to scholars who do NOT concur with your overall interpretation to support a verse here and there, get away from the obvious meaning of other passages (like Phil 2:5-11), and then continue to attribute to me things I never said or wrote in order to support your tenuous and unbiblical position.
As for Trinitarian theologians, feel free to debate them on the creeds and statements they have made, but when interacting with me, please be kind enough to interact with what I have written and said in terms of biblical exegesis, since, just as in vol. 2 dealing with Jewish apologetics, my goal is to exegete the Word and not defend or attack the creeds.
For the sake of closure, then, let’s do this (my time also being limited on this blog here): Come back on my radio show, and we will agree to focus on some of these crucial texts in depth (e.g., John 1; 8:58 20:28; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 1). While I promise to be gracious to you on a personal level, I promise also to clearly and sharply expose your erroneous viewpoints. I expect the same posture from you. Acceptable?
Regrettably, the phone lines problems we had the first time around distracted from our conversation (at least on my side, where my studio was in upheaval with the construction crisis outside), not to mention that I wanted to be sure that I went out of my way to give you space to state your views before gently differing with them. Since we have established our personal civility towards one another, let’s “take the gloves off,” so to say, in terms of the issues, as we have here.
Fair enough?
February 18th, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
Michael,
“Fair enough?”
Yes. I will wait for you to set the date.
February 18th, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
Dr Brown
In Judaism wasn’t the Torah perceived as somehow being an incarnation of YHWH, hence preexisting? As Dunn again points out in his Christology in the Making, p 4:
Hence, some scholars [i.e. M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law] have shown that the NT identifies Jesus as these pre-existing entities [Wisdom, Torah, etc.] as understood by Judaism.
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
Chuck,
Once again your response does not even remotely touch upon the question I have asked.
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
zvi
We’re like two ships passing in the night friend. So let’s just keep going our own way.
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Chuck,
In Judaism, a preexistent Torah was non-personal; hence scholars are jumping from a non-personal concept to a personal concept, which is not appropriate. The NT sees the preincarnate Word as a personal, closer to Philo’s logos and parallel to the Targumic memra.
What these scholars are saying is right in terms of the clear parallels (e.g., with Wisdom, as Dunn and others point out), but rightly understood, all this means is that what these impersonal images pointed to was a person. Otherwise, you would have to say that you might as well as say that Jesus is “mathematics personified” or “knowledge personified.” No. He is God incarnate.
Again, sorry that I don’t have time to respond to all your posts.
February 18th, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
Anthony,
Terrific! We’ll be in touch to set this up, hopefully in early March.
BTW, you had offered to send me your first book (“Wound”) but I never heard from you to get you my address. Please email me at drbrown@askdrbrown.org or simply send it to the address on AskDrBrown.org, to my attention. Thanks.
February 18th, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
Dr Brown
Later NT “Church Fathers” saw “the preincarnate Word as a personal”, pre-existing being. The NT writers seem to remain within the bounds of Jewish traditions and interpretations regarding the impersonal qualities of these concepts.
Hence Paul in 1Cor 1.30:
Note that Philo and the Targums did not hold a belief that these “impersonal images” were somehow “personal preexisting beings”:
My point being Doctor, that if these concepts were true for Judaism [Wisdom, Torah, Glory etc.] represented YHWH in such a way that they believed these were incarnations, why would it “scandalize” them [as you suggest] to say the same thing when it comes to His “one-of-a-kind-only-begotten” Son?
And why do you jump to the conclusion that we are then talking about or describing a triune God to them? If this were true, then we would be describing or talking about a pluriform God composed of more than 3 persons!
February 18th, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
Chuck,
You wrote: “Later NT “Church Fathers” saw “the preincarnate Word as a personal”, pre-existing being. The NT writers seem to remain within the bounds of Jewish traditions and interpretations regarding the impersonal qualities of these concepts.” Obviously, I am quite convinced that a proper exegesis of John 1:1-18 confirms that the Word was a personal, pre-existing being.
You wrote: “My point being Doctor, that if these concepts were true for Judaism [Wisdom, Torah, Glory etc.] represented YHWH in such a way that they believed these were incarnations, why would it “scandalize” them [as you suggest] to say the same thing when it comes to His “one-of-a-kind-only-begotten” Son?”
Chuck, please show me anywhere in Jewish writing (outside of the NT) where were a human being was purported to be “the Torah incarnate” — not in the sense of being a walking Bible, as we say of some folks today, but as per John’s language, or, for that matter, “eternally pre-existent Wisdom fully incarnate in a man.” The texts simply don’t exist. You can’t have it both ways, Chuck. You point to alleged parallels, but they break down because they are never fully incarnated. Even Anthony quotes Dunn who speaks of God being incarnate in Jesus!
You write, “And why do you jump to the conclusion that we are then talking about or describing a triune God to them? If this were true, then we would be describing or talking about a pluriform God composed of more than 3 persons!”
Alas, dear friend, that is simply your construction put on what I and others believe (and we believe what we do based on the Word). If you would only understand what we believe and what the Word says here, the light would go on for you. I do hope and pray you’ll be wiling to embrace it.
Only one God, enthroned in heaven, filling the universe, working among us by His Spirit, and made known on earth through His Son.
Now think of this: Hundreds of thousands of Jews who have turned to Yeshua as Messiah believe in His deity and in God’s tr–unity. Yes, Jews (and I mean today and over the centuries).
February 19th, 2010 @ 12:00 am
Dr Brown
Well, this is where we “obviously” disagree. Since by that interpretation it would mean that other Johannine images like “the eternal life, which was with the Father” of 1John 1.1-3 was also “a personal, pre-existing being”. Same with those other YHWH qualities already mentioned [Wisdom, Glory etc.].
In the Targum and some Rabbinic writings Moses personified the Torah. Likewise, Solomon personified the Wisdom of God. Obviously, Jesus’ uniqueness lies in the fact that in him is embodied, as with no one else in the history of Judaism, “the fullness of the Deity bodily” [Col 2.9]. Hence the Pauline phrase, “God was in Christ” and not “God was Christ”. Am I really not making myself clear to your Jewish thinking Doctor?
Doctor, the Johannine writers which you and many others always fall back on to support the trinitarian understanding of God, explicitly states that “eternal life is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ”. The whole Gospel account was “written that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God”. All titles designating a full [and not half] human being. If we do not believe Jesus was the human Son of God, we deny his only God and Father.
This are clear, simple, biblical statements that my mind, heart and soul understand. And in so doing I may love the Lord God with all my being. What you, and many others, are asking me to forsake is this biblical testimony. Something that I [and many others] feel that in so doing would forsake my chance at eternal life in the age to come.
You know the scriptures Doctor, “only a remnant of Israel will be saved”. If eternal life comes down to a popularity or majority vote, then the Lord Jesus lied when he said “small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life”.
February 19th, 2010 @ 12:17 am
In the spirit of this forum, I’m putting myself in the “Line of Fire”
I want to dovetail from something Anthony has recently said:
I am a Jew who does not believe that Yeshua the Messiah is YHVH. I am not alone, so is Zvi, and perhaps others reading this forum. I want to issue a challenge to everyone. I am honestly open to be persuaded that Yeshua is YHVH (The God of Israel), but first by the Torah alone (the foundation of the O.T.). If the Torah teaches it, then we can move forward and look at the rest of the O.T. and into the N.T. If not, then we as Jews must obey the first commandment by rejecting the claim men have made of Yeshua’s deity which includes being co-equal, co-eternal, and co-essential with YHVH.
The challenge is: Persuade me and every other Jew that Yeshua is YHVH from the Torah alone. Feel free to disagree with any of my commentary below as well.
Our flagship verse is the first of 10 commandments YHVH has given us: “You shall have no other gods before Me. (Exod 20:3)
In additional to keeping in mind Ex 20:3, and considering Torah as a whole, we are going to consider some other specific Torah verses I have picked out, relevant to our discussion, while you present your evidence.
Verses (and my commentary):
Ex. 3:15 – YHVH is God’s Name forever. I am not aware of anywhere in the Torah where someone’s name denotes more than one individual, therefore one name=one person, per normal rules of language.
I counted the number of times YHVH is used in the Torah:
163 in Genesis
393 in Exodus
287 Leviticus
374 Numbers
531 Deuteronomy
Total of 1748
What if your name was used instead of God’s Name 1748 times? Why should we think your name means anything other than more than one individual? Especially with all the accompanying single personal pronouns and singular verbs ?
Deut 4:35
Deut 4:39
Deut 6:4 - YHVH is one
Deut 13:6-8 – We are not to serve other gods which we or our fathers have not known
Deut 32:39
Will there be any takers for the challenge?
(Dr. Brown, feel free to sit this out if you would like, since you have already written about this in Answering Jewish Objections Vol 2, section 3.1 and 3.2.)
February 19th, 2010 @ 12:36 am
Rich L & zvi
Are you guys Christians?
February 19th, 2010 @ 12:41 am
Chuck,
Yes, I thoroughly differ with your “Jewish” thinking as it allegedly applies to the unique act of the Incarnation. As you know, I went in a different direction in my own writings on the subject, and, quite clearly, I see that you continue to miss the point of John’s writings. But thanks for your comments.
As for Zvi — you apparently were unaware that he is an ultra-Orthodox Jew who came onto the forum in the first place some months to prove that Christian beliefs were wrong, but in keeping with our request to him, he can post anywhere as long as he stays on topic, which he has done here.
February 19th, 2010 @ 12:47 am
Rich L.,
Yes, I will be sitting this out (as I do with most posts here), but I appreciate your challenge. I do, however, have a problem with your wording: “Persuade me and every other Jew that Yeshua is YHVH from the Torah alone.”
First, can you prove to a Jewish person that Yeshua is the Messiah from the Torah alone? Conclusively? I can do so through the Tanakh as a whole, but from the Torah alone? That would be debatable. How many explicit references are there in the Torah to the Messiah himself? So, why not use the Tanakh as a whole? Isn’t that God’s more complete revelation to our people? That being said, it is very easy to prove that God is both seen and unseen, visible and invisible, transcendent and immanent in the Torah, and the NT shows us clearly that the One who is seen is always the Son. So, your call: two Gods or One? I say One.
Second, why use an explicit statement that can misleading? Are you saying that we should prove that Jesus is the Father? Wouldn’t that be implied in your “Jesus is YHVH” statement? Why not use language that the NT uses, namely, that Yeshua is the Word made flesh, the eternal Son of God, the full image of God in earthly form? That can certainly be demonstrated from the Tanakh — as I sought to prove in the aforementioned sections of my book — and then fully unfolded in the NT.
February 19th, 2010 @ 12:54 am
Chuck,
Two further, quick comments (to honor your time and your lucid post, despite the fact that I should be working on something else here; and forgive me in advance if I don’t respond for a while to future posts).
1) When you speak of Torah being personified in a person that is NOT the same as the preexistent Torah becoming a human being! The same with the other qualities (life, wisdom, etc.): Qualities do not become a living human being; the preexistent Son, who embodies these characteristics, came into the world. God sent His Son (Rom 8:3 and elsewhere)! He did not make Him a Son by birth into this world.
2) You write, “You know the scriptures Doctor, “only a remnant of Israel will be saved”. If eternal life comes down to a popularity or majority vote, then the Lord Jesus lied when he said “small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life”.” So, why in the world do you challenge to persuade a Jew to believe certain things, as if that proves something? My point to you was that this remnant who has been saved to date, to the massive, overwhelming majority, does, in fact, believe that Yeshua is the eternal Son and that God is triune. That, in fact, is of interest to me.
February 19th, 2010 @ 3:04 am
Dr Brown
Where is this person of the “preexistent Son” in the Hebrew scriptures Doctor? The writer of Hebrews disagrees with your view here. You keep holding on to this invisible, unknowable, unheard of “God the Son”, but he is nowhere to be found.
In one of your previous posts you suggested that the Jews before Jesus did not have a complete picture of the triune nature of YHWH. According to this view, they died without really knowing Who YHWH really was then, didn’t they? Hence, by definition, the promises do not belong to them since only those who know God [and are known by Him] can be saved.
Your yet to answer where the throne and name of the Holy Spirit are to be found in the end of Revelation as well.
Because “opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” [2Tim 2.25].
February 19th, 2010 @ 3:08 am
Dr Brown,
is not the aramiac word “memra” a metonym for God/Yahweh.
also Shikinah, Glory etc being metonyms for God/Yahweh in the Targums.
The reason for this being that the jews did not want to pronounce the sacred name of God Yahweh and also had some issues with anthropromorphisms in realtion to God? Is that true?
Thus John 1 prologue, John also uses the term logos as metonym for God thus every jew would have understood what he was doing. This is very jewish not greek.
Gods word/memra/logos is with him and is Gods very self expression.
Thus the word became flesh by tabernacling/dwelling in and through the Perfect human Jesus Christ. The word/memra/logos/God/Yahweh incarnated, dwells in fullness in Jesus Messiah.
God/Logos was in Messiah reconciling the world to Himself.
Col1:9, 2:9 Heb1:3
February 19th, 2010 @ 5:11 am
Paul,
So what does this make the Son of God?
February 19th, 2010 @ 7:57 am
Chuck,
I understand Zvi is an orthodox Jew. I am a Messianic Jew in the order of Matt. 16:16.
February 19th, 2010 @ 8:52 am
Dr. Brown,
The wording of the challenge isn’t as important to me as the overall idea. The reason I don’t want to use Tanakh as a whole is from the word TaNakH itself. The Torah I think you would agree, is the foundation from which the rest of Tanakh is built upon.
If Yeshua is not God in the Torah then perhaps we are reading him into the text of the rest of Tanakh. Also back to that passage in Deut 13:6-8, we were commanded not to serve any other God “which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers”. From my reading of Torah, they only knew YHVH, the God of Israel.
As Jews we are tested to see if we will keep his commandments or not, as in Deut 8:2.
I will be glad to move on to the rest of the Tanakh after Yeshua is identified from the Torah.
I look forward to reading the insights people have from answering my challenge.
February 19th, 2010 @ 9:56 am
Rich,
In my view you’re a truth seeking person,therefore, I strongly suggest that you go through the discussion on the Shmuley boteach debate blog with an unbiased perspective.
February 19th, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
Chuck, Rich L, and Dr. Brown,
Can I get each of your brief perspectives on whether or not it was possible for Jesus to sin?
February 19th, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
Paul,
You ask, “is not the aramiac word “memra” a metonym for God/Yahweh?” Yes and no. Sorry to constantly refer to this, but do you have vol. 2 of my apologetics series? I deal with the Memra at some length there. That being said, I basically agree with where you are going with the concept.
February 19th, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Chuck,
To repeat: I can’t answer every post in this forum, especially from one person. I’ve actually answered far more of your posts than I’m normally able to; also, it appears that some of my answers are misunderstood once they’re processed through your grid.
Yes, I agree with the verse you quoted at the end of your last post, which I apply to my dealings to help you (however you intended it), but with my time limited on this forum (check out all the other threads which have almost no response from me), you’ll have to call my show if you’d like to interact further.
I have also answered some of your questions at length already in my writings, yet you ask them afresh here as if I never provided the evidence. That further discourages me from wasting time by reposting what I’ve already written.
May the Lord guide you into all the truth!
February 19th, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
Michael K,
Absolutely, Jesus could have sinned. Hebrews 4:15
The temptations he faced would be a sham if he couldn’t have sinned.
Jesus is the second Adam, 100% man. Isn’t it amazing what God can do with a man that is fully submitted to Him! I want to be more like Jesus of Nazareth…the devotion he had to his God and Father is inspiring to say the least.
Thanks for your reply about John 17:3 yesterday.
Do you have any comments to make for my challenge above?
February 19th, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Rich L.,
Like Saul of Tarsus, do you fall down before Messiah Jesus, call him Lord, and ask him, “What do you want me to do, Lord?” Do you worship him as the believers do in Revelation and proclaim that he is worthy to receive all praise and honor and glory? If so, then is he is infinitely more than an exalted, perfect human being! If not, you are not following Scripture.
February 19th, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Rich L,
But Jesus could ONLY do what the Father told him, meaning there’s no way he could sin. Just because Jesus knew what it meant to be tempted, didn’t mean he had the capacity to sin. Furthermore, all humans are born in sin. Not so with Jesus, since although he was 100% man, he was also 100% God incarnate (Philippians 2:5-11). It was set in place beforehand by the Father that Jesus would never sin. No one could ever be sinless unless God was incarnate in that person.
February 19th, 2010 @ 7:32 pm
Michael K
If that was the case, then we’re talking about a robot and not a free-willin’ human being. If even the holy angels have the capacity to sin, why couldn’t any other created being?
Dr Brown
Thank you for your time once again.
But Doctor at every turn you seem to be ignoring two simple points I have observed from dealing with you. You write that Jesus and the Apostles recognized that the Father is the only true God [John 17.3]; and where is the HS in the end all of end all of Rev 22? His throne, His name? It seems the Bible closes with only the Father and Son in the Godhead.
February 19th, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
Michael K,
Did the first Adam HAVE TO sin? What if he and Eve resisted the devil and obeyed God instead of taking the forbidden fruit?
If Yeshua could not have sinned then I cannot relate to him being tempted. It would be like playing a video game with unlimited lives and power. If I was 100% God, I think I could resist temptation.
Have you thought about where Yeshua is in the Torah? Any thoughts whatsoever on that or any of my comments from 12:17am?
I will check in on Sunday…replying then to Dr. Brown’s comment as well as writing what is on my mind.
Shabbat Shalom to you Michael K, Dr. Brown, Zvi, Chuck, Anthony, and anyone else I missed !!
February 19th, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
Chuck,
Thanks for your time too.
To be clear, it’s not to up to me to dictate how God reveals Himself. I demonstrated in vol. 2 that the Holy Spirit is clearly a person and not just a power or expression, a revelation laid out in the Tanakh and then given further expansion in the NT. How the “eternal Spirit” will be seen or known or revealed throughout eternity is God’s business.
As for John 17:3, I responded to that earlier in this thread (or in the Kermit Zarley thread): God is primarily revealed to us in the NT as the Father, and the NT also reveals to us that in a unique way, the Father is in the Son and Son in the Father. I embrace John 17:3, along with John 1:1, 1:14, 1:18, 8:58, 20:28, and many other verses speaking of God’s complex unity.
Is the Father the only True God? Absolutely! Is the Son uniquely one with the Father? Absolutely! Are there two gods? Absolutely not!
Blessings on your studies, as I bid you adieu for now.
February 19th, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
Dr Brown
How is the “person” of the HS “laid out in the Tanakh”? Again, where are these preexistent beings in the Hebrew scriptures? It doesn’t strike you at all odd, to say the least, that this 3rd person is not represented in the final Revelation given by God about Himself? If I believed in a triune God it would definitely bother me.
I agree that the Father is the only true God and that by a spiritual union [based on common purpose, sense, love, etc.] “the Father is in the Son and Son in the Father”, just as believers are said to be. So that everyone “who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him” [1Cor 6.17].
This is because I don’t understand you at times Doctor when you drop this clear, unitarian statements regarding the single, individual nature of the one God of Israel. But then, suddenly, you turn around to say that His unity is complex? How can you jump from one end of the spiritual spectrum to the other? When the latter is clearly scriptural and we can both agree but not the other.
What is wrong with just ending this by saying that “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah” is the only true God and no one else??
February 19th, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
Chuck,
You can add as many posts as you want, but the mere repetition of them proves nothing, nor does your dismissal of the clear evidence I provided about the person of the Holy Spirit in the Tanakh make that biblical evidence disappear.
When I signed off wishing you well, I meant just that, so feel free to address others here, but as I have tried to state politely several times already, time does not permit me to interact further.
Feel free to cling to a few verses; I’ll hold to the entire Word. I do hope you will ultimately do the same. The operative phrase in some of your posts has been, “I don’t understand you.” When you do, things will become wonderfully clear for you, and again, my hope is that you will have the sufficient humility to change your erroneous views.
Grace on you!
February 20th, 2010 @ 12:41 am
Dr Brown
Apart from your patronizing tone, I’ll “cling” to that same verse that your Jewish brethren and Jesus himself cites as deifning Who [and not What] “the only true God” and Father is, Deu 6.4 [Mar 12.29].
As you well know, many of your former brethren and fellow Christians have died by it. And if it comes to that, then I am more than honored and humble enough to do the same!
Thank you for your time.
February 20th, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Chuck,
I have been clinging to this verse for almost forty years now, and by God’s grace, I will not let go of it.
As for an alleged patronizing tone, if it is there, it is simply a response to your attempts to correct me and call me to “repentance.”
You are quite welcome for my time.
February 20th, 2010 @ 10:25 am
Dr Brown
Unlike those who have accused me of bringing dishonor to God and pray for me to repent, that is not what I was insinuating. All I seek to do is preach “the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” [Acts 8.12]. Whoever is willing to put up with this sound doctrine is a blessing.
February 20th, 2010 @ 10:59 am
Chuck,
Are you denying John 5:19 – “Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”?
You should know that Jesus was God incarnate. Although he had a human nature, the fullness of God dwelled in him (Philippians 2:5-11). God’s fullness would never dwell in a bodily temple of sin. God certainly was steering the body of Jesus, because His fullness dwelled inside of him. Jesus would have never been sufficient or self capable of being sinless and suited for the cross if God never had complete control of him.
Your comparison argument about angels having the capacity to sin is easily flawed because these are beings who are not incarnated by God. Be reminded that angels bow before Jesus.
February 20th, 2010 @ 11:13 am
Rich L,
See my comments to Chuck above.
Also, you said: “If I was 100% God, I think I could resist temptation.” Of course! Which is exactly what Jesus did! He is God incarnate.
Regarding Adam and Eve, they were not God incarnate, so they always had the capacity to sin. They didn’t HAVE to sin, but they did, and even if they didn’t commit the first sin we are aware of, they would still always have that capacity because they were not God incarnate.
As for Yeshua in the Torah, what exactly are you asking again? Whatever evidence there is in Torah, it may not be as clear as you’d like, but you can certainly see the events to foreshadow (for example, Leviticus 23 feasts, Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice Issac, etc). And if you’re willing to accept it, God’s appearances to the patriarchs as a man. Not sure if I’m answering your question though, so let me know.
February 20th, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Chuck,
Weren’t you the one who cited 2 Tim 2:25 as if applying it to me, above?
As for preaching the kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ, it is my fervent hope that you will truly come to know this Jesus in His fullness.
February 20th, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
Michael K
Where is this half-man/half-God being explained? All I see a fully human being who was really born and died. Our redemption and salvation lies on this fact alone Michael, that the full person of the Son of God died, not his “human nature” only.
So how do you account for the fact that believers are said to share in God’s holiness by His Divine nature [2Pe 1.4; Heb 12.10] by putting “on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” [Eph 4.24]?
My point about God’s holy angels is that apart from God Himself, they are the most “sinless” beings you can find. With that said, of course they will reflect the Deity as no one else [apart from the coming of God's only Son, of course]. God has not created robots, all created beings have free-will and can go against [disobey=sin] their One and Only Creator God.
Dr Brown
Yes, opponents must be “gently instructed” by God opens our eyes [hearts] to the truth of “the word” [Gospel of truth].
Similarly, knowing “Jesus in his fullness” is also dependant upon the Father, “the only true God”:
February 21st, 2010 @ 1:26 am
Chuck,
It is impossible for a human being to be sinless, unless like Jesus, God lives in them incarnate. I honestly can’t see how anyone can read the entire Scriptures and see Jesus as only human. Does Isaiah 9:6 not mean anything to you (Mighty God)?
The difference in believers sharing in God’s holiness versus Jesus doing this, is that as believers, we still have the capacity to sin….not so with Jesus, the Word of God.
As for angels, it would seem they have the capacity to sin, seeing what happened to Lucifer and others. It’s hard for us to really know the full nature of angels, but one thing’s for sure, they worship Jesus, who never sinned and could not sin. Prophecy does not leave any possibility for him to sin.
February 21st, 2010 @ 2:41 am
Michael K
The context of this passage is that it describes the birth of the child believed to be Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz, as well as being a prophecy concerning his future as King of Judah. This took place 7 centuries before Jesus was born. Jews had no problem viewing Hezekiah as “Mighty God.” Why, then, should anyone today insist that the Messiah is the absolute God simply because he also is called “Mighty God”?
Whilst Hezekiah and the Messiah in Hebrew are called El Gibbor. But they are never called El Shaddai, a term exclusively applied to God the Father.
Furthermore, in the same verse, the Messiah is called a “Prince,” a title that is never applied to God, the universal Ruler who has no King above himself.
I was answering your previous statement that because “the fullness of the Deity dwellt bodily” in Jesus it makes him God. The same is spoken of regarding believers and those who are “in Christ”. Jesus did not see not because “God was with [in] him” but simply because he chose not to sin. Something Christians can also attain to:
Note what it does not say, that people cannot sin or are somehow sinless. But that people who are “born of God’s seed [the Gospel of the Kingdom]” do not make it a “sinning a practice” in their daily life.
February 21st, 2010 @ 2:45 am
Michael K
Correction
Jesus did not sin not because “God was with [in] him” but simply because he chose not to sin. Something Christians can also attain to do.
But people who are “born of God’s seed [the Gospel of the Kingdom]” do not make “sinning a practice” in their daily life.
February 21st, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
Chuck,
Obviously Isaiah 9:6 is messianic. Context doesn’t always make clear sense when messianic text is included in the mix, as you noted the child in Isaiah 9:6 was “believed to be Hezekiah”, so that’s not clear. I’m going to have to disagree that jews had no problem viewing Hezekiah as “Mighty God”. I don’t see how you could say this. Most of them don’t even believe that Messiah would have the right to be called this. While Messiah is also called “Prince” in this verse, he is also called “Everlasting Father” and “Wonderful Counselor”. Knowing that this verse is messianic, the fact that these distinct titles to Messiah are mentioned ought to give confirmation to his divine nature and God’s complex unity, especially clarified in NT. It is complex because here we have him being called Prince of Peace AND Everlasting Father AND Mighty God AND Wonderful Counselor. Jesus even refers to the Holy Spirit as the Counselor. I don’t see how anyone cannot put these pieces together while being familiar with OT and NT.
The problem with your theology is that you reduce Jesus to only human. You say that he did not sin because he chose not to, but you fail to see this is because he can ONLY do what he sees his Father doing. We’re talking about God living among us as human, Immanuel. Arguments about him not being a robot does not change the fact that he is Immanuel, God with us. Once again, to be clear, Jesus could never have sinned. He could be tempted, but he could never give in to temptation because He was God incarnate. Your theology makes it look like God was taking a risk with Jesus, hoping he would be the sinless Lamb of God that He prophesied about, who would take the sin of the world away, after having causing him to be born of the virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit. Do you really think God was worried that Jesus might sin and not complete the rest of fulfilled prophecy about Messiah? Of course not! Jesus could ONLY do what he saw his Father doing. And it’s not by coincidence that as a baby, Jesus escaped the slaughter of babies that Herod ordered. God would never allow Jesus to sin….Jesus IS God incarnate, Immanuel.
February 21st, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
Michael K
I was not disputing the fact that this is a Messianic verse. By implication, these type of texts have a past, present and future meaning. In the context of the past tense [OT times] the King is the one who is in view. Present context refers to Jesus as given these same Davidic titles of honor [cp. Ps 45]. Future context will bring into actual fulfillment such honorific titles like “Father” [of the age to come], “Prince of peace” [in the Millenial kingdom and beyond].
This scheme is also brought out in the attributive adjective of gibbor (”mighty God” or “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty”). The past tense in the original context of the prophecy seems more likely to suggest that this title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181–82).
The future tense of this Messianic prophecy shows the Messiah as the Father of the age to come. Note that calling someone “Father” or “mother” for that fact does not connote Deity as such. Since Abraham is also called by Paul “the Father of us, Father of the faith”.
You also say:
I am not building or presenting a “straw man” argument here when it comes to Jesus Michael. I believe what the Bible attributes to this fully human being who has achieved salvation and will achieve future restoration of all things in the age to come. He is my Lord of lords and King of kings. But this does not make him the LORD GOD, for there can only be one true God, and that is the Father [John 17.1, 3].
If what you say is true regarding his non-temptation because he was God Himself, then scripture lies everytime it clearly says that he was tempted in the same way that we have been. Why portray Jesus the “God-man” as having been tempted at all? Why do spiritual beings, like Satan in the desert, who you would presume have a greater foresight of who people actually are, always identify Jesus as “the Son of God” and never as God?
Lastly, regarding Immanuel, its a name. Which makes its significance symbolic. God was with us, not literally, but in His Son, as 2 Cor. 5:19 (NASB) indicates:
http://biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=72
February 21st, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
Wow, a lot of good dialogue lately. I have to concur with Chuck, if Messiah could not have sinned then there could not have been a real temptation. Assuming we agree Jesus is the 2nd Adam, surely he would have had to face temptation in the same way the first Adam did, with the same possibility of failure. Of course this presents a conundrum if Messiah is the God of Israel at the same time.
Back to a reply to Dr. Brown…
Yes, I call him Lord, as in ‘Adoni’ of Psalm 110:1, and Acts 2:36. Yeshua said in Matt 4:10 “…it is written, you shall worship YHVH, and Him only shall you serve”. This he quoted from Torah.
Yeshua was clearly not saying or thinking he himself was YHVH when he spoke this to Satan, right?
If Yeshua is not YHVH, why would I give the worship and service (greek-latreo) due only to YHVH, to anyone else?
Yeshua told us in no uncertain terms who the one true God is in John 17:3. I don’t want to be guilty of making the word of God of no effect by a Christian tradition and doctrine that make Jesus say that the Father is not the ONLY true God.
Can I pay homage to Yeshua as the King of the Jews, absolutely!
If King David can be ‘worshiped’ by Nathan (1 Kings 1:23), surely Yeshua should be.
If the Joseph received obeisance (Gen 41:43) surely Yeshua should all the more!
Hmm, I wonder if one reason Jews were no longer part of ‘the church’ after a couple of hundred years (or less) after Yeshua’s resurrection, is because the pagan ideas brought in by the Gentiles were no longer compatible with the Sh’ma….
February 21st, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Chuck,
Just an FYI, I’m not interested in unitarian commentaries, as this is obviously biased in viewpoint. Just like I’m not interested on basing my beliefs on anyone’s creeds or using them to prove my point of view.
You do a pretty good job of putting a nice play on words and ideas regarding Isaiah 9:6. I’ve never seen so much dancing around the truth to fit one’s personal beliefs. Why can’t we just take the Scriptures at face value, and consider that God’s unity is complex? Why do you have be in such disbelief that Jesus is divine and that he was God incarnate? Scriptural references to Jesus as man are not any more valuable than the references that regard him as divine.
Also, you are putting words in my mouth by making reference to my comments regarding Jesus’ “non-temptation”. I never said he was not tempted. In fact, I specifically said he WAS tempted. His human nature was certainly capable of being tempted, but while being incarnated by God, his divine nature always held authority so that Jesus could not sin. Just because Jesus could be tempted like us, does not mean he had the capacity to give in to those temptations like us. He can ONLY do what His Father wills.
You said “Why do spiritual beings, like Satan in the desert, who you would presume have a greater foresight of who people actually are, always identify Jesus as “the Son of God” and never as God?” While Jesus is the Son of God, he is also the Word of God. Can God’s Word be separate from God?
February 21st, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
Rich L
Your not the only one with this assumption Rich, check out what German Professor Friederich Loofs described as the process of the early corruption of biblical Christianity:
Michael K
As with Dr. Brown, I do not understand how you can seemingly dispense with the ancient Catholic creeds, since their the ones which define what you presently believe. As many a history and biblical commentary will tell you, the doctrine of the Trinity is a later dogma created by the nascent Catholic church of the 4-5th centuries.
I am simply referencing lexicons and dictionaries Michael. No special pleading here, just some good old fashion searching and examining of the scriptures in their original languages.
First part of this statement does not align with the second part. The Bible is explicit and clear in saying that the God of Israel, YHWH, is One Single Individual Person. Thus, presenting a clear and exclusive monotheistic faith otherwise before unknown in the Ancient Near East. You cannot have it both ways, His one yet somehow “complex in His unity”? This is a contradiction in theological terms!
This is the scriptural emphasis though, I am not making this stuff up. Why do you think the NT writers make it a point to point out Jesus as a full human being?? Why do you think Jesus self-designation as “Son of man” [a non-Deity title if there ever was one] is found on his lips some 60+ times??
It follows that if Jesus somehow was God he cannot be tempted. This is what your statement implies since God cannot be tempted. Just as the kenosis dogma has been scraped by most trinis, so is the double-nature angle. Face it, your beliefs are in bad need of revision.
Why doesn’t Satan or any of the other spiritual beings call Jesus “God the Son, God the Word or YHWH” as such? I am sure they could see beyond his “human camouflage”, don’t you think?? Also, do you really think they would have been able to be in the presence of the Almighty Himself let alone try to tempt, trick or do anything else to Him??
February 22nd, 2010 @ 12:16 am
Chuck,
I can see that we are not getting anywhere with this. And by the way, I wasn’t aware as you say that the Scriptures go so far as saying that God is one “single individual person”. I’m not trying to make a trinitarian point here….just saying I don’t see those words anywhere.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 4:46 am
Michael K
If anyone were to write a letter to you using personal, singular pronouns thousands and thousands of times and apart from that use a personal name…would you still think you were talking to more than one person?
You know, if any other field of study would make some of the claims that Trinitarians put forth regarding Who and how many God is, you would either be failed on every exam paper or discard your profession.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 5:05 am
Chuck,
Do you worship Jesus?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 6:56 am
Rich said: “Can I pay homage to Yeshua as the King of the Jews, absolutely! If King David can be ‘worshiped’ by Nathan (1 Kings 1:23), surely Yeshua should be.”
Nathan did not worship King David. Bowing down doesnt always mean you are worshiping. In this context, it means “to bow down, prostrate oneself before superior in homage”. In the Asian culture, younger people bow before those that are older or higher in rank to greet in respect such as their parents, boss, teacher, etc…
If you still think Nathan worshipped King David, then he broke God’s commandment:
“You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Deut 5:7-10
February 22nd, 2010 @ 8:00 am
Ben KC
Broad, undefined question. The right question we should be asking is, what does the Bible mean by worship?
It is presumptuous to suggest that Christians are under some kind of “obligation” to worship Jesus as God. We are to worship Jesus as the LORD’s Messiah, appointed King and ruler of the age to come. As per Phil 2.11, always “to the glory of God the Father”, the only one Who is truly God [John 17.1, 3].
In the bible “worship” was offered to both God [YHWH] and human beings. This is reflected in the OT Hebrew words: šāḥāh, (Gen 24.26; 37.7; 43.28; 47.31; 1K 1.47; 1Ch 29.20; Jdg 7:15; Jos 23:7; Zep 2:11; and the Aramaic verb segeed, corresponding to the Hebrew sāg̱aḏ (Dan 2:46; 3, 28; cf. Rom 12:1).
The NT uses the koine Greek proskuneo, for “angels” [Rev 19.10; 22.8], human beings [Mat 20.20; Acts 10.25] and false gods or idols [Act 7:43; Rev 13:8; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4].
The bible uses other words to indicate the exclusive “worship” and external or official divine service spoken in reference to the one God of Israel, YHWH.
The OT uses the Aramaic palach, applied generally to Daniel’s vision [7.14, 27; cp. 6.16-17, 20-21; 3.28; 7.24] and translated as “servants” of the Jewish Temple [Ezra 7.24].
In the Greek Septuagint this is translated as latreuo [worship; Cp. latreai=service worship, Ex 3:12; 7:16; Deu 4:28; Jdg 2:11, 13], the version most in use during the 2nd Temple period.
This word is also used in the same context in the NT, reserved for God alone:
• in a religious sense to worship God (Mat 4:10; Luk 1:74; 2:37; 4:8; Act 7:7; 24:14; 27:23; Rom 1:9; Phi 3:3; 2Ti 1:3; Heb 9:14; 12:28; Rev 22:3);
• used in an absolute sense (Act 26:7; Sept.: Deu 6:13; 10:12; Jos 24:15);
• “worshipping creatures [other] than the Creator” (Rom 1:25; Sept.: Deu 4:28; Jdg 2:11, 13);
•Particularly to the performing of the Levitical service (Heb 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10);
• of the celestial temple (Rev 7:15)
• To offer sacrifice, to worship (Heb 9: 9; 10:2; cf. Sept.: Ex 3:12; 7:16).
February 22nd, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Chuck,
God commands that we only worship Him (God alone) but you mention that we can “worship” man?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 8:52 am
Ben KC
Perhaps you should re-read the post I just typed. Paying careful attention to those quotes by scholars and historians. I guess it is hard for our western minds to understand the customs of other cultures. Especially when it relates to Ancient times.
Let me ask you this though, how was the Roman emperor “worshipped”?
Also, if God commands you to pay homage and obesiance [all synonyms of "worship"] to another man as your Lord and superior, would you do it?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:04 am
Its one thing to show respect to man such as someone who is higher in rank in the military but that is not translated as worship in Scripture.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:06 am
Meaning, the Hebrew word will not be translated to worship to man but it will be translated worship to God.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:10 am
Ben KC
Well, that’s what God commands all Christians to do, to pay honor, respect and bow down to His “one-of-a-kind-human-son”. The Bible does not ask you to “worship” him as the Deity.
Note the type of recognition King David gives to the one who is sitted at YHWH’s right hand in Ps 110.1. This is the most cited OT text in the NT for a reason. It is supposed to define for us who the 2 Lords in view are and their respective place in our recognition of them.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:15 am
“16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him” Matt 28:16-17
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:17 am
“10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.” Matt 2:10-11
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:24 am
You can respect and honor man but you can only worship God.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:32 am
Ben KC
The context to all the “worship” texts you cite lie in the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. He is to be “worshipped” as such. I don’t think the early Jewish-Christians ever thought they were worshipping a God-man. Actually this was an accusation made by the Romans in the early centuries of Christianity.
See the Alexamenos graffito: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
If you want to keep ignoring the biblical precedent for others who are also “worshipped” that’s fine.
Agree to disagree.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Chuck,
It would have been clear if we only show respect and honor to Jesus but Scripture is very clear that we worship Jesus. You can accuse me to say Im ignoring the biblical precedent but we are saying the same about you.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:54 am
“Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28
Chuck, I would challenge you to set your commentaries aside and genuinely ask Jesus if He is God.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:56 am
Meaning, in genuine prayer, ask Jesus if He is God. I assume you believe God can speak to you directly to your heart?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 10:19 am
Ben KC
I do not base my ‘heart’s belief’ on one text. I base it on the whole of the bibilical testimony concerning God and His Son.
Furthermore, Jesus has taught me how to pray, something he himself did time and time again. A model of simplicity:
February 22nd, 2010 @ 10:31 am
We all base it on the whole Biblical testimony.
If you still believe God speaks to us directly in prayer, I would challenge you to ask if Jesus is God.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 10:40 am
Ben KC
Jesus prayed the same prayer he teaches us to pray. It begins with “Our Father…” Whom Jesus describes as “the only true God” [John 17.1, 3].
Which translates us: Jesus is not the God and Father he and us pray to!
February 22nd, 2010 @ 10:44 am
Chuck, it wouldn’t hurt to try to pray and ask Jesus to reveal to you if He is God.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 10:52 am
Ben KC
Thanx for the advice but I thought I had answered your request. Perhaps, it would likewise be beneficial for you too.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:01 am
Chuck, I have prayed just now and asked the same question. Would you kindly do the same. He is waiting for you to ask with an open heart.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:18 am
Chuck, thanks for the discourse on ‘worship’. That was very helpful.
Michael K,
You are answering my question. It’s obvious that when you put on one side of the scales the mountain of evidence for a strict monotheism presented in the Torah, and on the other side evidence for the contrary…. let’s just say it would be embarrassing to tally the results.
To all,
Ok, I want to be a Jew that is true to Torah. I have (figuratively) bound these words of Torah as a sign on my hand, and as frontlets between my eyes…writing them on the doorpost of my house on on my gates (Deut 6:8).
I would submit as part of Yeshua being sinless, is that he kept Torah perfectly, right? He said he didn’t come to do away with Torah (Matt 5:17).
Getting back to the passage in Deut 13:6-8:
So I as a Jew that takes Torah seriously, considering Deut 13:6-8, How would it not be sin for me to know my God other than how He was known by Moses and the patriarchs? (One solitary individual being denoted by one Name – YHVH).
By not believing in the trinity, how am I now in error according to the Torah?
If I was a 1st century Jew, and asked Yeshua about this trinity concept, what do you think he would have said? Never-mind that question, it looks like he already addressed that in Mark 12:28-29.
Will I miss out on being apart of the future Kingdom of God because of not believing that Yeshua is God Almighty ? Will I be thrown into the lake of fire for not accepting this doctrine?
In 75% of the bible, YHVH is one solitary individual, the God of Israel. Hundreds of years after the closing of the N.T., we are told He is 3 persons.
Is there any possibility that YHVH is more than 3 persons? Maybe we haven’t reached the end of ‘progressive revelation’ about how many YHVH is. The complex unity of YHVH could be more than 3 right? Maybe there will be an ‘end of end times testament’ written that will show YHVH to be 7? 7 is the number of God right? Rev 3:1 already talks about the 7 Spirits of God so it could fit…
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:19 am
Ben KC
Really? What did “they” say?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:24 am
All you have to do is pray and and hear from heaven with an open heart.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:30 am
Ben KC
Ok. What answer did you just get? Let’s compare prayers.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:36 am
Did you pray and hear from heaven? Im not hear to compare prayers, Im wanting to hear the results if you genuinely prayed and heard from heaven.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:40 am
Ben KC
Well, what exactly am I supposed to listen out for? Remember, the Devil can disguise himself as an “angel of light” as well. Need some pointers here bud.
Tell me what you heard?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:41 am
“My sheep know my voice”
After you tell me that you genuinely prayed and heard from heaven, Ill let you know.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:42 am
Simple question in your prayer, is Jesus God.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:44 am
Ben KC
No, he is not!
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Just ask a simple prayer, open your heart and hear from heaven. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Hear from heaven.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:47 am
Im only asking you to pray. If you are too afraid to hear from heaven because you think the voice might come from the “angel of light” then you probably need to question yourself if you can truly discern the voice of God. Remember, He said My sheep know My voice.
Again, I challenge you to pray a simple prayer and hear from heaven.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:49 am
Once you tell me that you genuinely prayed and heard from heaven, Ill let you know what He told me.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Ben KC
I have answered you time and time again. What exactly don’t you understand?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Im about to sign off so soon so I my respond in a few min or respond later tonight if I have the chance.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:52 am
Ben KC
Swell.
adios
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:52 am
Chuck,
I already know your intellectual response. I want to hear that you have genuinely prayed and heard from heaven.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Ben KC
True faith comes by understanding the message of the Gospel [Rom 10.17]. Not by praying to the sky in hopes of getting an audible answer.
Then again, if you do get a response make sure it conforms to the sound doctrine of our lord Messiah.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Chuck,
The invitation is there. Its your choice to hear God through prayer. Whether He speaks to you audibly or internally, He will answer you if you have an open heart to hear from Heaven. Remember again, My sheep will know My voice.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
I assume you do pray and have a two way communication?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Rich L,
Let’s just throw out the word “trinitarian” or even the concept. Try not to even think of that or even disprove this point. Okay, now, is the Word of God part of God? Remember, forget trinitarian viewpoints. Just think about this question and answer it.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
Michael K,
Great! We are throwing out both the word and especially the concept of ‘trinitarian’… let’s send it to the dung-heap of other false teaching like replacement theology.
Yes, it sounds reasonable that the words that God speaks are part of Him, for sure an expression. I think also similarly the words we speak are part of us, as we are made in His image. The words I’m typing right now are an expression of my mind.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Rich L,
Okay, now, is Jesus the Word of God?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
Michael K
Just because Jesus has been given the “name of the Word of God” [Rev 19.13] and “Wisdom from God” [1Cor 1.30] and identified with “the glory of YHWH” [John 12.41], does not make him YHWH anymore than calling human beings “god” would [Ex 4.16; 7.1; Ps 82.6, etc.].
Note that Jesus has been given these things which means, they are not inherently his or were in some “time before time”. All these qualities Jesus has inherited from his God and Father because he is His “one-of-a-kind-human-Son”.
He reflects all these things perfectly, as the untarnished “image of” that he remained until his exaltation by the only true God and Father [1Cor 11.7; 2Cor 4.4; Col 1.15].
February 22nd, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
I’m assuming Michael K, you are headed to John 1 with your question.
Here are some of my thoughts on that.
Michael K. had a plan to build a house and the plan was with him, and the plan was him…..and the plan became flesh when the house was completed.
In the beginning was the word (the plan to bring forth the Messiah), and the word was with God, and was God….the word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Jesus is what the word became, not God incarnate. Just like your word (plan) is not the house, neither is the word 1 to 1 equal with Jesus. The word of God has done many other things that God has spoken it for. Would it be heresy to say “The word that was with God and was God became… sun and moon, and they dwelt amongst our solar system”, as a commentary on Genesis 1 ?
Could it be that when John wrote the gospel of John decades after Jesus’ resurrection, he simply wrote a literary introduction with Hebrew style, using Genesis 1 as a parallel ? Maybe just maybe he didn’t have the idea of the deity of Jesus in mind (especially when he writes how Jesus prays to his Father, excluding himself from deity in John 17:3)
John actually tells us why he penned the book of John:
John 20:31
“but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”
Thanks for the comment on this Chuck, do you agree with what I wrote here?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
Rich L,
I’m not really looking for hypotheticals. I just want to know if you believe that Jesus is the Word of God.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
In a literal sense, no.
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
Rich L,
What do you mean by literal sense?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
Rich L,
Doesn’t it make sense that God’s Word can only come through the Father, the same way that Jesus can only do what he sees his Father doing?
February 22nd, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
Rich L,
Going on the line with Michael K, do you also reject all things were made through Jesus (John 1:2).
February 23rd, 2010 @ 12:11 am
As you may have figured out from my comments, I am not a complicated person. I don’t have a degree in theology.
There is one who is God. He is one individual with one Name. The Torah warns me about people who would try and persuade me to serve a God that Moses and the patriarchs have not known.
I trust the Torah, as well as the rest of the Tanakh. I also believe what the writers of the N.T. said as properly translated and interpreted in the context of the Tanakh. I don’t follow the oral law of Judaism.
Yes ultimately God’s word comes from Himself…the connection between that and Messiah doing only what he sees the Father doing, I’m not sure. Surely Yeshua was making a statement of obedience. It’s not literal. Yeshua didn’t see his Father dying, eating, and sleeping.
I can see that you love Yeshua. I certainly hope it’s not ‘another Yeshua’ as Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 11:4
February 23rd, 2010 @ 12:31 am
Correction… 2 Cor. 11:4
February 23rd, 2010 @ 1:20 am
Rich L,
You would agree God is the only Creator? John 1:2 verifies “Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
Jesus also verified
“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” Rev 23:12-13
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58
February 23rd, 2010 @ 1:24 am
Rich L,
It looks like you see only what you want to see about Jesus. There is no denying that he is the Word of God who became flesh, was WITH GOD, and WAS God. You should at least be open to this, and not blame every divine reference to Jesus on pagan influence just because it doesn’t match your ideas. It doesn’t look like you put much trust in NT Scripture because you seem to do a lot of reinterpretation of text in its clearest form regarding divine references to Jesus, or you simply discount verses because you feel by accepting them, you would be denying Tanakh. If I had to access your beliefs, I would say you do not consider all of NT as divinely inspired, correct?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 8:33 am
Ben KC & Michael K
Stop reading John 1.1 as if it is talking about “the Son” and not “the logos”. Since it is the logos which is in view here as the eternal and creative vehicle of God Himself!
You do violence to the text to suggest that that is what the writer of John is communicating, as if its talking about a preexistent being ["the Word"] who transmuted or transformed into another type of being ["human being"].
February 23rd, 2010 @ 9:07 am
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning…. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it… 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth…. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Ben KC
The pronoun of John 1.3-4 refers to the logos, which is an “it” not a “him.” Hence, the last phrase of John 1.1 should not be translated, “the Word was God.” Moffatt has “the logos was divine.” The New English Bible has, “what God was, the Word was,” which perhaps best carries the sense.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 9:42 am
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ” (ESV, NIV, NKJV, NAS, ASV…) which perhaps best carries the sense.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 9:55 am
Chuck,
I’m sorry that you don’t believe the Scriptures. It’s very clear from John 1:14 that the Word became flesh, yet you continue to disbelieve because you personally don’t see how that’s possible, as if God in His miraculous ways couldn’t figure out how to do something like this. He can do whatever He pleases and verse 14 is clear that the Word became flesh.
I have no argument that John 1:1 is speaking of the Word, but it’s clear that at some point in time, God called His Word “Son”. It’s also clear that in verse 2, the Word is called “He”, and that all things were created through “him”. There’s plenty of other Scripture that says all things were created through Jesus also. Therefore, Jesus = Word. There’s no running away from this.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:01 am
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Michael K
We agree, it previously was not a being, it became a human being. This is why this whole gospel was written, to prove to you and me and anyone else reading that Jesus is that Messiah spoken of by prophets by that same eternal “word of God” since history began [John 20.31; cp. Gen 3.15].
Ben KC
Are you trying to prove that you can prove anything by quoting isolated verses from scripture?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:12 am
The Bible speaks for itself.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:17 am
Ben KC
Funny, never “heard” it speak.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:20 am
Which also indicates how you minterpret things.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:21 am
which also indicates how you misinterpret what you read
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:22 am
Ben KC
I see, I’ll stand by for it to start speaking to me then. Thanx for the tip.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:25 am
The question is, are you able to listen?
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:30 am
“28He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” Luke 11:28
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Chuck,
You either missed or completely ignored one of the points I made from my previous post. John 1:2 calls the Word “He”. I get the feeling you do not believe John 1 to be divinely inspired because it is becoming a stumbling block to you regarding Jesus’ divine nature. Reminds me of muslims who claim our Scriputres to be corrupted. They can’t accept the divine nature of Jesus either.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:40 am
Michael K
I just told you that I and many others do not see the English translation of the original greek in regards to the logos being a “he”, it should be an “it”. As per most translations actually had it before the very biased KJV came along!
Don’t believe me, check it out!!
Ben KC
I am able to choose to stop “listening” and ignore you though.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 11:28 am
That’s well put Chuck.
Ben KC,
Yes God is the only creator and “though it (logos) all things were made”.
Michael K,
Lots of people have denied that Jesus is God, most importantly Jesus himself! Jesus said to his Father “that they may know you the ONLY true God”. I understand Augustine wrestled and re-interpreted that verse to include Jesus as part of the ‘only God’.
Don’t you think a good rule of bible interpretation would be to take the clear and explicit texts and interpret the ones that are less clear by the explicit texts, instead of vise versa?
I don’t have a problem with John 1 interpreted into English using the O.T. as a presupposition, instead of trinitarian ideas. Logos is ‘it’ not ‘he’.
I do put trust in N.T. scripture, just not the spin from trinitarian translators and interpretations.
As a Jew, I can’t read 75% of the bible. find it to be fiercely monotheistic with God’s personal Name being used some 7800+ times with probably 10000 singular personal pronouns and singular verbs, then come to your version of the N.T. and go and re-interpret all of the O.T. to fit my new found ideology. That would be sinning against God from Deut 6:4 and Deut 13:6-8.
As a Jew, one of the reasons I do believe the N.T. is true is because of the strict monotheistic statements it makes.
Jesus told the Samaritan woman the Jews know who they worship in John 4:22
Jesus agreed with the Jewish scribe about the most important commandment in Mark 12:28-29 … the central creed of the Jews.
Paul said “to us there is one God, the Father” in 1 Cor 8:6
And James said even the demons believe there is one God in James 2:19
James to make it even more clear saying “you believe there is one God, you do well”. He didn’t even put it as “you believe God is one”, which many error to translate God is one complex unity.
C’mon guys, even the demons believe this, and tremble… it’s time to get on the same page as the God and Father of our Lord Messiah Yeshua.
There is one God, YHVH, blessed be His Name forever !
Reading 75% of the bible
February 23rd, 2010 @ 11:31 am
disregard that last sentence… LOL, but highlight the 2nd to last !!
February 23rd, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
I believe Christians can be Trinitarians if they want to and still be with Christ (see John 6:56) and have Christ in them, though it is not a requirement of Christ, in my opinion.
I have never seen him teach from scripture that one had to be of the Trinitarian discipline in order to follow him, though much of what is taught by many a Trinitarian is of Christ.
I do not consider myself a Trinitarian and do not plan on attempting to defend it’s beliefs.
I believe Jesus was with God from everlasting (see Micah 5:2) and that Proverbs chapter 8 is prophecy concerning Jesus which goes back in time. I believe prophecy may do that. I believe there are prophetic words in Proverbs 8 that tell us about Jesus who was with God before the world was made by the Word which received the Word from the Word, and by the Word did speak the Word and see the creation come into being by that power of the Word which was given to the Word which it received from the Word, as the Word was one with the Word.
It’s a bit of a mystery that is revealed by Jesus. I believe God is my Saviour as well as Jesus. I trust that both the Father and the Son are watching over me right now.
February 25th, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
I wonder if anyone has considered deism or just plain abandoning the bible all together at least? After all, it’s not the word of God revealed within it’s pages, but rather, someone else’s claim of it being the word of God. Unless god reveals to each of us his will individually, none of us have ever heard from God. God certainly doesn’t speak through the pages of silly ancients with their folklore about bears mauling 42 young men to death simply because they referred to Elisha as “bald head”. That would be pretty jealous and wrathful of God to do such a thing. Oh wait, isn’t that what the book claims are his attributes? My mistake. Still not my God though!
February 25th, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
Ray,
Also, no need for a book character telling me to hate my family members. (Matthew 10:34-37, Luke 14:26). I love my family more than any book character. I will not put “Jesus” before those I can see, feel, touch and know exist. Anyone who does so is delusional…
http://www.deism.com
God gave us reason, not the bible and religion…
February 26th, 2010 @ 1:42 am
Chuck and Rich,
Great comments by you! Can anyone tell me what happened to Johan Rabie? With Kermit and Dr Brown’s previous debate he used to comment quite a lot.
Regards,
Jaco
February 26th, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Dr. Brown,
I was wondering if you read my comment from Feb 14 around 8 am. It looks like it got lost in the shuffle. Or maybe it was not worth your time or consideration? God knows the truth. Thanks from one little living stone.
February 26th, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Anyone? Anyone?
February 26th, 2010 @ 11:05 am
Chole’s mom,
Feel free to repost your comment. I didn’t see it, as I am not able to follow all comments on all threads.
February 26th, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
Carmen,
I really enjoy your posts. Tell me, why don’t you post on kingdomready? Your imput will me much appreciated.
Jaco
February 26th, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Dr. Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus – Volume 2 is excellent! Just got it and making my way through it now. Your research in this book sheds incredible light on the truth of Jesus. I hope everyone here gets a chance to read it and decide for themselves.
February 26th, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
Michael K.,
Thanks so much! Obviously, I put a lot of effort into both the research and the dialog with rabbis over a period of many years, so I’m gratified to know that it is of help to you.
February 26th, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
Anyone care to explore the issue of proving a historical Jesus? Why do no contemporary historians ever mention him? Why is “Nazareth” never mentioned in any epistle? Why are so many Hebrew texts misquoted by the NT? Why elevate this particular ancient text over another other than inbred teaching? Why not the Epic of Gilgamesh over the story of Noah and the ark? Why did the bible God allow bears to maul 42 young men to death simply because they called Elisha “bald head”? Why would anyone worship a God that would slaughter infants? Why would anyone with sanity worship a God that creates life and destroys it purposely? Anyone? Anyone?
February 26th, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
Just in case anyone is actually interested in an unbiased questioning of the scriptures (we should always question authoritative documents and think for ourselves)….Here is an excellent article questioning whether there was a historical Jesus or not…
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
February 26th, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
Andrew,
Is there a historical Jesus? You’ve got to be kidding me! Go read Josephus among many other historians of the time. I suppose you don’t believe George Washington existed either?
February 26th, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
Again someone who confuses God’s love with humanism and finally throws out the whole thing. Welcome to Greece!
February 26th, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
Andrew,
If you’re looking for answers and honestly searching for truth, I can put you in touch with folks who would love to help you in your search. If you’re here to mock God’s Word and our beliefs, that is your prerogative, but it would not be a good used of time to engage you.
To address just one point, however, this one volume alone will answer your questions about the historicity of Jesus as attested outside the NT documents: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267227147&sr=1-6.
For the broader question of the historical trustworthiness of the gospels, see now: http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Gospels-Craig-Keener/dp/0802862926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267227204&sr=1-1.
If you’re honestly wanting to know the truth, those books, written by solid scholars, will answer your questions.
February 26th, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
Andrew, there was a man named Job who said some things about God. He so thought he was right that he wanted it to be written ingraved in a rock and filled with lead. Now we can read his book.
One day maybe we will read yours.
February 26th, 2010 @ 10:18 pm
If we want to prove Jesus, we have to do what he says.
If what we say about him is wrong, we will not be blessed,
but if what we say about him is correct, we are filled with joy.
One has to prove him for one’s self.
February 27th, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Michael K, Josephus NEVER mentions Nazareth or a man from there. Besides, we need historians who were alive during the alleged life of Jesus. None of the gospels were written during the life of Jesus. All we have are copies of copies of documents of unknown authors. You need to quote a contemporary historian if you’re going to prove the existence of this person. Otherwise, why not also believe any other Greek myth or any other non-historical writing? George Washington existed because contemporary HISTORIANS say so. Roman history never records the death of any “Jesus” at the hands of a “Pilate”. This should trouble you. What you have is a collection of documents written long after the alleged time frame of the character in question, by unknown authors, assembled into a canon nearly 300 years afterwards. To claim that anything in the bible is the direct inspired word of God is hearsay at best. It’s not God speaking, but the writings of other people claiming what God said. That’s not good enough for this practical free thinker.
February 27th, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
Ray and others, why do we have to “do what Jesus says”? You’re taking the word of a third party author. Why didn’t Jesus write any historical documents? Where are all the letters of Jesus? He was human right? Hearsay doesn’t hold up in court. If you’re charged with a crime, would you like it if all the witnesses against you were non-eye witnesses who just gave the word of other people as evidence to convict you? As for that alleged word, what’s up with Matthew 10:34-37 and Luke 14:26? Hate your family? God forbid!
February 27th, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
Erika, what is God’s love? Is it fulfilled when Jesus talks about gnashing of teeth and hell fire? What kind of God creates beings and then punishes his creation for what he gave them the capability of doing? Kind of arrogant don’t you think? Was it a loving God that cursed the 42 young boys with death from 2 bears? Was it a loving God that wiped out all the Egyptian children at passover? Was it a loving God that allowed Jesus to forgive an adulterating whore and keep her from being punished as his “Father”‘s law says, while simultaneously striking Ananias and his wife dead for holding back money? Sorry, but the stories don’t add up to anything logical and righteous. The woman who breaks one of the ten commandments was forgiven but the people who kept some land sale money back (perfectly legal by the way) had to die because they didn’t “give it up” to the apostles?
LOL!
February 27th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
Andrew, this is boring. Don’t you have some other stuff to come up with? Discussions like that can kill me. So good bye everyone, and have still a great time.
Shalom,
Erika
February 27th, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Sorry, didn’t mean to bore, just mean to question the book I was raised to believe as “the truth” when in reality, it may not be. Those of us who aren’t afraid of the spirit of inquiry tend to ask questions, thoroughly examine evidence, apply the scientific method and see if a document is all it’s cracked up to be. I’ve found that the bible really isn’t a “good” thing after all. It’s the cause of a lot of pain and separation among people worldwide. Perhaps someone could just comment on a few of the historical criticisms? I would hope that maybe someone could quote one contemporary historian!
February 27th, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Andrew,
Because I so deeply believe in the spirit of critical inquiry, I didn’t study in seminary but rather in secular schools with the secular professors –some of them quite hostile to the Scriptures. I would honestly question, however, how deeply you really want to study out the relevant isssues. I referenced two scholarly studies that fully address the questions about the historical documentation about Jesus outside the NT as well as the historicity of the gospels themselves. Have you read them? Have you investigated the information in detail, or are you happy just to spout some information from the internet?
Please also tell me about the methodology of the ancient Roman historians and how much they reported about contemporary events, as well as which of their works have survived until this day.
Also, how about going around the world as I have — more than 100 trips overseas — and meeting the countless millions of people whose lives have been wonderfully transformed through the Jesus you deny and the Scriptures you reject.
I pray that you will truly come to know God and learn to bow down before Him. He alone is ultimately good.
February 27th, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
A man must be born again to receive the things of God. To those who are not born again it’s foolishness unto them. It’s Ok to ask
God if he will give him the new birth by the holy spirit. Jesus said
that God is good and will not give a man something evil if he asks for something good.
It’s Ok to ask God if you should believe in Jesus. Ask him and see what he says. God won’t deny him.
Andrew, did you ever ask God if you should believe in Jesus?
Are you willing to do so and share with us what you have found of God concerning this?
February 27th, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
Andrew,
Somehow my last post didn’t make it here, so I’ll ask again: Do you actually want answers to your questions, or do you simply want to quote the latest bit of internet information?
The sources I cited, above, will answer all serious questions about historical documentation about Jesus outside the NT.
Also, for the record here, please answer a few questions for me: 1) Who were the major Roman historians in NT times, and which of their writings remain? 2) Was it their custom to report contemporary news or to write historical reflections years after the events? 3) How does the attestation of the NT record line up with the attestation of other ancient sources?
If you answer these questions correctly, you’ll know that the evidence is decidedly on the side you so zealously reject.
The fact is that I never went to Bible college or seminary, studying only with those who did not believe what I believed, allowing me to be challenged every step of the way. God’s truth stands firm and unshakable!
As for the influence of the Scriptures worldwide, come to India with me and find out. Visit China with my friends and learn more. Go to Sudan, into the midst of hellish suffering because of radical Muslim oppression, and find out what Jesus and His Word have done for the people there.
And then be willing to humble yourself and come to know the God you heard about but probably never encountered before.
February 27th, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
I listened to a bit of Anthony Buzzard’s conversation with Michael Brown and found it informative and interesting. It was also quite cival.
I believe Jesus did in fact exist with God as a being, as his Son from everlasting. I think we can as Christians defend the Lord’s
existence with God prior to his conception in the womb of his mother Mary. Some may see him during that time in the beginning
as the wisdom of God or as the word of God. I don’t think it to be a difficult thing to see him as his Son. See Proverbs 8 and consider if some of this is prophetically speaking of the one we call Jesus, our Messiah or Christ.
Jesus is the bread (the word of life) that came down from heaven and the bread that he gave us to eat is his flesh.
I can not come down from a roof unless I was at first up on the roof.
I do not plan on defending the Trinity doctrine. I believe there are
Christians who will leave the town of Trinitary behind to go unto Zion.
Sometimes people build a monument to the Lord and worship it
more than the word God has given them to do. Are such people
as the officers of the Law in James Ryle’s dream/ vision The Sons Of Thunder? which I read from Andrew Strom’s revival school site.
It was on the front page under “Articles” near the bottom.
To defend the truth of scripture is good. I believe we are called of God to do that and to win souls from whatever err they have fallen into. To do this we must listen carefully and walk carefully
also.
This radio conversation between Michael Brown and Anthony Buzzard seems to be a good example of doing that work.
There is a verse from Isaiah 44 that challenged me due to my understanding of scripture. Here it is:
Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
I believe Jesus was with God from the beginning and that God created all things that are by him that we can see, and the invisble things also. All that God created was created through Jesus Christ. I believe the scriptures support that.
So how does Isaiah 44:24 fit with what I believe about this?
I do not believe God was telling Israel through his prophet that
he doesn’t have a Son with him. Nor was he saying that he didn’t plan on sending him some time for the salvation of the world. I don’t believe God is saying that he is Jesus and that Jesus is him
necessarily.
I wonder if God is saying that he kept the mystery about his Son hidden from the eyes of the majority of people, though some of this was revealed to his prophets, and this Son whom he did send was as he himself is, and that there was nothing in him that was not of God himself, that God sees Jesus as an extention of himself at times, as his hand, or his arm.
I’ve heard Christians say that God is a person. I don’t know if I will defend that or not. I believe God is a being.
I used to watch a lot of the TV show Star Trek and on the program the star ship Enterprise encountered a lot of other “life
forms”. Some of them were quite strange. Most of them were human actors, but some of these “life forms” were not. They were
shown as special effects.
I don’t think it necessary to be a Trinitarin to be a Christian.
I believe it’s possible to eat of the Lord’s flesh and drink of his blood without being one. One who does so has Christ dwelling in him and he in Christ. I do not believe Jesus dwells only in a place called Trinitary. It might be a town he may visit, pass through from time to time, I don’t know. I don’t think he makes it his home.
I trust that one day I will find out for sure.
February 27th, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Ray,
I wouldnt recommend Andrew Strom. He is very oriented in his “spiritual discernment” and very controversial.
February 28th, 2010 @ 12:06 am
Ray, the Bible is clear about who Jesus is. Scripture doesnt make is sound mysterious that we could never find out until we get to heaven. To say you can be Christian and can accept any teachings such as “Jesus is not God” or “Jesus is only a prophet” is very dangerous. The question is which Jesus are we serving. Can we accept any “Jesus” and be Christian. There are many people down the history who claimed to be the Messiah of the Bible which Scripture warns about (false messiah). There are also cults such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.. that believe in their “Jesus” and claim to be Christian. I hope you get my point.
February 28th, 2010 @ 5:50 am
Ray
Where is this preexistent being of “God the Son” in the Hebrew scriptures?
Does “every good [perfect] gift” or “wisdom” literally “come down from heaven” as well? If so where did they land?
February 28th, 2010 @ 6:17 am
Dr. Brown, the problem I have is also with what is written in the NT texts themselves as well, which don’t add up and harmonize with the OT texts. For instance, why does Jesus say specifically that he “did not come to bring peace, but a sword, to divide mother against daughter, and son against father”? This is surely not the words of the “prince of peace” if that is his title. (Matthew 10:34-37). The New Testament, in my opinion seems to be misquoting the OT in many ways as well. “He shall be called a Nazarene” – no where found in the OT prophecies. It seems that everything prophesied about the OT Messiah isn’t found in the NT accounts of Jesus. Instead, we have a similar theme that relates to the many solar deities of myth. Many “savior” figures have died and rose, many are virgin born sons of gods. These ideas flourished throughout the region in ancient Rome, very similar to the story of the Mithras. Even Justin Martyr wrote that the tales were no different than what they had already heard, and explained it away by saying that “Satan” copied the stories before they happened. No this has nothing to do with college or the internet, just a basic observation of texts. The texts simply do not agree with what the churches teach. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a deity is surely against everything the Torah teaches in the OT. Depending on which gospel you read, you get a different Jesus too – there are only 4 in the bible, but many outside the canon that were not included by the church fathers. How do you know which texts actually come from “God”?
February 28th, 2010 @ 6:24 am
Ben, which Jesus do you listen to? The one who said he was never secretive to the authorities? Or the one was secretive with his disciples? The one who breaks the Sabbath, or the one who upholds it? The one who is a virgin born god-man, or the one who is supposed to be a descendant of David, fully human?
Ultimately we must remember that in all of this, we are not reading the direct word of God on paper. We’re reading what other people wrote, people we don’t even know. For unless God himself reveals to us which doctrine is his, all of the revealed religions are giving us hearsay evidence.
I have not heard from God or asked God anything, no, because I don’t know who or what I am talking to. I have never heard any direct two-way contact back in the form of language, so I cannot honestly with my heart tell you Dr. Brown that I’ve talked to God, no. Until God or Jesus actually open up their mouths and speak to me, I will have to continue to use my foolish god-given intellect and surmise that texts are simply texts, and the “word of God” hasn’t been heard by anyone today.
February 28th, 2010 @ 6:30 am
Dr. Brown, also, before going to India with you or seeing how the influence of today’s evangelists (not necessarily the scriptures) as influenced people, I’d like to examine some evidence and see if we can make sure that what we’re reading is 100% authentic and reliable. Is that asking too much? Or do I need blind faith in the things that don’t make logical sense?
February 28th, 2010 @ 6:36 am
To the others: Why do we need salvation or to be “saved” from “sin”? To those of us who are not currently religious in any way, don’t go to church, don’t believe in the bible, and certainly don’t believe that guilt trips are a necessary thing, it sounds like foolishness indeed. That’s why the authors put that text in there, to even more entrap you into a religious concept. It’s a rock and a hard place. You’re supposed to feel guilty if you abandon this stuff, but if you never had it to begin with, there’s nothing to feel guilty about.
I feel really good spending time with family each day for instance. I love my parents, my siblings, my friends, (you know, the people I can see and trust and love). To believe the words of an invisible book character and elevate him and his philosophy over what I actually know I have is ludicrous indeed.
Jesus teaches you to hate your parents. Are you going to listen to him?
Luk 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
This is one of the worst statements in the bible. It’s one of the most negative things I have heard uttered in literature.
I will not listen to it!
February 28th, 2010 @ 7:41 am
Hey Andrew,
you are free to listen to whatever you want to listen, I don’t have any problem with that, but I just want to remind you that the Greek texts of the “New Testament” that we have today were originally spoken in Hebrew – neither in Greek nor in English.
The text you refer to in Luke 14:25 and further is about counting the cost before making a decision. It’s not about hating people.
My advice to you Andrew: It is wise to count the costs before making a decision.
February 28th, 2010 @ 7:56 am
Thank you Erika for letting me know I’m free to listen and that you don’t have a problem with it. I’m glad that’s ok with you.
You say the NT writings were originally spoken in Hebrew? Do you have any proof of this? It seems to me that the NT was quoting a Greek Septuagint in most instances, no? Why would a Greek document quote a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew source text if they were speaking Hebrew?
First century Roman occupied cities spoke Greek. Not Hebrew. Get your facts straight. As for Luke 14:26, I think you’re jumping ahead in parable by a few verses… The Greek word used is “Miseo” and is quite clear on intent. How about we cross reference this with Matthew 10:34-37? Is that too about building a tower and the cost?
My advice to you Erika: Abandon this silly book and it’s fairy tales, folklore and wicked statements about your family.
Mat 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
February 28th, 2010 @ 8:00 am
Erika, just so I’m clear on your “counting costs” explanation: What does the meaning of Luke 14:26 have to do with it? If you could extrapolate a bit for us, that would be appreciated. Please, what did Jesus mean when he said, “you must hate your mother and father”.
Also, if we are talking about words that were originally spoken in Hebrew and we don’t have those words today as you say, (neither Greek nor English), then how in the heck do we know what anyone’s intent was in any portion of the text? We’re shooting from the hip according to you.
February 28th, 2010 @ 8:11 am
Chuck, in answer to your questions, I have never seen the term
“God the Son” in my KJV Bible, but don’t know how to read Hebrew scriptures. I don’t know what they say.
I believe all the good and perfect gifts of God do indeed come down from heaven and they fall upon those who do receive his
loving kindness. Upon them they land and they are blessed. If they abide in what they have received of God they will have a
reward. I believe what God has given will produce a bountiful blessing and a sure reward, if they will not loose what they have received of him.
February 28th, 2010 @ 8:47 am
Andrew, the only way I know to find out if what we are reading
(the Bible) is 100% accurate is to do what it says. Without doing what it says we can never know for sure. We have to experience the truth in order to know it. I’ve heard it said that truth has a name. We can experience him as we experience the truth.
I don’t believe in scripture, that God is always a person. I think of him as a being more than a person. Maybe I should think of him as a Spirit, more than a being.
When we become born of the spirit of God we begin to have a dislike for the things of this world. We begin to despise the things of the flesh which we have left behind. Therefore we dislike
some of those who have been close to us in our past, even some of our own family members.
When we go on with Christ having left some old things behind, we will be despised by others who are still willing to live in those things which we have left. Though we may love them and should love them, we loathe their condition, something we didn’t always do when we once were a part of those things ourselves.
Didn’t God say of himself “I AM WHAT I AM”?
I’ve read that God said “I AM THAT I AM.” in my KJV. I also read that the apostle Paul said about himself that “by the grace of God I am that I am.” and that was in the 1599 Geneva Bible, so
I concluded that “I AM THAT I AM” is basicly the same as “I AM WHAT I AM”.
It seems to me that what God said could be represented either way. One might choose one way and another the other representation. I don’t think it to be my calling to impose one or the other upon people, but should let them decide which they prefer.
So it seems to me that in the scripture God isn’t always a person, for he says of himself that he is what he is. God is alot of things, such as love, spirit, and God is true. I suppose being true is a condition and truth is a thing, a quality, or a state of being.
Truth is that which is true. Love is that which is truly love. There is nothing impure in God. God is complete in himself and needs nothing from us to complete him. Rather, we need him to be complete. We can not be complete apart from him. If we connected to him we are also connected with Jesus.
It seems to me that it is entirely possilble to be connected to any other man and not be connected to Jesus, but if we are connected to Jesus, we are connected to many, many others also.
What we experience through obedience to the will of God, we can find to be accurate, having proven it ourselves to be true.
This builds our faith in God, for we have found a substance of the kingdom, having made a connection to it.
We must begin our journey without a full 100% knowledge of the things of God. It begins with a decision which is based upon faith
which sees things that may seem to be not, though they are.
If we wait until we have 100% knowledge of all things we will miss our journey and our future which will bring us to the glory of God. We can not afford to wait to walk out by faith. God has given us his sacrifice to cover us, a covering of Christ which we do need for our journey, for we know not all that we do. Yet, we move on. We search for a city which we know not everything about, but we know that Jesus is there and we will desire to be with him if for no other reason but that we know that the things we have left will be destroyed and that our existence in this body
that we now live in is temporary.
February 28th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
Ray, ok, let’s take your side of it. Are you doing what it says? Are you casting out demons, raising the dead, healing the sick? Are you hating your parents and making sure Jesus is turning father against son, and mother against daughter? Is your faith strong enough to move mountains? Are you truly born again possessing the holy spirit? If so, wouldn’t you be able to do all those miracles as Jesus taught?
I don’t need a sacrifice to “cover me” from anything. I don’t feel guilty about anything. It’s only dogma that teaches that sort of nonsense that suggest we “need a savior” and “we’re sinners”. Only if you believe the bible to be truth does it affect you. I personally know it to be literature and nothing more. It’s no different than if I read Tom Sawyer or Moby Dick. It’s folklore, a tale from the third person about the barbaric practices of the ancients. They liked to slaughter things and initiate covenants with blood, so they mutilated bulls and people as “sacrifices” to their totemic deities.
You might consider reading Sergei Tokarev’s “History of Religion” which identifies the similarities among religions of the past. Many virgin born deities existed in myths and folklore long before the NT was penned, and most of them are derived from the agricultural deity that dies and rises on the third day (Saturnalia types).
February 28th, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
Ray, How about explaining just one thing for me? Which one of these scriptures is the truth?
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2Ch 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
Was he forty-two or twenty two? Which one of “god’s truthful words” is correct and which is incorrect and why is one incorrect if it’s God’s word and it’s true?
February 28th, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Or these….
Mat 5:16 Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Mat 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
There are simply too many contradictory statements that Jesus makes it’s no wonder there are so many countless denominations of confused church goers.
Mat 13:11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.
Plenty of texts that really confuse the reader. Also, if the bible is God’s word, and it’s a text written for us to “follow” and “do what it says”, Ray, exactly where did you put Paul’s stuff?
2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is useful to me for ministering.
2Ti 4:12 But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus.
2Ti 4:13 The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the parchments.
Can you go to Troas and get the cloak? The parchments?
No. These are personal letters written a long time ago by a man with specific recipients (not you), and these letters were never intended to be compiled by the church fathers into a book to be used for worship 2000 years later.
1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
Paul wrote to the Thesalonians and many others promising the soon return of Christ during their lifetime. Never happened of course, and the texts are proof in itself against such an event by stating “we who are alive” (i.e., Paul himself and the people he wrote this letter to).
Either you can do as Paul says and bring Luke with you (I guess you could dig him up if he was a real historical person), or you can’t.
The texts aren’t meant for anyone today. They’re simply ancient literature, nothing more.
February 28th, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Andrew
Why are you on a Christian forum then? Sounds like your wasting your time, or are you trying to convince anyone with your frivilous comments?
March 1st, 2010 @ 5:45 am
Hi Chuck, they’re only frivilous (spelled “frivolous” by the way) to those who are ignorant of the spirit of inquiry. Whenever one inquires to the authenticity of the texts that one once believed in, one should consider valid arguments.
I’m simply questioning what keeps the Christian motivated other than the required blind faith without proof dogma.
Andrew
March 1st, 2010 @ 5:48 am
Chuck, you might be right actually on second thought. Since the book is entirely fictional and merely literature, the comments would be frivolous if the texts are always open to anyone’s interpretation and belief system.
Myself being a non-religion type person, seeing from the outside looking in might actually be helpful to those ensnared in the various Christian cults.
Question authority. Think for yourself.
Andrew
March 1st, 2010 @ 9:01 am
Dr. Brown,
My comment got lost somewhere (there are so many responses to this comment). Here are a couple of thoughts.
In Acts 14..”And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, “The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men”, and they called Barnabus Jupiter and Paul Mercurius because he was the chief speaker….” Acts 14:11-12.
Wouldn’t this have been a perfect opportunity for the apostles to set these pagans straight on their theology? Why didn’t they say, “Hey, we’re not god-men but Jesus is! Instead he tells them about the one God, the Father. The concept of a god-man is, as we see here, a very pagan notion.
Second, when Jesus prayed “Not my will but thy will be done,” it seems there are two wills involved. One “essence” cannot have two wills, correct?
Third, 1 Jn 3:2″Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is.”. If Jesus is God, as you assert, and we shall be like him, then you’re actually saying we shall be “like God” see Gen 3:5
Four, in Revelation where God and the Lamb are being worshipped, where is the Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit is fully God, shouldn’t he (it) be in this vision somewhere?
So, to trinitarians, there is God the Father, who is Spirit, then another person (spirit) who is the holy spirit, then Jesus the god-man. Two spirits and a god-man?
I realize that these may not be standard non-trinitarian arguements, but they speak powerfully to me. Once I took off my trinitarian spectacles, I see, on practically
every page of the bible, the fallacy of the trinity. It is metaphysical nonsense. When I was a trinitarian, it was impossible for me to think of God as one-I always had three in my mind. It is only a mind trick to try to think of three as one, or to ponder “complex unity”. God did not make us that way. I can respect the rational mind God gave me without becoming a rationalist. Thank you Sir Anthony for being the voice of reason!!
Thank you Dr. Brown, as well, for your show.
Chloe’s mom.
Anyone? Anyone?
March 1st, 2010 @ 11:46 am
Andrew,
You’ve covered a lot of ground that would take lots of time for anyone to respond. This particular forum is supposed to be covering a different topic. A good book for you to check out is “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell. It’s a comprehensive book that should answer all your questions in every matter. If you’re serious about the questions you raise and truly want answers, check it out. It will save you a lot of time waiting for responses here.
March 1st, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Andrew,
I may have missed your response, but have you read the books I referenced? And, more importantly, are you here to learn the truth or simply to spout myths and opinions?
If you did respond, please be kind enough to re-post your answer to me here.
March 1st, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
Andrew,
One more thing. You can’t actually think that the “contradictions” you cite are actually troubling or have not been dealt with in depth by scholars. This is quite childish, although it might seem serious to you, but again, if you’re here to mock, we can’t help you (except through prayer; I was once a mocker too). If you’re here to learn, then be willing to study the solid sources I and others have referenced. This is not a silly game to be played.
March 1st, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
Chloe’s mom,
I’ll try to respond if possible, but I’m basically off this thread as much as possible To me, there’s not an ounce of substance in any of the questions you raise — in fact, some of them, like the Acts 14 one, seem downright silly — but since you’re so convinced, I’m not sure that I can help you.
I personally don’t wear Trinitarian glasses as a Jew, but I became convinced through intensive study of the Word that the best explanation that put the evidence together spoke of God’s complex unity.
So, if at any point you have questions for which you want answers in the event that your position is wrong, perhaps someone posting here can help you. But again, given what you state at the end of the post, and given the presuppositions you now bring to the table, I don’t see that a few posts here will make much difference.
Thanks for enjoying my show!
March 1st, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
When we come to Christ we should find a knowledge of our sins
that causes us shame. Once shamed by our sins we can be turned from them through repentance. Being covered by the blood of Jesus, those repented of sins can not longer be held against us for damage or our destruction. Anyone who does so
is then in violaton of the justice, mercy, and grace of God because of Jesus.
We then learn to hate our sins, and the ways of evil which we see in the world. We can not be a part of those things which we were once, any longer. Therefore we despise the things we see
people do that are contrary to righteousness. In that sense we
hate, for the love of the truth has begun to apprehend us. So we leave others behind.
The word “hate” can be used in several ways. Everything the Lord Jesus uses he uses right. He uses everything for good. What he puts his hand on is used for good, never for evil when it is indeed moved by his hand. Jesus never used anything for evil
as far as I can tell.
The evil one has been more than willing to do evil on his own. If God is ever against us, it is for our correction. Judging righteously
he watches over us. If we suffer for our sins, we suffer. If we by his grace and mercy can come back to him, we do and find life to be good again.
Coming to Jesus for life eternal is something to think about seriously. If you want all your sins found out, just follow Jesus.
Tell God you want him to be your Lord and Saviour. Be willing for your sins to be found out, and to repent when you need to. When you are ready, repent and get started.
March 2nd, 2010 @ 2:45 am
Dear Dr. Brown,
I just acquired volume 5 of your series. Once again, extremely erudite but also accessible!
Dear All,
I don’t have a great deal of time to post here right now but I just thought I’d briefly clarify a misconception voiced by Chloe’s Mom regarding what she wrongly imagines to be “god-men.” I’m going to make some basic comments on how the Classical (i.e. Greek and Roman) gods were understood by their worshippers and the poets/mythographers.
The Classical gods (Greek gods and their Roman counterparts)–Zeus/Jupiter, Hermes/Mercury et al–were, by no means, understood by their worshippers to be “god-men”–neither when at home on Olympus nor when interacting with men on earth. The concept of “god-men” is by no means pagan but, in fact, quite alien to Classical pagan thought. No such notion as “god-man” exists in Classical Greek or Roman mythology/religion, nor does the concept of a divine being becoming “incarnate.” In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Classical gods to BECOME “incarnate” because they already ARE made of flesh–divine flesh, but flesh, nevertheless. To say that one of them “became” or “was made flesh and dwelt among us” would make no sense at all because they already are made of flesh. The gods of Classical myth are NOT incorporeal (“spiritual”) beings, nor are they invisible. Their natural appearance is anthropomorphic (i.e. human shaped)–that’s how they appear to each other on Olympus and to humans on earth. However they can dim their radiance or modify their form temporarily, and they often do so because it is otherwise dangerous for humans to behold them–for a human to behold a god in his full majesty can result in the death of the human beholder. Therefore, because they have the power to modify shape and appearance, when they wish to directly interact with humans, they often appear as everyday humans (note that the already anthropomorphic god’s anthropomorphism is, in such a case, MAINTAINED, not ASSUMED), or sometimes as animals.
So you see, for a pagan to say that Jupiter or Mercury had appeared in “the likeness of men” only means that, while maintaining their normal corporeal anthropomorphism, they’ve dimmed their radiance and appeared as regular human beings for the sake of safe interaction. But they already were “in the likeness of men” insofar as they already were anthropomorphic.
The Classical gods were not understood to be “spiritual” (i.e. non-corporeal) beings but rather beings of flesh and blood (a fluid called “ichor” was thought to run through their veins) from the time of their conception. It is impossible in this context for an “incarnation” to occur because they have bodies from the time of their conception–i.e. from the moment they come into existence. (This bears no similarity to the Biblical picture where we see the eternal, preexistent incorporeal, divine Logos quite literally “putting on flesh,” and thus becoming “incarnate.” “God-man” would apply much more easily to this scenario and is thus more biblical than pagan).
Being immortal, the Classical gods do not “put off” their bodies nor can the body/soul dichotomy be properly applied to them.
In the myths, the Classical gods regularly mate with humans. This is to be understood as two corporeal beings of flesh and blood (one human, one divine) having sex in exactly the same way that humans do with eachother on earth and gods do with eachother on Olympus. Offspring invariably results from these unions and the offspring is invariably (with the exception of Dionysus/Bacchus) HUMAN. Many of the Homeric Greek heroes such as Achilles, Aeneas et al were said to be the offspring of one divine and one human parent. However, NONE OF THEM, was either imagined to be a god or a “god-man.” They were understood to be MEN. Let me explain: In Greek myth/religion, the essential dividing line between gods and humans is mortality/immortality. It is a line that can not be crossed by either gods or humans (humans MUST die and gods CANNOT die). The offspring of gods and humans do not inherit the divine parent’s immortality and do not therefore inherit even the slightest bit of divinity. They are NOT “god-men.” And, in the rare instance that the gods choose to immortalize a human (Hercules, for example), that human has ceased to be a human and has become a god (the process is called apotheosis), since the essential dividing line that separates gods from men (mortality/immortality) has been crossed. Once the dividing line is crossed in either direction, the essential nature is completely changed. In Greek myth there is no such thing as “half man, half god”–you must be either one or the other, and it makes no difference at all that one of your parents happens to be a god. No “god-men” appear in the myths.
Conclusion: the title “god-man” can neither be applied correctly to Classical pagan gods, nor to the offspring of the sexual unions of Classical pagan gods and humans. The idea of “god-men” is quite alien to Classical pagan thought.
March 2nd, 2010 @ 8:24 am
Thank you Dr. Brown and tj for taking the time to respond to my comment. I do appreciate your time.
Blessings! Chloe’s mom.
March 2nd, 2010 @ 8:24 am
Thank you Dr. Brown and tj for taking the time to respond to my comment. I do appreciate your time.
Blessings! Chloe’s mom.
March 2nd, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Do we injustice to the word of God if we suggest Psalm 22 is a lot about the Messiah who later came?
We can read about things that happened to Jesus at a time that was long after the writing of Psalm 22, but if we do have a detailed record of what Jesus did in the beginning, we find it through faith. Without faith it’s impossible to find.
That word that was with God was brought up by him.
Tell me, who was it that was set up from everlasting, from the begining, or ever the earth was? (Proverbs 8:23) What is his name? What did God call him, if you can tell me?
In those last days they called him God’s Son. (see Hebrews 1:2)
March 3rd, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Dear Cloe’s mom,
I read your questions of March 1, above and would like to try to answer some of that as I would give answer to those things, if I may.
It seems that I have this opportunity here.
IN answer to question 1, Why is it that we don’t see the apostle
Paul respond to the situation we read of in Acts 14:11-12 by telling the people that Jesus is a god-man? I myself suppose that it’s not the best answer for an apostle of Jesus Christ in such a situation. It seems to me that if it were, we may have seen it.
Such an answer that you put forth is so typical of today and the theology that we find all around us which is quite foreign to the scriptures. I believe we as Christians can indeed do without it if we so choose. God has given us free will and the liberty that is in Christ by the holy spirit so that we need not answer in such ways if we do not see fit. Paul could have said something like, “Well I’m no god come down from heaven, but if indeed you would like to get to know one, may I present the good news of Jesus to you?
For he was with God in the beginning, being as God is, in holiness, righteousness, truth, and the wisdom that comes from God his Father, even our Father, the Father of all who believe on him who so loved this world that he sent his own Son from heaven to be born of a woman on this earth, born as one of us, though his conception was by God’s doing himself, without any
human intervention..etc”
It seems to me that each of us have to decide for ourselves how to share the gospel of Christ, and that the ways of some men will not be our ways, but God will order our ways in Christ as we seek him by faith in the good news we have received which is of him, for God desires us to be led by him rather than by men or the things of men if they be contrary to him, or fall short of his way of doing things.
Can one essence have two wills? It seems to me not if that essence is to have the peace of God. I think of the peace of God to be a simple unity rather than a complex one, though finding it will not always be easy or simple (for there are so many things concerning justice, righteousness, truth, love, etc.. even all the word), as we learn of Jesus, even as we are in the process of being taught by him.
It seems to me that if something has two wills then something of that has not yet been reconciled to God. Therefore Jesus, not yet having reconciled our flesh to God, fought the good fight of faith,
found the victory over the ways of the devil, and entered back into his glory with even more than he left heaven with. Therefore
he is blessed forever. Amen.
#3, I can’t answer for another, but it seems to me that people will be like God to the extent that they become as Jesus. Adam and Eve had already been made in the image of God and his Son,
their makers, but through deception and the sin that came to her
through disobedience, Eve having had known only good, came to know (as Satan also) what it was to fall from a place of knowing only good, to knowing evil also. God and Jesus know the difference between good and evil, but have always chosen the good. Neither the Father, nor the Son have fallen into sin. Praised be their name forever. (for didn’t God name his Son after himself?)
#4 In the book of Revelation, we see God and the Lamb worshipped, but what of the Holy Spirit? Is he ever worshipped?
This is a good question. I will need to brush up on this one. I recommend a book by a man named Dean Braxton, called “IN HEAVEN – Experiencing the throne of God” (Just put his name in your search engine. You should be able to find out how to order)
I’ve heard by several of those who have interacted with God in the heavenly realm of heaven, only the Father and the Son are worhipped, though the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit, I don’t always know how to capitalize things ) is there.
It seems to me that we worship God and Jesus by the holy spirit which he has given us. Jesus having done his work which God gave him to do, gave this to us which came from the Father. Jesus
received this of God and gave it to us which is able to keep us in
himself by that power. Jesus keeps us by the power of God, and part of this keeping of us is by the help of the gift of his Spirit which he has committed unto us.
I sometimes wondered if the holy spirit is a person. I remember how Jesus was called “that holy thing” when he was a very young
member of our race, being in the womb of his mother Mary.
It seems to me that the holy spirit (the Comforter who Jesus sent)
is a lot like God, who said of himself, “I AM WHAT I AM.” (or “I AM THAT I AM. )
So it seems to me that God isn’t just who he is, but also what he is.
I Cor 15:10
….I am what I am… (KJV)
I Cor 15:10
….I am that I am… (1599 Geneva Bible)
Here’s something to consider:
If people can be salt, can’t Jesus be God?
I think there is a sense in which Jesus is God, and yet more than just a sense. Jesus is love just as God is love. God is love and there is more than one sense in which Jesus is love. In so many ways Jesus is love. Isn’t he love in every way that love is love?
I wonder how many scriptures there are that speak of Jesus, just as they speak of God. There must be so many.
March 3rd, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
Correction, we can be reconciled to God, but not our flesh.
That’s a deep question about the two wills and connecting it with one essence. Maybe it’s a question I should avoid in the future. I wonder where such questions come from. I suppose they stem from a wrong kind of tree or something.
I see that Jesus had a desire to avoid the cross, for we also seek to avoid suffering, injustice, mistreatment, and death. But Jesus committed himself to God and it seems to me that he entered into
God’s peace…a powerful rule. (see Col 3:15 KJV)
March 5th, 2010 @ 12:47 am
Andrew, the only way I know that we can really know that the Bible is true for sure is to do what it says for therein we find the knowledge of God that we seek.
Forgive me for suggesting that the Bible is 100% accurate. I don’t know if there is one particluar Bible on earth today that is that accurate, though the word of God once given was accurate or it wouldn’t be the word of God.
There’s lots of the word of God in the Bible. If you’re looking for a book that has the most word of God in it, that’s the one I would suggest.
No I haven’t done all it says to do, not yet anyway. I’ve fallen far short of it just as you have, maybe even more so, but God had prepared for me a ransom, his Lamb that was prepared to be slain, Jesus by name.
I’m wondering if you are the type of person that will not ride in a vehicle that isn’t perfect. You sure wouldn’t want to get in mine if I offered you a ride. Mine has over 400,000 miles on it. I try to take care of it. I even work on it myself a lot. Now I suppose you
really wouldn’t want to go anywhere with me in it. It’s likely not
100% perfect, but I use it to go where I want to and need to. I like it just fine even though it’s not 100% perfect. It has gotten me places in the past just fine and still works well in it’s present
condition.
It’s had a few owners. I don’t really know what the previous owners have done with it. Even I changed things around in it a little bit. It still has the ability to get me around and I’ve gotten used to it. I feel comfortable with it. I feel confident that there are
things I can fix because I’ve had it so long.
There’s going to be lots of people in heaven that had Bibles that were not in perfect condition. Some of them have torn pages and bindings that are coming loose. But people were able to get somewhere with them.
I can’t tell you the Bible I have is 100% accurate. I find things I’m not at this time able to understand when I compare it with other
scriptures, but I do find enlightenment when different scriptures come together for me.
When I open it and read it sometimes I do find where I have fallen short. I don’t think God holds me to every word by the letter of it as if it was some kind of legal paper to be used against me at all times. I believe there’s a lot that’s in it that I do not have to do, for times and seasons have changed by God’s power.
But by the grace of God, he will remind me of what I need to do that I have not done, and that with or without the intervention of others. He will send a word to me by others for my correction at times. I should expect that to happen at times. That’s a part of living in one body by Christ Jesus.
Isn’t the Bible like a car in that it is able to take people somewhere if they are willing to get in it? If we truly get in the Word won’t the Word take us places, and won’t we begin to see things as we go?
March 5th, 2010 @ 9:10 am
Ray,
It sounds like your a professed biblical adherent. I am not. I believe that God is so wonderful and perfect that the creation is such right now. I believe that death is a wonderful end to life. I believe that after death, we experience nothing, see nothing, feel nothing, we are gone, done, and over. That’s the humble approach. Only human arrogance and emotional attachment to existence suggests otherwise. Only human arrogance demands that God give us something more than what we’re already humbly offered. The real God (not the bible one invented by men with pen) created eternal life already through procreation. The cycles of the universe suggest that life is reproductive. We already have progeny. That’s good enough for me. I would never be so selfish to demand that God give me more than I am already given. I have the chance to continue life through my children, grandchildren, etc. That’s heaven for me. That’s my idea of life everlasting, knowing that I can teach TRUTH and reality to my family instead of fairy tales by a book describing a jealous and angry deity that creates beings, punishes or rewards them based on deed, then offers a vicarious atonement that violates one of his own laws (Deu 24:16).
I think people that are raised to believe the bible is the word of God should at least listen to several preachers and priests that left the religion and bible all together and hear their inputs.
Here is one article for your consideration…
http://deism.com/baptisttodeist.htm
In the end, Christianity to me seems to be a selfish religion demanding more to life than what reality suggests is here.
March 5th, 2010 @ 9:21 am
Also, Ray, I asked you about doing all that the bible says to do and you told me you “fall short”. There are simply certain things in the bible that are obvious flaws, errors, and personal matters between Paul of Tarsus and others. There are obvious connections to other religions within the texts, Zoroastrianism, Mithraic worship, etc. When Paul talks about the “prince of the powers of the air” Christians just associate it with “Satan”, God forbid they actually read the Avesta (Zoroaster’s bible) and see what the real definition is.
I suggest you read about other religions that pre-date the bible by hundreds of years, and see that the bible is nothing more than a copycat of other Mediterranean cults and texts. The New Testament was heavily influenced by Persian and Hellenistic views. The book is riddled with texts that promote solar astrology, the dying and raised three day savior concept is nothing more than the sun’s three day death during the winter solstice from December 23rd-25th. Paul in 1 Corinithians says the following:
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
These texts are NO WHERE to be found anywhere in the OT prophecies. These are texts that suggest the influence of the culture where he was raised, Tarsus, Persian religion.
The idea of a virgin born deity dying and rising three days later stems from Pagan mystery religion not from a Hebrew deity. Deuteronomy 24:16 makes it clear that NO ONE can die for your sins.
March 5th, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Andrew
Why did YHWH institute a sacrificial system whereby the death of animals covered up the sins of Israel?
Deut 24.16 is simply referring to the individual culpability of sin and not to some universal rule of thumb.
March 5th, 2010 @ 11:10 am
Chuck, good point. YHWH’s law says that animal sacrifice is the way to shed blood to cover CERTAIN sins, (not all, as some sin was forgiven without any bloodshed, i.e, the scape goat, incense, etc), therefore, it is a violation of YHWH’s law to offer human blood (see Leviticus 17) as a sacrifice.
The person committing the sin is responsible for their own sacrifcie, (i.e, lambs, bulls, etc) and they are to offer up according to the Torah. The Torah STRICTLY forbids human sacrifice or any kind of murder of an innocent as a means to atone. Jesus was allegedly an innocent human, not a lamb. He didn’t qualify as a sacrifice as the Torah states, unless you’d like to show that he had split hooves and chewed cud. He was improperly offered at that, as the Torah strictly states that his throat was to be slit and ALL the blood drained and poured onto an altar. That didn’t happen with the Jesus story. The Jesus story says that Romans executed him on a pagan torture device, something deplorable and unacceptable to the OT God you refer to.
Very good point indeed.
Also, one might add that if Jesus is supposed to be a sacrifice for sin, the Passover meal isn’t the proper occasion. That meal is a memorial of the Exodus of Egypt, not a sin sacrifice. The day of atonement of course comes later, in the fall. Once again, Jesus doesn’t qualify.
Deu 18:9 “When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer
Deu 18:11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead,
Deu 18:12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you.
So the question must be, if the New Testament is allegedly a fulfillment of the OT, how does Jesus Christ qualify as a sin sacrifice according to the law and prophets? As far as any knowledgeable Jew will tell you, he doesn’t. Jews are well versed in the Torah and they rejected Jesus for a very good reason. He simply doesn’t qualify as the Messiah.
March 5th, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Chuck, if you’d like to explore more about the Jewish reason for why Jesus doesn’t work….
SIN and ATONEMENT
Scriptural Facts Versus Dogma
Q: Is it true that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin?
A: No. The bloodless meal offering atoned for sin. (Leviticus 5,13). The half shekel money offering atoned for the souls of the Children of Israel (Exodus 30,11-16). The Scapegoat which bore all the iniquities of Israel was sent away alive into the wilderness (Lev. 16,21-22). Aaron’s incense atoned for the people, and stayed the plague (Numbers 17,2).
Q: Is there an alternative to the carnal sacrifice?
A: Yes. The practice of mercy and truth atones for sins (Proverbs 16,6). Obedience to YHVH’s Word is preferable to sacrifices (1Samuel 15,22). Prayer is an acceptable substitute for the sacrificial act (Hosea 14,3).
Q: Does Scripture teach us that someone other than ourselves can atone for our sins by dying in our stead?
A: On the contrary. The Bible says: “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin” Deuteronomy 24,16. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die”. Ezekiel 18,3-4. “Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of my Book” Exodus 32,33. Scripture does state, however: “The wicked is a ransom for the righteous; and the faithless comes in stead of the upright.” Proverbs 21,18. This does not mean that the righteous die to atone for the sinners. (Compare Exodus 32,31-33.)
Q: Did not the Servant of YHVH described in Isaiah 53 die for the sins of others?
A: No! It pleased YHVH to permit the Servant to suffer and be oppressed ONLY to see IF he were willing to offer his life as an offering. If the Servant is ready to do so, he is rewarded with “seed” (numerous descendants) and a long life! (verse 10). What is described here is a process of trial and purification, and NOT an innocent person being punished by a capricious deity for sins committed by others!
Q: How, then can we regain life, overcome the wages of sin?
A: Let Scripture speak for itself: “Again when I say to the wicked, thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin and do that which is lawful and right… he shall surely live, he shall not die, none of his sins that he hath committed shall be remembered against him.” Ezekiel 33,14-19.
Q: Is man capable of satisfying the requirements of the Law?
A: “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.” Deuteronomy 30,11.
Q: What is good, and what is required of us?
A: Only to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with our Creator (Micah 6,8). To love YHVH and observe His Commandments. (Deuteronomy 10,12-13).
“Therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed”!! Deuteronomy 30,19
http://www.light-of-israel.org
March 5th, 2010 @ 11:57 am
Andrew and Ray,
We’ll be stopping this discussion here since it is off topic and one of our rules is that posts must stay on topic. (Andrew, we also informed you of this privately.)
And Andrew, as for reasons that Jesus “doesn’t work” for Jewish people — these objections and scores of others have been completely answered and thoroughly refuted many times over.
What you have demonstrated to us here is that you have no desire to seek the truth but only to argue against the truth. May the Lord graciously open your eyes to see!
March 5th, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
Dr. Brown, I don’t want your “lord” to open my eyes. My eyes are open to reality already. Leaving the bible behind and discovering Deism was the best move I ever made. No guilty feelings, no invisible dying and resurrected third day deity to worry about, no need to feel anything but happiness each day and be proud of who I am and what I can achieve without religious hypocrisy and it’s numerous denominations of confusion.
March 5th, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
Thank you, Andrew!
March 5th, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
As far as “truth” is concerned Dr. Brown, here’s what’s true:
One cannot see or hear Jesus Christ. He is limited to what a book says. He’s a book character. That is true. Unless my eyes can be opened by you coming to my house and doing some of the things the biblical Jesus did and taught his disciples to do, yes, they will remain shut and will believe it to be folklore. I’ve yet to meet a Christian who can actually do ANYTHING the New Testament teaches them to do, and all I get for reasons why they can’t do ANYTHING it says are excuses.
The whole problem with “faith” is that “faith” is putting belief in something that cannot be proved. Your entire belief system you call “truth” relies upon accepting certain unseen concepts. To me, that’s absurd, and to anyone who is not religious and never was it is as well.
Obviously the Jewish people knew well enough to reject Jesus just like they did with numerous other Messiah claimants. He didn’t do anything Messianic, the whole faith system requires a belief in a “second coming” to solve all those problems.
I will be happy to open my eyes if you can do what your religion teaches you to do and convert me based upon fact, not fiction.
Show me a miracle Dr. Brown. IF the holy spirit is actually indwelling in you, you would be fully capable of raising a dead person or turning water into wine or any one of the miracles described in the bible.
Goodbye….
March 5th, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
Hey Dr. Brown!! I just spent a few hours going through this entire thread and had an absolute BLAST seeing all the activity and learning about different perspectives on Jesus.
GOD BLESS YOU for all the work you’ve done in the name of Jesus Christ!! The Lord has used your work to bring me, and MANY MANY other Jews, to faith in JESUS–which COMPLETELY transforms lives!! I must say, the biggest testament to your faith in Christ is that you have put up with A LOT in this thread without loosing your cool because the HOLY SPIRIT lives in you!! Don’t ever stop teaching and preaching with love as you have so beautifully done over the course of the past few weeks!!
Again God Bless you for all your patience with people and hard-work towards the kingdom of Christ!!
And after all these posts I’m left with two burning questions:
If Jesus Christ was NOT unified with the pre-existing complex God of the bible, if Jesus was a STRANGER to our forefathers–how are we to worship Him as Lord our God today?
And We were NEVER called to worship the temple or tabernacle, so how could we worship Jesus if He was nothing more than God dwelling in a human being?
sorry for all the caps, I got a bit excited!
God Bless you Dr. Brown and remember not to get discouraged by people’s posts and personal attacks because Christ’s work through your work has changed the lives of many and I can personally attest to that!
March 5th, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Andrew
In the NT Jesus is figuratively portrayed as the Lamb of God, an acceptable sacrifice without blemish or defect. This harks back to the Passover sacrifice of a lamb or to the daily sacrifice in the Temple (Exod 29:38-46; Heb 10).
This is a precedent set by Jewish Christians and not some Gentile influx or addition from such passages as “the Suffering Servant” of Isa 53.
I am glad for you but why are you wasting your time on posts such as this?
March 6th, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
Dr. Brown, thank you for allowing me to post on your site. I’m not sure what the topic is here.
March 6th, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
Ray,
Thanks for posting! For the topic, just look at the top of the page. Blessings on you!
March 6th, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
Lior,
Thanks for your kind and gracious words. I am so blessed to hear that we were able to help you in your journey. It is one of the great privileges of my life to help lead other Jews to Jesus our Messiah and King!
Keep pressing in to Him and honoring Him and you will bear much lasting fruit.
March 6th, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Lior,
Regarding your questions:
“If Jesus Christ was NOT unified with the pre-existing complex God of the bible, if Jesus was a STRANGER to our forefathers–how are we to worship Him as Lord our God today?”
Yes, the point is that it was always through the Son/the Word through whom God manifested Himself in the Tanakh; that revelation just became much clearer in the. So, we continue to worship the same God, but now revealed in full through Jesus.
“And We were NEVER called to worship the temple or tabernacle, so how could we worship Jesus if He was nothing more than God dwelling in a human being?”
First, we don’t worship the flesh of Jesus (anymore than Israel worshiped the Tabernacle itself) but His entire person — the Word made flesh; God incarnate. Second, there is a difference between a Tabernacle and a human being. The latter is actually created in God’s image, so in a unique way, divinity and humanity meet together in the person of Jesus.
March 6th, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Dr. Brown, can you please clarify what you mean by “we don’t worship the flesh of Jesus”, I was a bit confused when I saw that, not because I disagree necessarily, but I haven’t heard that terminology before of worshiping the flesh of Jesus.
When I pray to God I kind of form an image of what I thought Jesus may of looked like in my head, is that bad? I just need some clarification because that could be me worshiping the flesh of Jesus by trying to vision what I thought He may of looked like in my head. I know there is “no beauty we should desire” for Him, but.. It just kind of happens naturally when I pray.
Blessings!
March 6th, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
About the discussions we as Christians have had and seen as to whether or not Jesus is God, it seems to me that one may indeed find many a scripture to prove that Jesus is someone other than God, and that one may also find as many if not more scriptures that say that Jesus is everything that God is.
If the scriptures do indeed say that Jesus is God, I do not think it to be robbery.
Though we do not see Jesus saying in these very words> “I am God.” , if we were to read of him saying so, it would not be robbery.
Sometimes I wonder if there are more scriptures that speak of God that apply likewise to Jesus, than there are that speak of him as being someone other than God, that is, I wonder if those scriptures that speak of God, that also apply to Jesus likewise, are more than the ones we find that speak of Jesus as being someone other than God.
I don’t know which there are more of… one, or the other.
We could take either side it seems to me.
I believe there is a sense in which Jesus is God while at the same time he is someone other than God, for he is his Son.
If people can be salt, can’t Jesus be God?
We can take either side it seems to me.
In what ever side we take, let’s be fair about it.
I wonder which side God takes. I think he will be found on the side that’s fair, whatever is true, honest, just, etc. (see Philippians 4:8)
For God so loved the world…
God gave us the very image of himself when he gave us Jesus.
March 7th, 2010 @ 2:04 am
In comparing Jesus with God, here is something that applies to both of them.
The man that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (see Hebrews 11:6)
I find it interesting that one of the first things God told Moses about himself is that he is. He even named himself after that fact.
(see Exodus 3:14)
Now the man that comes to Jesus must also believe that he is, that is, that he actually exists. Now he also is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (see Luke 24:1-10)
Now the man that believes that Jesus is and confesses him as the man that he is, (see I Tim 2:5) receives of his Spirit, and that spirit is eternal life.
If a man worships Jesus as the Christ, he will receive the Spirit of God. That is how a man may know that God is true. (see I John 5:10)
Jesus is God’s agent, representative, example, messenger, and such, so much so, that people say that he is God, even though there is a distinction between the Father and the Son.
Isn’t the safest place to be with the word that is God, and the same that was in the beginning with him? (see John 1)
It’s interesting to compare what God did in the beginning (Genesis 1:2,3) with what God did later. (Luke 1:35)
March 7th, 2010 @ 10:53 am
Sometimes I wonder if people confuse who Jesus is with what he is.
I suppose some defend who he is and others defend what he is.
Because God is as he is, he also is what he is and it seems to me that we can see so much of the same in his Son.
If we read about how the Son of man (Jesus) is Lord over the sabbath we can also read about how a man who walked by the Spirit of God established the righteousness of it.
The Pharisees who came to Jesus about things concerning the sabbath seemed to be lords over it, but when they came to Jesus
they found him to be the higher power.
Was this because he is God or because he walked by the Sprit of God?
I suppose what we become is greatly determined by what we do.
If we obey God by the spirit he’s given us, we will become the sons of God. We will become what we are called to be as we are being it by the spirit of God. We will then be what we are of God
in Christ Jesus. Yet it isn’t clear what we shall be. So we go ahead not knowing much at all.
If one defends who Jesus is and another defends what he is will one find anything in the other that is in need of correction? I suppose it will depend on how they walk.
The Pharisees came to Jesus and found nothing in need of correction, though at times they tried.
What then is it that we defend, our faith, something that is a part of it, or something that is not a part of our faith? What is it that we defend and why is it that we defend it so?
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:13 am
Thanks Dr. Brown! and that’s a great question Eric! I sometimes find myself picturing Jesus when I pray, and then I quickly try to remind myself not to picture Him. Sometimes I get a little uncomfortable when I see pictures or images of Him too.
I’m not really sure what the answer is or what scriptures say about this issue–Dr. Brown, could you shed a little bit of light on Eric’s question? Or refer us to a place where we can learn more about it? I’m sure you’re extremely busy, so anything would be greatly appreciated, even if it’s really quick!
Thanks Dr. Brown and God Bless you and your ministry!
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:22 am
Eric,
Picturing Jesus or not is not the issue (we certainly have a depiction of Him in His glory in Rev 1, just as we have a depiction of the Father in His glory in Ezek 1). The issue is thinking that His physical body was divine — as opposed to being the physical body of a human being in which the fullness of God pitched His tent. That was my only point, and the only reason I raised it was because counter-missionaries will say, “We cannot see the form of God,” and I say, “Yes, but the physical body of Jesus is not the form of God.”
Again, nothing more than that and nothing to get hung up about.
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:53 am
Okay thank you Dr. Brown, I definitely agree thank you for clearing that up.
Blessings!
March 7th, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
Since we are entering into a discussion about picturing Jesus and about whether or not we may see the form of God, may I tell you about what I have experienced? This seems to me to fit into this discussion.
I had taken a class in which we were encouraged to picture Jesus
in his resurrected glory. We were told that this is often helpful when ministring healing to others. It’s simply a method one teacher learned to apply while he ministered and the Lord often met him there in that process.
So a day or two later, at the end of my day at work, I too thought to practice picturing Jesus in his resurrected glory, but
my mind kept going back to him on the cross. No matter how I tried doing this, my mind went back to the cross.
Then while on my drive home as I was driving, I saw him in a glorious picture, seeing him with spiritual eyes, a glorious picture
in living colorful light. His body looked like the proverbial Greek God. I don’t know how else to explain what I saw. I then saw that he had the cross on his shoulder. I saw the crown of thorns.
All of this surprised me and I was enthralled by it. I don’t know how else to say it. I was captivated by what I saw of Jesus.
There was no blood, cuts, or bruises on him at this time. This is how he wanted me to see him at this moment. Then I saw that his cheek was against the cross. I saw that he was Embracing it
and that it was a thing of such glory. Then it seemed as if his visage was changing. It began to look like me and then the vision ended.
That’s what God wanted me to see. At this particular time he wanted me to see Jesus this way. It was Jesus showing me this
according to the will of God.
Shortly afterward I found myself in a situation where I needed to remember this and embrace what I has been shown, knowing that in God’s perspective the cross is a thing of glory as I had been shown by the Lord Jesus.
So I will say to those of you who wonder if they should picture Jesus in their mind, don’t be afraid to do so. I know he can show you what he wants you to see, for he is a rewarder of those who come to him, knowing that he is, and he is also a rewarder of those that diligently seek him.
So would I describe what I saw as “in the form of man” or “in the form of God”? I suppose I would have to say that what I saw was …like…both. I saw him in ….like the image of God. I don’t know how else to describe it.
March 7th, 2010 @ 6:57 pm
Dr Brown
So, Jesus is not God after all then?
March 8th, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
When God lookes at Jesus I wonder if he sees anything other than himself. I suppose God also sees us in Jesus, but when God talks to Jesus I wonder if he considers that he’s talking with all that he himself is even as he’s talking to his Son.
When God does something through Jesus I wonder if he considers that Jesus does it by what God himself is.
I wonder if God could ever say that he did something by himself
even as God commanded Jesus to do it and Jesus did it by whatever God is.
I’m just wondering if God could use language that way.
I’ve often heard it said that as the Lord refines us, he’s looking to see when he sees himself. I’ve heard that he will not quit the refining process untill he sees his own reflection, his own image….
which is…? , God?
If ever there came a time when Jesus did something through me
and I overheard him talk to another about what he did through me, and it came out in such a way that, he was saying that he did
it by himself….I don’t think I would feel….left out. I think it would be a wonderful thing to hear.
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:02 am
The angel, the messenger, the shepherd, who has kept me in Christ Jesus, has blessed me.
OK, I begin to see the plural unity of God here. I think I’m catching on.
The Lord, the Creator, the Provider, will continue to bless me even as I abide in Jesus.
I think I’m getting it now.
God is many things just as he said he is, for he said “I AM What I Am.” All of these things is what God is, and there is much, much more to what he is.
I’m caused to ask a question. Is there a plurality of persons in the one God?
In God there will be all the persons who have the fullness of God abiding in them even as they are in Christ Jesus, as Christ is dwelling in them, for he is the fullness of God. In that day God will be all he is in all of them. They will be lacking nothing, but will be complete in God. Even while on this earth, those that are in Christ are complete in him.
Is God the angel who wrestled with Jacob?
When Jacob wrestled with this angel, he wrestled with God.
When we stumble at the word we stumble at what God has placed in Zion.
I believe the angel whom Jacob wrestled with, was his representative of God whom God had sent to Jacob. This repesentative of God was sent to Jacob to give him a blessing
of God. In wrestling with God’s representative, Jacob wrestled with God.
God sent this angel to represent himself.
March 13th, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
Dr. Brown,
How many births, or being begotton do you see in the scriptures concerning Jesus. There are three that I am looking at.
Here’s how I got there.
Proverbs 8:24
when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Colossians 1: 15..
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created…
Michah 5:2
….whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
I consider his first birth to have been from this time before the world was, before there was anything made that was made. I consider that he must have been in God and came from God, as being born, for he is his Son. Proverbs 8 speaks of him this way
as it continues.
I consider Proverbs 8 to be both a disclosure of wisdom and also a prophetic utterance which reveals things about Christ.
It seems to me that Jesus had a birth from before the world began. (#1)
One day I was listening to a Christian who was hosting a radio program. He was asking the listeners “What does Jesus really look like?” People started calling in with testimony of seeing him
in the sky with outstretched arms, and other visions of him, each one with a different perspective of him.
Then he asked the listeners, how do we picture Jesus? I opened up my Bible and was reading somewhere about his birth. I pictured Jesus as developing in the womb of Mary. Shortly afterward I began to picture Jesus coming from God into this world, about the time of his conception.
To me this seemed like a birth of the spirit, being born of the spirit, for he came out from God. I’ll call this a birth. (#2)
We are also told that Jesus is the firstborn of the dead because of his resurrection.
Colossians 1:18
…the firstborn from the dead;… (#3)
There may be more, but those three things I think of as “births” or being born.
I hope this isn’t too far off topic. It seems to me to be connected to the subject matter of God and his Son Jesus.
March 13th, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
In looking for things from the word to count as “births” concerning Jesus, I forgot one, his being born of Mary. That makes 4.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
Ray, Proverbs 8 doesn’t mention Jesus. It’s inferred by Christians and others who want it to be there. The text is clearly talking about the quality of wisdom. Just to be clear and factual for those interested, the word “Jesus” is never mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew bible, the bible of the Jews. Just like “YHWH” is never mentioned in the Greek NT. The terms are separate from each other, and should remain as such since Christians are always trying to force fit Jesus in the OT.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Also concerning the virgin birth, Christians also try to force Isaiah 7:14 to also be about Jesus when it’s really not. If it is, Christians need to explain which two kings had their land spoiled before he knew how to talk. Isaiah 7:14 is clearly fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3… Christians of course love to used the misquote of “Matthew” one of many misquotes of the OT.
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in our image…”.
I’ve heard some say that this supports a trinitary view of God.
I once said something like, “Let’s go get a cup of coffee.”, but my friend was not me, nor was I my friend, but then I don’t see myself as a part of a trinity. Maybe some people do, but seeing such things does not mean a man will be in heaven, for that is not the gospel.
The gospel has the power of God to bring men to heaven, to eternal life, not our theology about the nature of God or whether or not he is one or three, or three in one, or any variation thereof.
Sometimes I don’t know why people teach such things unless they like to be lawyerly and put people to sleep.
I think we should be waking people up instead of putting them to sleep.
Wasn’t it Jesus that was with God when he made man in his image and also the image of his Son?
March 15th, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
If ever I should hear Jesus say that he is God,
I wonder what the interpretation of the thing would be.
a. That he is God.
b. That he is the second person of the Trinity.
c. That he is the Son of God.
I opt for c., but I’m thinking of d.
d. That he’s about to take names.
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
I thoroughly enjoyed this. This is the most important Christian apologetics issue.
March 16th, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
There seems to be two kinds of officers of the law that are out to make some sort of arrests. One kind wants to make arrests by the letter, if anyone should want to worship Jesus as God, and the other, if anyone doesn’t conform to the customs of the town of Trinitary.
Paradigms. People have paradigms. Some of them are changing.
March 16th, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
Though the name “Jesus” isn’t spelled out in those exact letters in Proverbs 8, I don’t find it strange if a word disclosing the subject of wisdom would also be mingling in a revelation of Christ.
It’s not an uncommon thing in scripture. King David’s life was often found to be mixing in with revelations about Jesus. We should expect to see the same thing happening in his son Solomon as he also was a spiritual man of understanding.
March 17th, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
Solomon was known for wisdom. He repesented it well. It was a gift he received from God.
March 17th, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
Exodus 3:1,2 says:
Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midean: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb, (I love the way the scriptures are written, …I wonder what’s going to happen next.)
And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Now from the following veses of this chapter, I can tell that God talked to Moses from this burning bush.
This gives rise to a few questions.
1. Was this angel God?
2. Did God speak to Moses by or through this angel, being a messenger for God?
3. Was it that the angel did the appearing, but that God did the
speaking?
I think I will go with #2, that is that God spoke to Moses from this burning bush by his angel. I could think of this angel as a representative of God, sent by him for this purpose. I suspect that this messenger only said what God wanted said, the way he wanted it said.
4. Could God appear as an angel?
5. Can God appear as a man?
When I read from Genesis 18, it seems to me that God appeard
as a man, and so did his angels that came with him. (his two witnesses who would be a part of his work of coming to see what
is the conditition of Sodom)
6. Could Jesus appear as an angel?
It seems to me that whatever God has done, I can suspect that Jesus may be found doing the same, sometime.
7. Can Jesus appear as a “regular” man (normal or natural human being)?
Jesus appeared to the two men who were on the road to Emmaus. This he did after his resurrection.
As pertaining to Genesis 18, I consider that God appeared to Abraham and that his appearance was that of a man, and that he came with two angels with him who also appeared as men.
As the Lord was about to go unto Sodom, Abraham drew near to the Lord and began to intercede for the city, the same where Lot was. The manner of Abraham was to do justice and judgment and to command his household after him to do the same, to keep the way of the Lord. This seems to be that which allowed God to
bring upon Abraham the blessings he had promised.
I think about a song by Johnny Cash. He sang about the Christmas story (Luke 2) where the shepherds kept watch over their flocks by night, and the angel appeared unto them telling them the good news, and how they went to see. In the song he asks
repeatedly, “Who kept the sheep?,.. Who kept the sheep?”
March 20th, 2010 @ 8:58 am
I’m reading from the book of Judges where Gideon meets and angel of the Lord.
It seems to me that when this angel speaks to Gideon, it is accepted by the writer of this book, that the Lord speaks to Gideon.
This raises some questions.
1. Is it that the angel of the Lord is the Lord himself?
2. Is it that the angel of the Lord speaks the present word of the Lord to Gideon?
3. Is it that this present angel (messenger) of the Lord is Jesus?
I’m going with #2 above, that is , that this angel sent by God speaks to Gideon only what God presently wanted to talk to Gideon about, and he did it exactly as the Lord God would have him to do it.
I also consider #3 a possibility, but am not willing to teach it as fact because I can not prove it by the scriptures. Maybe some people can. I don’t know.
One of the dangers of embracing the Trinity doctrine is that a man may be tempted to look for it in the scriptures, and accept anything as truth that would seem to add support to it.
I’m not convinced I should be a Trinitarian. Do I need to be converted? I have received salvation without it, though I had heard it. I never really accepted it enough to support it. I often found it to be confusing.
I’ve participated in holy communion without the doctrine. I even took part of one holy communion in which it seemed that it was
a necessity for one to be a Christian, by the one who was ministering it.
September 14th, 2010 @ 4:03 am
In my view both views are wrong. My apologies, I don’t mean to put anyone down. I’d like to make a few notes.
In Jewish thought it is the Torah that is the “word” of God. Consider Psalm 119:105 (Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.)
It is the Torah that was first created, and then God consults the Torah in the creation of the world. The imagery is that of the architect that first draws the plan, and then builds the house by referring back to the plan. The literal rendering of Jn 1:1 is “and the word was TOWARDS God”. God is looking at His master plan. The natural gender of “logos” is neuter, however, the grammatical gender is masculine. Have a look at this article: http://www.zworld.com.au/2006/07/01/natural-and-grammatical-genders-the-role-of-grammar-in-translations/
The other point is that the virginal conception idea may not originated from the apostles. Consider the most ancient gospel, Mark. According to him, the gospel begins with Jesus’ baptism, not his birth. He makes absolutely no mention of his birth. The writers of epistles make not a single reference to his birth (why if it is so important for doctrine?) and indeed, outside of Matthew and Luke you find that not a single NT writer knows anything about it.
According to a Greek father (I do not remember who it was) Matthew was translated from Hebrew with great difficulties. The only Hebrew version of Matthew history knows about is the Gospel of the Hebrews, which mysteriously also lacks the birth narrative. So considering the synoptic problems, that verses of Mark can be found almost word for word in either Matthew or Luke, it appears that the translators of Matthew used Mark as a template and filled in the gaps from what they could translate from Hebrew.
The trouble is that the textual scholars consider the Greek text with the greatest weight and largely ignore other sources. This is the perfect example when theology comes first and that guides the work of scholars to produce the text from which then the same theology can be reinforced.
Another issue is tribal membership. In ancient Jewish culture Jewishness came through the mother, because the mother was responsible for the child’s religious education, and tribal membership came through the father’s blood line. Therefore, a child of a Gentile father and Jewish mother had no tribal membership and thus had not tribal inheritance. In the same way the child of a Jewish father and Gentile mother was not considered Jewish until s/he grew up and converted to the Jewish religion.
Therefore, a virgin-born Jesus cannot belong to the tribe of Judah, ergo, he do not qualify to be the Messiah.
Indeed, in the Old Latin and Old Syriac text of Matthew Joseph is the natural father of Jesus.
So, if you want a virgin-born Jesus, no problem, but then he is disqualified to be the Messiah. However, if he is Joseph’s natural son, then we need to review our theology about the “sin nature” and the idea of dying for sins and so on.
December 7th, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
BL
Tell me if you still agree after you watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlsqMTtpo-w
December 7th, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
600+ comments, is this a topic of discussion, or what?
December 8th, 2010 @ 1:26 am
BL wrote:
“Indeed, in the Old Latin…text of Matthew Joseph is the natural father of Jesus.”
BL is wrong. For example the Vetus Latina/Itala (Old Latin) does indeed speak loudly and clearly of the virgin birth: “Ecce virgo in utero habebit, et pariet filium : et vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum Nobiscum Deus. Exsurgens autem Joseph a somno, fecit sicut præcepit ei angelus Domini, et accepit conjugem suam. Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum : et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.”
We must also be thankful to Chuck for posting an entirely unconvincing unitarian apologetic video which helps to further confirm the orthodox in their Trinitarian faith.
December 8th, 2010 @ 9:59 am
tj
Could you point to specific qualms you may have regarding the video instead of just arguing from silence?
December 8th, 2010 @ 11:10 am
lol, Sounds like someone’s been spending a lot of time with Dan Brown.
July 31st, 2011 @ 2:17 pm
Dr. Brown
I am interested in the difference of definition of YHWH between yourself and Dr. White.
Dr. White states that “there is only One true God YHWH”. He calls this YHWH “the very Divine Being”. White also says that, “the Bible identifies Jesus as YHWH” [Forgotten Trinity, p. 132]. I have heard you, however, express your disagreement with the proposition ‘Jesus is YHWH’.
Could you comment please.