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.

“Indeed, in the Old Latin…text of Matthew Joseph is the natural father of Jesus.”
-BL

lol, Sounds like someone’s been spending a lot of time with Dan Brown.

…an entirely unconvincing unitarian apologetic video which helps to further confirm the orthodox in their Trinitarian faith.

Could you point to specific qualms you may have regarding the video instead of just arguing from silence?

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.

In my view both views are wrong.

Tell me if you still agree after you watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlsqMTtpo-w

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.

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.

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?”