I was convinced by the sound arguments found on those two web pages. I was not convinced by your arguments (or the arguments posted on the Scripturaltruths website).
Of course you are, because you are 100% theologically biased and you don't know any better. The arguments on those sites are easily shot down, because they display a misunderstanding of basic Greek.
But couldn't the exact same thing have been said about the Hebrew phrase Hayah Asher Hayah ("I AM WHO I AM") found at Exodus 3:14 or the word Hayah ("I AM") alone, also found in Exodus 3:14, except for this use by YHWH in Exodus? That Hebrew word "HAYAH" is used 3,502 times in 3,095 Verses in the King James Version. So, in the vast majority of cases, the Hebrew word HAYAH was NOT used as a proper name. But you DO agree, don't you, that God did indeed use HAYAH as a proper name or title in Exodus 3:14?
Well first of all, "I am" is not the best translation for it. Second, I do not agree that he used it as a proper name. The proper name was used in verse 15, where he says "YHWH... this is my name." It is not a name, but a revelation of himself. There is a difference.
How do you know God's use of HAYAH in Exodus 3:14 doesn't just mean, using your words above, "exactly the same as it would mean if anyone else used it"?
Sentence structure would be one way. Ehyeh is used as a divine revelation of himself. Perhaps you missed the ISBE reference from Scriptural Truths: "This has been supposed to mean 'self-existence,' and to represent God as the Absolute. Such an idea, however, would be a metaphysical abstraction, not only impossible to the time at which the name originated, but alien to the Heb[rew] mind at any time. And the imperfect 'ehyeh is more accurately tr[anslated] 'I will be what I will be,' a Sem[etic] idiom meaning, 'I will be all that is necessary as the occasion will arise... The optional reading in the ARV margin is much to be preferred: ‘I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,’ indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow."
How do you determine when God is using HAYAH (or ANIY HU HIY) as a Name/Title, and when He is not using it as a Name/Title?
Well again, it is never used as a name, the name that is given to Moses in answer to his question is YHWH. Irregardless, the simple use of the verb or pronoun/verb in a sentence tells us a lot. In the Isaiah passages there is no special use, but it falls in accord with normal grammatical principles.
If God could use the extremely common Hebrew word HAYAH as a Name in Exodus 3:14, then how do you know He did not use "ANIY HU HIY" as a Name/Title in Isaiah in a rare case, just as God did at Exodus 3:14 with HAYAH? What is your basis for determining this? Shouldn't the basis be the CONTEXT?
Context and syntax.
Okay, you say that YHWH was saying something specific in Isaiah 48:12 -- what was He saying when He said "I Am He"? What was He referring back to in the immediate context? Or was He referring back to something in Chapter 1, or was He referring back to something in Genesis? What are you claiming He was referring to? What do you consider to be "context"?
You have made it clear that you have not read carefully (if at all) the linked article. It addresses each of these passages quite well. Notice what it says: " The final text within Isaiah that is necessary for our consideration is 48:12. Here God simply states the words 'I am he.' Who is he? The context discusses God as the deliverer of prophecy. In the past he had warned his people of coming events and they proved true. With Israel he has now done the same but they have not listened to him. They have disregarded what he has said. Nevertheless, he knew of these things and told them. Here, the pronoun is used to reference that which was “previously specified”, finding Jehovah restating that he was the one that did these things. In other words, God is stating: 'I am the same one that did these things.'"
How do you know that God did not use "I AM HE" in that Verse as a Title/Name, just like He did with "I am The First, and I am The Last"? In fact, it could be claimed that the phrase "I am the first, and I am the last" was used just like any normal person would use those words, and was not being used as a Title/Name, but then the Book of Revelation clearly uses it as a Name/Title for God AND for Jesus. It all depends on how a word or phrase is used within a certain context, and how the listeners or readers of that time would have understood those words or phrases.
Well with any Scripture, before we look for some special and unique theological meaning that would be seen in a text that does not make sense in accords with a normal use of language, we look to see if the text uses language in a normal way. As this text does, it would be nothing short of a theological import to gather anything more from it than what is derived via a natural reading.
It is true that the Jews did not understand what Jesus meant the first time He used EGW EIMI (John 8:24), and their reaction was to ask Jesus who He was claiming to be. But, the last time Jesus used EGW EIMI in John Chapter 8 (8:58), the Jews reacted by picking up stones to kill Jesus with. By then, they realized exactly what Jesus meant by saying EGW EIMI. How do you explain the different reactions at John 8:24 and at John 8:58?
The answer is really very simple. These are completely different uses of the term. In one eimi as the sense of being something, in the other it is to exist. The difference is seen in that the adverbial expression (prin abraam genesqai) modifies the sense of eimi.
So, just to make sure I understand your beliefs correctly, you claim that Jesus was created by God, that He is a creature, but that He should be worshiped to the same degree as The Father, is that correct?
Well yes and no. Now, yes, but only because God has raised him to a position to be and because he has commanded it. Without that, no he should be.
What Scriptures do you use to support your belief that Jesus was created by God?
Well there are a number. John 1:4, John 6:57, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 3:14... The list goes on.
What Scriptures do you use to support that Christians should worship an exalted creature?
Phil. 2:8-11, Heb. 1:6, Rev. 5:12.
Also, you never replied to my question asking you WHAT Jesus is -- Is Jesus an angel, an exalted human, Michael, Gabriel, or what?
Now, he is a resurrected man, a partaker of the divine nature. (2Pet. 1:4)
It is a FACT that Christianity and Judaism teach MONOTHEISM. Look it up in any Encyclopedia, Dictionary, etc. For example, check out this web page: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109475/monotheism
There are several issues with that. First of all, it is an interpretation. Second of all, it depends on how we wish to define monothism.
Also, just because a word we use to describe something in the Bible does not appear in the Bible does not mean it is a false doctrine that should not be taught. The word Omniscience does not appear in the Bible, but we use it to describe God's ability to know all things. The word "Bible" does not even appear in the Bible, but we use it to describe the Holy Scriptures.
Strawman.
Did you notice that? Jesus Christ Himself proclaimed that The FIRST and GREATEST Commandment of all time was that there is ONLY ONE GOD and there is NO OTHER BESIDES HIM and that all should love God with everything you have.
Unfortunately you quoted from a translation based upon the Textus Receptus. The word "God" does not actually appear in the critical Greek texts. It has been rejected as a spureous addition. Irregardless, it would be correct in that there is no besides him that are just like him, and so none that are God in the same sense he is. But notice this, Jesus says that there is "no other besides HIM." He excluded himself.
The Apostle Paul taught Monotheism (See Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6)
Those are all extremely damaging to you, for in every one of those texts the referent is the Father, not the Trinity or the Son.
So, as you can clearly see, the Bible teaches Monotheism, even though the word "Monotheism" is not found in the Bible.
The problem is that you do not understand the Biblical use of the phrase. Again, as an example, the elder of Revelation 7:14 is John's Lord, but Jesus is still his "one Lord." Similarly, in John 8 the Jews have "one Father, God" and yet they confess, "Abraham is our Father." The point is that the expression "one something" refers to them as the chief holder of that position, the one that is it in the truest sense. It does not limit others from being called it in a lesser sense.
You are definitely wrong on this point as the Bible shows. First of all, when Jesus was resurrected, He was exalted BACK to His previous GLORY (See John 17:5, John 1:1, and Philippians 2:6). Secondly, Jesus was worshiped while on earth before being exalted after His resurrection (See Matthew 14:33 and John 9:38). Thirdly, Jesus was worshiped BEFORE coming to earth (See 1 Corinthians 10:4, Genesis 48:15-16, Joshua 5:13-15, John 17:5)
You have confused worship with glory. In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul speaks of the stars having glory, but it has nothing to do with worship. Jesus worship on earth was simply obesence. It was given to the two angels that visited Lot (Gen. 19:1), to the Jewish king (1Chron. 29:20), etc. This was allowed and acceptable.
Also, Hebrews 1:6, depending on the Translation, says that it was when God brought Jesus to earth the FIRST time that He commanded all the angels to worship Him. Notice how the LITV reads:
Actually, that is quite incorrect. Notice the NASB. "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says..." Notice "again"? It is a reference to the resurrection or possible the second coming, but I am inclined to think the first, per the context, starting in verse 4 where it speaks of him being exalted to become "much better than the angels."
The Apostle Paul said that there were only two types of Gods, the One True God by Nature, and the so-called gods who are not gods by nature. Do you have Scriptural support for a third classification of gods? If so, please show the Scriptures.
Paul himself. In 1 Cor. 8:5-6 he speaks of all three. He first speaks of the so-called gods, then in a paranthetical statement he speaks of there being "many gods and many lords." And then the one God, the Father. Notice the commentary of Jamieson, Faussett and Brown: “'For even supposing there are (exist) gods so called (2 Thessalonians 2. 4), whether in heaven (as the sun, moon, and stars) or in earth (as deified kings, beasts, etc.), as there be (a recognized fact, Deuteronomy 10.17; Psalm 135.5; 136.2) gods many and lords many.' Angels and men in authority are termed gods in Scripture, as exercising a divinely delegated power under God (compare Exodus 22.9, with v.28; Psalm 82.1, 6; John 10.34,35).”
How do you explain Hebrews 1:10 where Jehovah gives all the credit for creating Heaven and Earth to His Son JESUS?
By verse 2, which is still the same context, which tells us that the Father did it through his son.
Also, while we are talking about Brown, Driver and Briggs, what did they say about Jesus Christ's use of "I AM" in John Chapter 8? And what did they say about God's use of "I AM HE" in Isaiah?
BDB is a Hebrew lexicon, so wouldn't expect anything on the NT. I am not aware of any comments on ANI HU in Isaiah, but I don't have it front of me right now to check. On the other hand, the comments of BDAG are very insightful on both! They state: “To establish identity the formula egw, eimi is oft[en] used in the gospels (corresp[onding] to Hebr[ew] ani hu] Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr[om] the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19;." Clearly they observe an implied predicate, which is exactly what I have argued for, not a mysterious divine name.
Jesus is also said to be the Servant of the Lord (The Father being The Lord, see Acts 4:29-30 and Luke 10:21), and yet, Jesus is the ONLY Lord (Jude 1:4). Explain that. Also, in Acts 4:26, Jesus is called "The Christ of the Lord," so using your reasoning, how could Jesus be The Lord since He is called The Christ OF The Lord?
Well the same problem comes back into play with the elder of Revelation 7:14 being John's Lord. Of course the context is the key. In the context men are being spoken of that are attempting to lead people astray. They are teaching falsehoods They are denying Jesus' position so that they themselves can have a position of authority so as to "change" things. So it is among men this text is refering to. It has nothing to do with the heavenly realm at all, and so it has nothing to do with God or the elder of Rev. 7.
I cannot believe you made the absolute false statement that The Father is NOT LORD!
I said no such thing. I said the Father is nor the "one Lord" Notice the word one there?
My point is not that other people are called "lords," as a title of respect or honor (or used like we use the word "sir") but that in the Bible The Father is The Lord (and obviously when the Bible calls The Father "The Lord" it means more than just "sir") (See Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:18, James 5:11, Acts 4:26), and then the Bible also says Jesus is the ONE AND ONLY LORD for Christians! The Bible never, ever said that one of the 24 elders was the ONLY Lord for Christians.
Sure, lord can be used of a title of respect and honor, but it can also be used as one in a position of authority over another. With the genitive pronoun MOU used, this was the sense of Revelation 7:14. So indeed, the elder was John's Lord as one in a position of authority over him. In that same way, Jesus Christ was made Lord by being placed in a position of authority over us all. (Act. 2:36)
Also, check out James Chapter 1, where in Verse 1 James mentions God as One Person and The Lord as another Person (Jesus), then in Verses 5 and 7 "God" and "Lord" refer to the SAME Person. How do you explain that? Is James 1:5-7 speaking about The Father or The Son?
Why do you say he is speaking of the same person? Cannot somebody ask the Father for something and then Jesus perform the action of giving what was asked for?
In 1 Corinthians 8:6, it says that there is only One God for Christians, The Father, and that there is only One Lord for Christians, Jesus.
And yet Trinitarians deny this, for they say that the one God isn't the Father, but all three, and that the one Lord isn't Jesus, but all three.
But the Bible teaches that Jesus is God (John 20:28-29, John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8), and it also teaches that The Father is Lord (Luke 10:21, Acts 4:26). The Bible teaches that Yahweh is the One True Lord (2 Samuel 7:22). How do you explain these apparent contradictions unless you believe that The Father and The Son are The One Lord and The One God and the One Yahweh?
Showing that the title "God" is applied to Jesus does not equate him with the Almighty. As texts such as Psa. 8:5 and 136:2 show, the title is rightfully applied to others. Only the Father is ever spoken of as the "one God," never Jesus. Never is that phrase used of him! Indeed, the Father is properly called Lord, but Jesus was "made Lord." This is the critical difference that Trinitarians must deny. They are not contradicts, you simply fail to realize how they used this type of language in the first century. You are coming to the text with a 21st century mindset and attempting to read what was written in the 1st century and prior.
How do you harmonize that Scripture with the following Scriptures:
Well I love Hebrews 1:3, because that is probably the most damaging text to the Trinitarian doctrine. First and foremost, it shows that God and Jesus are not one being. Hebres 1:3 speaks of God's being. His hUPOSTASIS. Now does Jesus share in that being or partake of that being? No! He is the CARAKTHR of it! And what does this word mean in this passage? According to BDAG: someth[ing] produced as a representation, reproduction, representation… Christ is car . th/j u`posta,sewj auvtou/ an exact representation of (God’s) real being Hb 1:3 ( u`po,stasij 1a).”
Indeed, jesus was "produced" and he is a "reproduction." Not only that, but he is such of God's being. If you take anything and you reproduce it, what do you have? Two! So if he is the reproduction of God's being he is not sharing in that being, but he is a distinct being of himself. Further, there is always a temporal distinction between a reproduction and the thing which that one is a reproduction of, showing that the Father existed before the Son, and thus the Son is not eternal, but temporal, for to be a reproduction the act of reproducing is necessary, for it becomes improper to define was as a reproduction!
Having said that, the text speaks of Christ as the "copy of his being." It is speaking of God's hUPOSTASIS, not everything there is about God. It speaks nothing of God's power, his knowledge, his age, etc. Simply the stuff God is made of! So there is no issue. Jesus is not like God and cannot be absolutely compared to God, for he will always come up in some way short of God.
For John 14:8-10, simply keep reading beyond the part upon which you placed emphasis. The reason they have seen the Father is not because Jesus is perfectly comparable to the Father in every single sense, "The Father dwells in him."
Mondo
