The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped 218 Replies latest watchtower bible

UnDisfellowshipped

Joseph,
You said:
Sorry, not only is this correct but this is also the reason why this Psalm can be applied to Jesus who would continue such rule in the line of David. It had just as much meaning to such God's then as it does now. The Kings of Israel were God to Israel and held in high esteem as being blessed by God.
Even if you are correct (which I don't believe you are), and the kings were called "god," then, as I am sure you would agree, they would still be in the category of representatives of God such as the judges mentioned in Psalms. I already acknowledge that those judges were called gods, so even if you are correct about kings being called gods, it doesn't make any difference to my argument.
You said:
The Psalm begins in this way.
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.
This is not prophecy but fact and such facts apply also to Jesus as in Hebrews 1:8 where such application is made. Our Lord will continue as such a God and King in the same way they did back then in an earthly Kingdom to which He will return here in the flesh to rule.
How can you be certain that it applied to a human king back then, and that it was not a prophecy? After all, Psalm 16 was a PROPHECY, and David was not talking about himself, even as the Apostle Peter mentioned:
Acts 2:29-31 (ESV): "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
The only inspired application of Psalm 45 that we have is when the writer of Hebrews applies it to Jesus Christ contrasting Him with the angels. So that is the ONLY application I will make for that verse, unless you can show me some convincing reasons why I should believe that it applied to human kings prior to Jesus.
It seems very clear to me that the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45 to prove that Jesus was God in a way that the angels are NOT gods. Since angels can be called "gods" as representatives of God, then the writer of Hebrews must have been saying Jesus was God in a much more significant way than simply being a representative of God.
You said:
And who do you think these angels being discussed really are? The Kings now under discussion who are called God in the Psalm and Hebrews. They were the messengers or angels of the covenant then. Now when our Lord takes their place He will be superior to such angels in this earthly Kingdom where many of them will also live by virtue of the resurrection.
Show me from the Scriptures where the kings of Israel are called angels. Then, show me also why you believe that the angels in Hebrews are the kings. Let us examine Hebrews Chapters 1 and 2 to find out who these angels are:
Hebrews 1:5 (ESV): Forto which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?
You see, that verse right there proves that the angels in Hebrews Chapter 1 are NOT human kings because God DID say to Solomon, a human king of Israel, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to Me a son." (See 2 Samuel 7:14). However, God never did say this to any spirit creature.
Hebrews 1:6 (ESV): And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
Hebrews 1:6 is quoting from Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint:
Deuteronomy 32:43 (Complete Apostles' Bible Translation of the Septuagint): Rejoice, you heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him; rejoice you Gentiles, with His people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in Him; for He shall avenge the blood of His sons, and He shall render vengeance, and recompense justice to His enemies, and will reward them that hate Him; and the Lord shall purge the land of His people.
The "angels" in the time of Deuteronomy were NOT human kings of Israel because there were NO human kings of Israel at that time. Also, that verse says "Rejoice, you HEAVENS, with Him, and let all the ANGELS OF GOD worship Him." It is clearly speaking of heavenly angels, not humans.
Hebrews 1:7 (ESV): Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire."
The word "winds" in that verse is translated as "spirits" in a lot of translations. How does that verse apply to human kings?
Hebrews 1:14-2:3 (ESV): Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,
There were no chapter numbers when the Bible was written. So that is how the end of Hebrews Chapter 1 and the beginning of Hebrews Chapter 2 looks when put together. Very interesting.
It says angels are SPIRITS, and that they declared God's message in the past (the Old Covenant).
Hebrews 2:5-7, 9 (ESV): Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, [...] But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
So, was Jesus for a little while made lower than HUMANS? Or, was Jesus rather made lower than the SPIRIT angels of heaven?
Hebrews 2:16-17 (ESV): For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
That Scripture proves absolutely that the angels being spoken of in Hebrews Chapters 1 and 2 are the SPIRIT angels of heaven and NOT humans. It says that Jesus helps the offspring of Abraham, NOT the angels, therefore, the angels cannot be the human kings of Israel who were of the seed of Abraham!
There seems to be another contradiction in what you have said so far.
First, you said that Psalm 45 applied to human kings, and called a human king "God." But then, you claim that the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45, and called Jesus "God" in order to prove that Jesus is SUPERIOR to those kings.
How can Psalm 45 apply to any human king of Israel, but then at the same time, be quoted in order to prove that Jesus is SUPERIOR to those human kings? How do you explain that?
UnDisfellowshipped

Joseph Malik said:
In other verses such as Corinthians you quoted where God is used specifically for the Supreme Being and not function or position as in the Psalm and Hebrews we have a totally different context and under such circumstances there is but one God. Much the same thing happens with the word angels or messengers. The word may be the same in both cases but the meaning is quite different and often elusive as shown here.
How do you determine when the word "God" is being used "specifically for the Supreme Being and not function or position"? How do you determine when the word "God" is being used in regards to position or function?
JosephMalik

Undisfellowshipped said: How do you determine when the word "God" is being used "specifically for the Supreme Being and not function or position"?
I can say the same thing to you. How do you know when Jesus is called God that he is being referred to as the Supreme Being and not Messiah? By knowing what the Jews believed (which was not a trinity by the way) and how such words were used in times past we can determine how to interpret them.
Joseph
JosephMalik

Undisfellowshipped said: How can you be certain that it applied to a human king back then, and that it was not a prophecy? After all, Psalm 16 was a PROPHECY, and David was not talking about himself, even as the Apostle Peter mentioned:
Would not the Jews have taken it at face value when they sang this song? Our modern and unrealistic views of such ancient writings is what really is out of place. Suddenly they are prophecies and not practical counsel to be taken to heart when such worship is being offered in song.
Now regarding Psalm 16. It is both practical counsel and a warning for those saints (Jews) that would fall away to false worship. Many did this in times past and were still doing this when the Psalm was written. Its prophetic nature was based upon the already existing hope for a Messiah that would come at some future time. Martha both new of and expected such an outcome as this was the hope of the Jews.
Joh 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Therefore viewing the Psalm as prophetic only with no application to the Jews (those saints) to whom it was written ignores the counsel and warnings given in it.
Psalm 16:3 But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight. 4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.
When? Why then of course as the application was to such Jews singing this song and a warning to any that fall into false worship. You seem to think words like being a prophet restricts such use. But you are simply seeing how someone in the future would look back as such statements and bring them into focus for the Jews living at that time.
Undisfellowshipped said: The only inspired application of Psalm 45 that we have is when the writer of Hebrews applies it to Jesus Christ contrasting Him with the angels. So that is the ONLY application I will make for that verse, unless you can show me some convincing reasons why I should believe that it applied to human kings prior to Jesus.
It seems very clear to me that the writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 45 to prove that Jesus was God in a way that the angels are NOT gods. Since angels can be called "gods" as representatives of God, then the writer of Hebrews must have been saying Jesus was God
This is not the only inspired application as you teach. I already explained how angels and messengers are the same word. Why many jump to conclusions and think "non human beings" or "spirit creatures" when the word is used in Hebrews is strange since the very first verse establishes the identity and context of those under discussion in the text.
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
These prophets, these angels which included the Kings of God’s of Israel are under discussion. Our Lord, this Son that not only made the worlds (nations on the earth) and "had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" is now being compared to such fathers and prophets over which he will over rule in the Kingdom. Hebrews was written at a higher level for Christian Jews still keeping the Law who were themselves well trained in interpretation. They should have been able to comprehend such use of "God," "angels," and "spirits" even if many of us today cannot. So the verses from 4 to 14 are about "angels" "spirits" that are human and that will some day exist in the same kingdom and place that our Lord will inhabit here on earth.1 4 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Undisfellowshipped said: How can Psalm 45 apply to any human king of Israel, but then at the same time, be quoted in order to prove that Jesus is SUPERIOR to those human kings? How do you explain that?
Simple. Jesus will resurrect such Kings and rule over them in the Kingdom here on earth. All this comes later in time and is what we preach to the world.
Joseph
UnDisfellowshipped

Joseph Malik said:
It [Psalm 45] had just as much meaning to such God's then as it does now. The Kings of Israel were God to Israel
I'm willing to say that kings may have been called "gods" in a similar sense as the judges in Psalm 82. However, based on everything I've read in the Bible, I do not believe Psalm 45 is directed toward a human king. I believe it had exclusive reference to the Messiah.
Joseph said:
Would not the Jews have taken it at face value when they sang this song? Our modern and unrealistic views of such ancient writings is what really is out of place. Suddenly they are prophecies and not practical counsel to be taken to heart when such worship is being offered in song.
But should the way that the Jews took it determine what the Holy Spirit was actually saying? Should we go with the Jews' interpretation, or should we go with the Holy Spirit's interpretation found in Hebrews Chapter 1?
To me, it's interesting to see how the Jewish readers interpreted a certain verse, but I do not base my beliefs on how imperfect humans interpret passages. I base my beliefs on how the Holy Spirit has interpreted and explained His own Scriptures.
How would the Jewish readers have interpreted Isaiah 53 when they first read it? No doubt, some of them did apply it to the Messiah, but I'm sure some of them made different applications of that chapter. How would they have understood Psalm 22?
Since the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of Hebrews to say that Psalm 45 was The Father speaking to The Son, that is the only interpretation I am going to trust, unless you can show from the Scriptures why I should believe differently.
Joseph said:
Now regarding Psalm 16. It is both practical counsel and a warning for those saints (Jews) that would fall away to false worship. Many did this in times past and were still doing this when the Psalm was written. Its prophetic nature was based upon the already existing hope for a Messiah that would come at some future time. Martha both new of and expected such an outcome as this was the hope of the Jews.
Yes, but David wrote that Psalm AS IF HE WAS the one who was going to die and be raised up before his flesh saw corruption. How would the Jewish readers have interpreted that?
Joseph said:
Therefore viewing the Psalm as prophetic only with no application to the Jews (those saints) to whom it was written ignores the counsel and warnings given in it.
Psalm 16:3 But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight. 4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.
When? Why then of course as the application was to such Jews singing this song and a warning to any that fall into false worship. You seem to think words like being a prophet restricts such use. But you are simply seeing how someone in the future would look back as such statements and bring them into focus for the Jews living at that time.
I never said Psalm 16 did not have an immediate application to the original readers. It most certainly did have instructions and warnings for the original readers as you pointed out.
My point was, the original Jewish readers most likely (at least at first), would have thought DAVID, the writer of the Psalm, was the one who would be raised from the dead before seeing corruption, given the way that the Psalm is written:
Psalm 16:8-10 (ESV): I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.
That is why Peter, in Acts, had to explain to the Jews that this PART of the Psalm did NOT apply to David, but only to the Messiah.
Joseph said:
This is not the only inspired application [of Psalm 45] as you teach.
Well, then, can you show me another INSPIRED application of Psalm 45? If you can, please enlighten me.
Joseph said:
I already explained how angels and messengers are the same word.
I agree. Context is the key. The context of the "angels of the congregations" in Revelation shows that most likely they were the human elders of the churches.
Joseph said:
Why many jump to conclusions and think "non human beings" or "spirit creatures" when the word is used in Hebrews is strange since the very first verse establishes the identity and context of those under discussion in the text.
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
But you have ignored every single point that I brought up about the context of Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, and the reasons I gave why the "angels" in Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 CANNOT be human kings and/or any other humans. Why did you ignore the points I made?
Joseph said:
These prophets, these angels which included the Kings of God’s of Israel are under discussion.
Hebrews chapter 1 does not say that the prophets from verse 1 are the same as the angels mentioned later in the chapter. Where do you see the connection -- just because they are mentioned in the same chapter? Does the Bible (other than the verse in question) ever use the word "angel" to refer to prophets?
How do you make the leap from prophets to kings? A few human kings were prophets (David was one), but definitely not the majority. Where does the Bible ever refer to human kings as "angels" or "messengers" (besides the verses in question).
How is the word "angel" used in the overwhelming majority of verses in the New Testament? Does it refer to spirit creatures or humans in the vast majority of cases?
Joseph said:
Our Lord, this Son that not only made the worlds (nations on the earth) and "had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" is now being compared to such fathers and prophets over which he will over rule in the Kingdom.
Once again, where is the proof, the evidence that Jesus is being compared with humans? Since the overwhelming majority of times the word "angel" is used in the New Testament refers to spirit creatures, not humans, AND based on all the points I raised in my last post, I would say the burden of proof is definitely on you to prove that the angels in Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 are humans, not spirits.
Joseph said:
Hebrews was written at a higher level for Christian Jews still keeping the Law who were themselves well trained in interpretation. They should have been able to comprehend such use of "God," "angels," and "spirits" even if many of us today cannot.
Well, that's exactly the opposite of what the inspired writer of Hebrews had to say about the Jews he was writing to:
Hebrews 5:11-14 (ESV): About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
The writer of Hebrews said that the Jews he was writing to were NOT mature in their Bible understanding, and that they still required MILK from the Word, NOT solid food. He also said they were UNSKILLED in the Word.
That is the exact opposite of what you just claimed above. Where are you getting your information from?
Joseph said:
Undisfellowshipped said: How can Psalm 45 apply to any human kingof Israel, but then at the same time, be quoted in order to prove that Jesus is SUPERIOR to those human kings? How do you explain that?
Simple. Jesus will resurrect such Kings and rule over them in the Kingdom here on earth. All this comes later in time and is what we preach to the world.
But it still does not make sense. As far as I can tell, you are claiming this (correct me if I'm wrong):
1:) Psalm 45, where it calls the king "God," could apply to ANY Jewish human king, because human kings were God to Israel, and because they were called "gods" as representatives of God, like the judges in Psalm 82.
2:) Hebrews chapter 1 is comparing Jesus to the ancient Jewish kings of Israel, in order to prove that Jesus is superior to them.
3:) The writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 45 (where any king of Israel was called "God") in order to PROVE that Jesus is superior to all other human kings.
So, are you claiming that the word "God" takes on a special, unique meaning when applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8, or does it still have the same meaning as it did when it applied to the human kings?
So, according to you, the writer of Hebrews, in order to PROVE Jesus is better than the ancient kings, quotes a Scripture that applied to ALL of the ancient kings, and says that it applies to Jesus as well.
If it applied to all of the ancient kings, then it would OBVIOUSLY have applied to Jesus as well, and it most certainly would NOT and could NOT prove that Jesus was superior to them, and there would have been absolutely no point for the writer of Hebrews to use that verse in his argument.
Hebrews 1:8 is showing that Jesus is "God" in a unique sense that no other angel is -- that is why the writer of Hebrews quoted it.
UnDisfellowshipped

Joseph Malik said:
Undisfellowshipped said: How do you determine when the word "God" is being used "specifically for the Supreme Being and not function or position"?
I can say the same thing to you. How do you know when Jesus is called God that he is being referred to as the Supreme Being and not Messiah? By knowing what the Jews believed (which was not a trinity by the way) and how such words were used in times past we can determine how to interpret them.
I agree that knowing what the Jews believed can help to understand the Bible, and knowing the context of the word God, and how it is used definitely helps
However, just because the Jews did not believe in the Trinity does not automatically mean that it is false. The Jews (for the most part) also rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
In 1 Corinthians 8:6, if you are claiming that it is referring only to God's Supreme Being or Nature, and not to His Position, then the same interpretation must apply to Jesus in that verse as well, which means that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is speaking about Jesus having the NATURE of Lordship, that He is Lord by Nature.
What does it mean to be Lord by Nature? How does Jesus have the Nature of being Lord?
Or, is that verse speaking about Nature AND Position?
I don't see how you can separate God's Nature from His Position in 1 Corinthians 8:6, especially when you think about it. God has the Position of being God BECAUSE He is the Supreme Being, because He is by Nature God, who has always existed and created all things. I would say God's Position derives from His Nature. His Nature does not derive from His Position.
fjtoth

Disf'd,

You wrote:

However, based on everything I've read in the Bible, I do not believe Psalm 45 is directed toward a human king. I believe it had exclusive reference to the Messiah.
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."
I don't know why anyone would choose Psalm 45 to try proving that Jesus is Almighty God. Verse 7 says the Messiah God of verse 6 has a God. Almighty God does not have a God above him whom he worships. The very thought is blasphemous. Verse 7 also says the Messiah God of verse 6 has been anointed by the God he worships. God anoints persons to have them serve as his spokespersons, representatives or agents. Scores of times the Bible refers to the act of anointing, and in every case the anointing is of someone lesser than God, never of Almighty God himself. Even the title "Christ" (Anointed One) is an obvious identification of someone who is inferior to God.

Additionally, verse 7 speaks of the "companions" or "partners" of the God of verse 6, and it tells how he got to be "set above" them. He was not always above them. He got to be so because God, his God, anointed him. Almighty God has never had companions or partners as equals.

This is easy to understand if we are open-minded enough to the reasonableness of the insight offered by the NIV footnote. When Psalm 45 was written under inspiration, it was addressed to the then existing king upon David's throne. The Psalm applied also to his faithful descendants upon that throne, for every good king was to be obeyed in the same way one should obey God. The king spoke for God. When he spoke, it was as official as if God himself had spoken. He sat, after all, upon “the throne of the Lord.” And this applied even more forcefully with regard to Jesus. Not only was he a descendant of David, but he was God's own genetic Son (as was Adam). He was not anointed with oil but with God's spirit, and his anointing was to the office of prophet and high priest as well as the office of king.

I think it's arbitrary and capricious to insist that Almighty God is the "God" of both verse 6 and verse 7. To do so is to close one's mind to this very Jewish use of titles, a use that originated not with men but with God, as Jesus pointed out in John 10:34 with reference to Psalm 82:6. It is God himself who spoke of the ancient Davidic king as “God.”

It is also very misleading to insist that the God of verse 6 is Almighty God. For then we end up with Almighty God and Almighty God, which amounts to two Almighty Gods, and that is polytheism. In that way we reduce the sacred text to nonsense.

The fact needs to be stated clearly that there are two definitions for God in the Bible. The words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek applied to people as well as to God. One definition refers to God himself, and the other definition refers to special individuals appointed by him to speak in his name. Jesus in Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 is obviously the latter. His Father is the Great Anointer, and Jesus is the lesser Anointed One, the Christ. The Jews read this Psalm for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word “God,” they never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God.

Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth, Thank you for your post.
I wanted to post more tonight, but I'm not going to have enough time to write what I wanted to say. I will hopefully write it here tomorrow.
However, I do want say a couple of quick things:
You said:
Almighty God does not have a God above him whom he worships. The very thought is blasphemous.
But, IF there are Three Persons who share the Divine Essence and Nature of God, then why would it be blasphemous for One of them to voluntarily and willingly serve the other Person in love?
Consider this (it's not an exact illustration): A husband can be the "lord" or "master" of his wife, however, they are both EQUALLY human beings. The wife can serve her husband, but their NATURE is the same. They are different PERSONS, and they have different POSITIONS within the marriage, but they are still ONE. Just because a wife serves her husband does not mean she is lesser or inferior as a human being.
To me, it is similar with God. The Son willingly subjects Himself to, and serves, His Father, but they are EQUALLY God by Nature. The Son is not lesser or inferior in His Divine Essence. (As I said, it is not an exact illustration, because the husband and wife are two different beings, while the Trinity Doctrine teaches that The Father, Son, and Spirit are One Being.)
Also, you may not be aware of what exactly I believe about the Trinity. I believe that The Son is in subjection to The Father, and that The Father has a "Greater" Position within the Godhead, however, this in no way makes The Son lesser or inferior to The Father in Nature, Attributes, Qualities, or Power. In addition, I believe that The Father, Son, and Spirit hold an EQUAL Position in regards to humans and angels. So, all people and angels should worship and honor them EQUALLY. This belief is called "Functional Subordinationism." I believe this, I DO NOT believe in "Subordinationism," only "FUNCTIONAL Subordinationism."
To see what I have written explaining my beliefs on Functional Subordinationism, check my posts on these other threads:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/101627/1763421/post.ashx#1763421
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/101627/1763437/post.ashx#1763437
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/101627/1823022/post.ashx#1823022
Also, if you want a better understanding of what I believe about Jesus, check out this thread where I posted the 12 main things that I believe about Jesus Christ:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/48111/1.ashx
I would like to know your thoughts on my beliefs, and which parts (if any) you agree with or don't agree with, so that I can have a better understanding of your beliefs.
One final question for you to think about (for tonight):
If Jesus taught His disciples that He was a creation of God, or just "a god," and He did not teach them that He was God Almighty, then why would Jesus have ever needed to tell them that "The Father is greater than I am," since that would have been extremely obvious if Jesus was only a man or an angel?
fjtoth
Undisf'd,

You asked:
But, IF there are Three Persons who share the Divine Essence and Nature of God, then why would it be blasphemous for One of them to voluntarily and willingly serve the other Person in love?
1. God is not “Three Persons.” He has only one face, not three. This is clear from passages like Job 1:12 where we are told “Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.” The word for “presence” is paniym. Consult a lexicon and you will find that it means “face” or “person.” Additionally, God said, "You cannot see my face (singular), for no man can see me and live!" (Exodus 33:20) According to the Bible, God is one person with one face, not three persons with a separate face for each person! This is further shown in Exodus 33:11: “The Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." God has one face and Moses had one face. And if God truly treated Moses as a friend, Moses would have known God as a Trinity, but he did not.
2. Speaking of God as “Three Persons” is an emotional and traditional concept, not one based upon Scripture, reason or fact. Job understood that God has one soul, not three: “And what his soul [singular] desires, that he does.” (Job 23:13) God himself said, "My righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul [singular] has no pleasure in him." (Heb. 10:38) God has but one soul or nephesh or psyche, not three.
3. The idea that God bows down to or worships anyone is blasphemous for the simple reason that God is Almighty. It denigrates him to having equals. He has no equals, and he bows to no other person.
4. If it were faintly possible that you are correct in saying that the Father worships others as a loving servant, we should read somewhere that God the Father is a Servant. Never do we read the slightest suggestion of that. On the other hand, we do read of Jesus being God’s Servant. Jesus performs the will of the Father, and it is never the other way around!
5. Jesus told a Samaritan woman “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22) Why do Trinitarians ignore this statement of Jesus? He said plainly that the Jews knew what they worshipped, and yet they did not worship a Trinity! And the same was true of Jesus himself. He knew the God he worshiped, the God who was worshiped by the Jews. Until today, the Jews are opposed to the idea of the Trinity, and they view it as pagan superstition. I am firmly convinced that Jesus the Jew would tell all Trinitarians what he told the Samaritan woman: “You worship what you do not know!”
6. Jesus told the Samaritan woman that “the Father” is looking for true worshipers. (John 4:23) He said, “for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers.” He did not say, “for such people the Father and the Holy Spirit and I seek to be our worshipers.”
7. Jesus said, "Go, Satan! For it is written, `You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matt. 4:10) Here Jesus said God is to be worshiped and served “only.” He did not direct attention to himself. The word used here for “served” is latreuo, a word used in the NT with reference to the Father and never with reference to Jesus. If Jesus is the Almighty God who is to be given latreuo service, it seems reasonable that he would have said “You shall worship me your Lord God, and serve me only.” But Jesus said nothing of the kind.
You likened the relationship between God and Jesus to the marriage union of a husband and wife. And you added:
(As I said, it is not an exact illustration, because the husband and wife are two different beings, while the Trinity Doctrine teaches that The Father, Son, and Spirit are One Being.)
Then how is the union of a man and a woman in any way similar to the Trinity or a portion thereof? You admit that a man and a woman are each separate “beings,” but the Trinity doctrine unscripturally denies that God and Jesus are individual “beings.” The Trinity is so incomprehensible and unreasonable that there is absolutely nothing that the human mind can compare to it. So why bother trying to use an illustration of any kind?

You wrote:
the Trinity Doctrine teaches that The Father, Son, and Spirit are One Being.
Yes, that is what the Trinity Doctrine teaches, but the Bible does not teach that anywhere.

You wrote:
So, all people and angels should worship and honor them EQUALLY. This belief is called "Functional Subordinationism." I believe this, I DO NOT believe in "Subordinationism," only "FUNCTIONAL Subordinationism."
And why should such theoretical terminology be of any value to a Christian? Can you imagine Jesus or the apostles using such terms? The Bible as I read it is very straightforward and easy to understand. Trinitarians have chosen to spice it up with mysticism and what to my mind resembles witchcraft. Teachers who use terms that would be totally unfamiliar to the apostles and other early Christians strike me as being akin to skilled magicians rather than students led by the Holy Spirit.
You wrote:
Also, if you want a better understanding of what I believe about Jesus, check out this thread where I posted the 12 main things that I believe about Jesus Christ:
Really, Undisf’d, what would be the point of my taking the time to study what comes from your mind instead of what comes from the Scriptures? Nearly all my life I’ve engaged in discussions with Trinitarians and Anti-trinitarians, and I’m quite aware of how Trinitarians think. And I’m disappointed that Trinitarians generally ignore the main thrust of Scripture and conveniently make a big deal out of a passage here or there that seems to fit their agenda.

Thousands of times and for thousands of years, for example, God spoke of himself in terms of “I” and “me” and “myself” and “my” and “mine.” His worshipers spoke of him with the words “he” and “his” and "him" and “himself.” It amazes me that Trinitarians choose to blind themselves to that fact. As I see it, every one of those thousands of times where God says “I” or “me” he is testifying against the Trinity doctrine. Where are the thousands of hints that God is a Trinity?

The Trinity doctrine is forced and unnatural. It is incomprehensible and unexplainable, and yet many of its converts insist we must believe it in order to gain salvation.

But it gets worse. The Trinity doctrine blasphemes Almighty God. The Bible describes God, for example, as all-knowing and all-wise, but Trinitarians say their God-man had to “learn obedience.” How that teaching must cause both God and Jesus to wince every time they hear it! I could give other examples, but this entry is much too long already.

You wrote:
If Jesus taught His disciples that He was a creation of God, or just "a god," and He did not teach them that He was God Almighty, then why would Jesus have ever needed to tell them that "The Father is greater than I am," since that would have been extremely obvious if Jesus was only a man or an angel?
This is the sort of question that long ago caused me to realize that Trinitarians are grasping at straws.
1. Jesus is not “a god” as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim. God said concerning an angel, "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since my name is in him." (Ex. 23:21) Then he said to Moses concerning the coming of Jesus into the world, "I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." (Deut. 18:18, 19) And that is why Jesus could say, "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him." (John 5:43) The angel was not Almighty God and neither is Jesus. But both spoke in God's name because each was the one person empowered by God to speak and act for God. As God by appointment, Jesus wields all the authority that God has allowed him to have. He did not always have that appointment. There was a time when he became God-by-proxy, just as there was a time when he became Lord-by-proxy: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36) "He is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31)
2. The context indicates that Jesus said “The Father is greater than I am” because the apostles were troubled and depressed. (John 14:1) Jesus said he was going away, and they imagined themselves being left behind “as orphans.” (verse 18) If the apostles had made more progress in love for their Master, they would not have been so filled with anxious fears. That is why Jesus said, “Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe." (verses 27-29)
3. The apostles had been concentrating too much on themselves. Had they loved Jesus sufficiently, they would have realized that his going away was a good thing, especially for him. His going away would give the appearance of weakness and submission to his enemies, but that is only if his Father is left out of the picture. Because the Father is greater, Jesus has no fear, and they should not fear either. That is basically what he was driving at when he told them “The Father is greater than I am.”
4. It is incorrect to suggest as you do that Jesus taught the apostles “that he was God Almighty.” There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus did any such thing.
Frank
fjtoth

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

Share this