Mary,
I agree. You made some excellent points.
Frank
The Duality -- The Father and The Son
by UnDisfellowshipped 218 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
-
-
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Hello Frank (fjtoth),
I apologize for not replying sooner. I have been extremely busy and almost overwhelmed lately by everything going on in my life (family issues, work problems, working 2 jobs, Christmas season -- you name it). I have not yet read your latest posts, but instead, I am going to start making my response to your original posts in this thread, starting with the oldest, and working my way through each of your posts in order.
Here is my response to part of your post in this thread from December 4th:
fjtoth said:
Please note that the NAB writes “god” with a lower case in Psalm 45:6.
Additionally, a portion of a footnote under Psalm 45:6 in the NIV Study Bible states:
O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god."
As you have pointed out, we should not rely only on un-inspired human writings to prove our doctrines or beliefs. However, I do believe it is important to hear different views on what particular Scriptures mean, because it is possible that my (or your) understanding of a Verse is incorrect. It is a sign of maturity to listen do different views and then determine what the truth is by comparing them to the inspired Scriptures.
As I stated before, it is possible (though I wouldn't say probable) that Psalm 45:6 was directed originally to a human king, and that the human king was called "god" in the sense of being an anointed representative of God. However, based on what Hebrews 1:8 says, which is the inspired interpretation of Psalm 45:6, the word "God" in that verse is applied to Christ in a UNIQUE way that angels are NOT called "god."
So, even if the human kings were called "god," when the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45:6, he, under inspiration from God, used "God" in a way that applies only to Jesus and no other angel.
It would be very similar to the way the writer of Hebrews quoted a verse where Solomon was called "Son," and applied it to Jesus in a UNIQUE way which angels are NOT sons of God.
That said, I still believe that the more likely original inspired application of Psalm 45:6 was to the Messiah, and not to a human king. However, the Jews may very well have interpreted it to apply to human kings.
You quoted from the NIV Study Bible. I do like and appreciate that Study Bible. I believe it to be a very good Bible from what I have seen in it. Have you ever read some other statements from that NIV Study Bible? Take a look at a few of them here:
In the NIV Study Note on Hebrews 1:8, it says that the writer of Hebrews was quoting Psalm 45:6 to prove that Jesus was fully God, was truly Deity. So, based on that, even if Psalm 45:6 applied to human kings in one sense, Hebrews quoted it to show that Jesus was the one, true God.
Here are some direct quotes from the NIV Study Bible about some of the topics we have been discussing in this thread:
NIV Study Bible Quote:
"Rev. 22:9: Do not do it! The episode (here and in 19:10) is no doubt included to remind the reader/listener that the worship of any created being--no matter how noble--is a form of idolatry, a vice sternly warned against (v.15; 21:8; See notes on Ge 20:9; Ex 34:15)."
MY COMMENTS: The NIV Study Bible makes it very clear that no CREATED angel can ever receive the worship that God deserves. If an angel of God can receive "relative worship" when acting as God's representative or spokesman, then what is the purpose of Revelation 22:9 and 19:10?
Revelation 19:10 and 22:9 completely rules out giving any kind of "relative worship" to any created angels or men who are acting as God's representatives or spokesmen. That is FORBIDDEN as IDOLATRY by God in Revelation (and in Colossians by Paul).
Also, what is the purpose of Hebrews 1:6?
If Hebrews 1:6 was simply saying that angels should give "relative worship" to Jesus because He is God's representative or spokesman, that would NOT have proven that Jesus was superior, greater, or better than the angels (which was the whole purpose of Hebrews Chapter 1), since, according to you, angels also receive this "relative worship" when acting as God's representatives and spokesmen. Hence, the writer of Hebrews must have been showing that Jesus received a UNIQUE WORSHIP which the created angels do NOT receive. Otherwise, Hebrews 1:6 makes no sense in the argument being made in Hebrews Chapter 1.
Also, the writer of Hebrews, in Hebrews 1:6, quoted an Old Testament Scripture where Yahweh was being given WORSHIP by His angels, so the writer of Hebrews obviously was proclaiming that Jesus was supposed to receive the SAME type of worship which Yahweh received from the angels, not any kind of lesser, "relative" worship. John 5:23 shows that Jesus is to receive the SAME DEGREE of honor as His Father. And, the writer of Hebrews was definitely trying to show that Jesus WAS YAHWEH, otherwise He would not have quoted Psalm 102, which proclaimed that Yahweh was the Eternal, Unchangeable God who created the heavens and the earth, and then apply that directly to The Son in Hebrews 1:10-12.
NIV Study Bible Quotes:
"John 1:1: [...] With God. The Word was distinct from the Father. Was God. Jesus was God in the fullest sense (see note on Ro 9:5). The prologue (vv. 1-18) begins and ends with a ringing affirmation of His Deity."
"John 1:18: God the One and Only. An explicit declaration of Christ's Deity [...]"
MY COMMENTS: If the word "God," when applied to Jesus in the Bible, only means the same as when the judges were called "gods" in Psalm 82, or when angels were called "gods," and it only means that Jesus was a representative or spokesman for God, then how does that work with John 1:1?
There is no way that the word "God" only meant that the Logos was a representative or spokesman for God in John 1:1, because it says the Logos was "God" BEFORE anything was ever created. At this time when the Logos was GOD, only the Logos and God existed (and the Holy Spirit based on other Scriptures). So, there is NO WAY that the Logos could have been merely a "representative" or "spokesman" of God BEFORE anything else existed. There would have been NO ONE for the Logos to speak to, and NO ONE for the Logos to represent God to.
Obviously, the word "God" in John 1:1, when applied to the Logos meant much, much more than a mere representative or spokesman of God. It meant that He was fully Deity, just as the NIV Study Bible points out.
Also, John 1:18 points out very clearly that the Logos was God in a UNIQUE WAY that no one else is God.
NIV Study Bible Quote:
"John 5:21: The Father raises the dead. A firm belief among the Jews (except the Sadduccees; see Essay, p. 1,458). They also held that He did not give this privilege to anyone else. Jesus claimed a prerogative that, according to His opponents, belonged only to God."
MY COMMENTS: The 1st Century Jews (except the Sadduccees) believed that God alone resurrected the dead and that He DID NOT give this privilege to anyone else. Since Jesus knew this, He was claiming something that only God could do, especially when He claimed that He had the SAME LIFE in Himself that God The Father has in Himself, and when Jesus said that He would give life to ANYONE WHOM HE CHOOSES.
NIV Study Bible Quote:
"John 6:33: [...] He who comes down from heaven. This affirmation is repeated six times in this context (here and in vv. 38, 41, 50-51, 58), emphasizing Jesus' divine origin."
MY COMMENTS: You can't get much more obvious than what Jesus said in John Chapter 6 -- He definitely believed that He existed in heaven before coming to earth as a Man, just as the Apostles also taught.
NIV Study Bible Quote:
"John 17:5: [...] Jesus asks the Father to return Him to His previous position of glory, to exchange humiliation for glorification. This occurred at Christ's resurrection and exaltation to God's right hand."
MY COMMENTS: Jesus existed with The Father before the world was created, and He shared His Father's own glory (even though Yahweh said He would never share His own glory with any other, in Isaiah 42:8).
NIV Study Bible Quote:
"1 Cor. 15:28: [...] The Son will be made subject to the Father in the sense that administratively, after He subjects all things to His power, He will turn it all over to God the Father, the administrative Head. This is not to suggest that the Son is in any way inferior to the Father. All three Persons of the Trinity are equal in Deity and in dignity. The subordination referred to is one of function (see Jn 4:34; 5:19; 7:16 and notes). The Father is supreme in the Trinity; the Son carries out the Father's will; the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son [...]"
MY COMMENTS: This is exactly what I believe about the Trinity.
I will continue my comments later.
-
fjtoth
Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
As I stated before, it is possible (though I wouldn't say probable) that Psalm 45:6 was directed originally to a human king, and that the human king was called "god" in the sense of being an anointed representative of God. However, based on what Hebrews 1:8 says, which is the inspired interpretation of Psalm 45:6, the word "God" in that verse is applied to Christ in a UNIQUE way that angels are NOT called "god."
What you are saying is that Psalm 45:6 was not inspired when written, that it became inspired only when it was quoted by the writer of Hebrews. The writers of Psalm 45 were the sons of Korah. Are you going to claim that all they wrote in other psalms was also uninspired, simply because of not being quoted in the New Testament?
Why is it so difficult for you to accept the Bible as it was written? The sons of Korah knew who they were addressing, and God moved them by his spirit to do the writing. Why do you find that so difficult to believe? For hundreds of years the Jews knew and understood why the Psalm was written, and they applied it to the kings sitting upon David's throne. Those Jews included faithful worshipers of God, including prophets and priests. But Trinitarians come along and in effect say those faithful people of God were misinformed. They only THOUGHT the sons of Korah were inspired, but the psalm really had no application until it was quoted in the New Testament. I don't find any logic at all in that sort of thinking.
Frank
-
fjtoth
Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
So, even if the human kings were called "god," when the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45:6, he, under inspiration from God, used "God" in a way that applies only to Jesus and no other angel.
You are not taking into account the context within Hebrews 1.
Verse 1 says in ancient times God spoke to the forefathers through the prophets. He did not speak himself, but he employed prophets. Verse 2 tells of how this changed. "In these last days," God began speaking through his Son.
If God is a Trinity, why did the writer not say God in ancient times spoke in the voice of the Father, and he now is speaking in the voice of the Son? There is no such point being made. The real point is that neither the prophets nor the Son were God. God gave the prophets and his Son the message to preach, and they did the preaching.
Verse 2 also says the Son was "appointed heir of all things." He has not always been the heir. At a point in historic time, he was appointed. He received the appointment not from himself but from God.
Verse 3 does not say the Son is God. Instead, he is "the radiance of [God's] glory and the exact representation of [God's] nature." The Son is neither God nor God's glory nor God's nature. He radiates the glory of God as the earth and moon radiate the light of the sun. The Greek word for "radiance" simply means "reflected brightness." Interestingly, the Son is "the exact representation." Of all who have represented God, none has done it more precisely or more exactly than his Son.
Verse 3 also says that the Son "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." He did not sit down AS the Majesty, but NEXT TO the Majesty.
Verse 4 says the Son "become as much better than the angels," obviously meaning that he was not always "better." He arrived at or had "become" better at a point in history. The verse also says "he has inherited a more excellent name than they." If he were God Almighty, he would have had such an excellent name from all times past in eternity! To "inherit" means to receive something one did not formerly have.
According to verse 5, at a point in history God said to the Son "TODAY I have begotten you." The Son is not "eternally begotten" as Trinitarians claim. He was begotten at the point in time termed "Today." The verse also speaks of a future happening, not a past one, when God says, "I WILL be a Father to him and he SHALL be a Son to me." Jesus became God's only-begotten Son at the moment that prophecy was fulfilled, not before.
I think you fail to get the sense of verse 6. The angels are invited to worship when God "AGAIN brings the firstborn into the world." Christ will come AGAIN into the world at his return. Who will the angels worship at that time? Will they worship God, or will they worship his Son? According to Psalm 97:7, the verse from which this verse is cited, it will be God!
Verses 7 and 8 do not show that the Son is superior to the angels because he is called God and they are not. The angels are God indeed. This is shown in many instances within the Old Testament where "the angel of the Lord" is addressed as "the Lord" and is called "God" due to his high office as God's agent. The difference between the angels and the Son is that God makes the angels "winds" and "ministers," whereas he invites the Son to receive a "throne" and a "scepter." Sadly, Trinitarians fail to pay attention to the exact wording because they are seeking to prove something that they believe, something that cannot be found within the text at all.
Verse 9 gives the reason for the Son's exaltation to the throne. Keeping in mind what is stated above concerning his being "appointed" as heir, this verse 9 states: "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore [that is why] God, your God, has anointed you." Yes, who is it that anointed him? Did he act as God and anoint himself, similar to the way Napoleon appointed himself instead of having the pope do it? No, the Son did not appoint himself! God anointed him! If he were God, why would he need to be anointed? If he were God he would have from all past eternity been entitled to all that God has bestowed upon him, and he would not be in need of an anointing from God.
Just to be sure we understand the context of what he is saying, the writer of Hebrews in verses 13 and 14 makes another reference to the superiority of the Son over the angels. It is not because the Son is "God" and they are not, for indeed they are, according to many passages in the Old Testament. The superiority rests in the fact that the Son is invited to sit upon the throne at God's right hand. The angels, on the other hand, are "all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation."
I believe a person will not be a Trinitarian if he is a careful reader of the Bible instead of being someone who parrots the pagan ideas introduced into the Catholic church in the 4th century.
Frank
-
fjtoth
Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
You quoted from the NIV Study Bible. I do like and appreciate that Study Bible. I believe it to be a very good Bible from what I have seen in it. Have you ever read some other statements from that NIV Study Bible? Take a look at a few of them here:
In the NIV Study Note on Hebrews 1:8, it says that the writer of Hebrews was quoting Psalm 45:6 to prove that Jesus was fully God, was truly Deity. So, based on that, even if Psalm 45:6 applied to human kings in one sense, Hebrews quoted it to show that Jesus was the one, true God.
I think you should be aware by now that I don't look to commentaries or creeds to define my understanding of the Bible. Trinitarian scholars can be as much in error as any other scholars. My only reason for refering you to the NIV was to show that even Trinitarian translators and commentators disagree with your statement that "based on everything" you've read in the Bible, Psalm 45 was not directed toward a human king.
Isn't running to the commentaries of other men the same as a JW running to The Watchtower for support, instead of reading the Bible as God's love letter to each one of us personally? I tend to doubt you would have ever become a Trinitarian if you hadn't been converted by some other imperfect human. The very idea of a Trinity is absent from the Bible, so how could you have discovered it there? Men not only invented the term but the very idea. Perhaps the intentions of some were good. Perhaps they feared being thought of as polytheists because the Bible speaks of both the Father and the Son as God. But if such men had been led along by the holy spirit, they would have realized that "God" is not a name; it is a title that intrinsically belongs to the Father of Jesus Christ, just as is the title "Lord," but the Father may choose to bestow those honorary titles upon those who serve as his agents.
Jesus has not been God, Lord or Christ since all past eternity. He became such at a certain point in history. As stated at Acts 2:26, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made [in other words, 'appointed and anointed'] him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." The very name "Christ" is a title with the obvious meaning that someone greater than he put him in the position that he now occupies. That does not denigrate him in our eyes. It exalts him, because we bathe in the realization that no other person in the universe is so dearly loved and honored by God.
Frank
-
fjtoth
Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
Revelation 19:10 and 22:9 completely rules out giving any kind of "relative worship" to any created angels or men who are acting as God's representatives or spokesmen. That is FORBIDDEN as IDOLATRY by God in Revelation (and in Colossians by Paul).
Again, I urge you to examine the context. Revelation 19:10 says: "Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.'"
Verses 1 to 3 tell us of "a great multitude in heaven" who exclaim "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God." Verse 4 mentions 24 "elders" and 4 "living creatures" who "fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne saying, 'Amen. Hallelujah!'" Hallelujah, of course, means "Praise Jah!"
In verse 5, a voice near the throne says "Give praise to our God." Then in verse 6 the "great crowd" says, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns." Verse 7 begins by saying, ""Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to him [God]." And then it mentions "the Lamb .. and his bride." In verse 9, the angel tells John it will be a great blessing to attend that marriage, and he adds: "These are the true words of God." And that moves John, as shown above in verse 10, to fall down and worship the angel. But he is told, "Do not do that; ... worship God."
In the entire chapter, not even a hint is given that Jesus should be worshiped. Instead, we three times read the exclamation "Praise Jah!," and we are told to "Give praise to our God" and to "Worship God!" Jesus is not that God. One of the names given to Jesus in verses 11 to 21 is "The Word of God." We should not fail to observe that little word "of". Jesus is "the Lamb of God," "the Son of God," "the Christ of God," "the Priest of God," as well as "The Word of God." If Jesus is "of God," doesn't that logically suggest that he is distinct from God? Never do we read of "the Father of God," which would only be reasonable if all members of the Trinity are equal. That expression doesn't appear even once in the Bible though we often read of "the Son of God" and of "sons of God."
Revelation 22:8, 9 says: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, 'Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God."
In the context, 4 individuals are mentioned: "the Lord God," "the Lamb," the angel, and John. If God wanted us to worship Jesus in the same way we should worship him the Father, one would think there would be at least one admonition to do so in this final chapter of the Bible. But there is none! We are commanded to worship no one but "the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets." (Verses 6, 9)
We don't need a commentary to understand this. It's set forth plainly and clearly in both chapters of Revelation, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible.
By the way, to you and to everyone in this forum: "HAPPY NEW YEAR!"
Frank