Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8 (page 3)

Dean Porter

Hooberus,

For the record he is Now a Glorified Divine Spirit being by means of his Resurrection from the dead. ACTS 17:31.

So, therefore Adoni is still appropriate as it was for the Heavenly Angel in Zechariah 4:4, or did you not actually take that point on board ?

If Jesus is sitting at the right -hand of YHWH , then he is not YHWH. He cannot be seen to be in this Position if he is in fact YHWH himself.

Dean.

P.S. after originally posting those last comments, I thought further on the matter. We were originally looking at this verse to see what the verse said about the lord who was to come.

So from the information that we have looked at ; the hebrew term pointed to a HUMAN DESCENDANT of King David who would be appointed his Kingly successor.

The N.T. shows that indeed Jesus was born a MAN into Davids line and was Anointed by God to Be the Davidic King or the Messiah. It goes on to show that Jesus was exalted to the Heavens by means of his resurrection from the dead and sat down at YHWH's right-hand in the Heavens. But the point is as Acts 17:31 shows was that it was a ' MAN ' who was exalted to this position.

Also, the references to Melchizedek in Psalm 110 also point to a Man who would be exalted to a Heavenly position ( Angelic Mediator ) as was the Jewish thinking in the " Second Temple Period ".

For evidence of this see the Lecture notes by Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis which can be found on the website Oxford lectures on the st. Andrews Divine Mediators site.
( I would love to cut and paiste those notes but the author has added a note that they can't be copied without permission.)

Other university lecturers in theology have posted similar thoughts , so it appears to be the common understanding in those circles.

An understanding that I agree with and which I think fits the scriptures perfectly.

Dean.

LittleToe

Dean:My, my we are getting pedantic. I wasn't calling into question the seriousness of your comments.
Chill, pal

My point is simply that the vowel points were added circa 600AD. What was the oral tradition at that time? (it appears to be that with which the Masoretes rendered it) Had it changed from previous centuries? How do you verify that one way or another?

By 1600AD Hebrew scholars were translating the Greek NT into Hebrew, and yet for all their affection for the text, they inserted the tetragrammation.
(which translation work I note you are refering to in your last post - the original uses the word "theos", not YHWH)

Does Fletcher-Louis really refer to Christ as an "Angellic mediator"?
Would you mind posting the link to that site, as I can't seem to find the document in question, and short of reading the guy's entire body of online works (which wouldn't be conducive to this discussion)...
Thanks in advance.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

I'm chilled mate.

May be I was being pedantic, but I am quite fussy about fine detail in all things in life. I'm just a bit serious by nature.

As I have said before, please by all means pull me up on what I say, but I felt in that last post you were pulling me up for something I had not said.

But it is cool. No problemo.

Please by all means have a look at Fletcher- louis.

A six-week course on the development of Christology was offered at Oxford University in May and June of 1998 by Professor Christopher Rowland and Dr. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis. There is no formal connection between this course and the Divine Mediator Figures module at St. Andrews, but Dr. Fletcher-Louis kindly posted summaries of his lectures on the mediators list . (Dr. Fletcher-Louis was a participant on the mediators list and a presenter and respondent at the International Conference on the Origins of the Worship of Jesus.)

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/med_oxford1.html

There are three lectures on the web site and all three are well worth reading.

I look forward to your comments on.

Cheers

Dean.

LittleToe

Thanks for the link. It has given me a few more threads of thought to consider, but isn't far adrift from my current perceptions.

I had a quick look at some of his stuff, from an Eastern Mysticism site, and it looked fascinating

hooberus

So from the information that we have looked at ; the hebrew term pointed to a HUMAN DESCENDANT of King David who would be appointed his Kingly successor.

The N.T. shows that indeed Jesus was born a MAN into Davids line and was Anointed by God to Be the Davidic King or the Messiah. It goes on to show that Jesus was exalted to the Heavens by means of his resurrection from the dead and sat down at YHWH's right-hand in the Heavens. But the point is as Acts 17:31 shows was that it was a ' MAN ' who was exalted to this position.

So can we agree that Jesus is now a human man at the right hand of the Father?

LittleToe

Hoob:How would this accord with him asking to receive the glory he had alongside the Father, in the beginning?

frankiespeakin

LT,

I would like to give some comments with regard to the question you asked Hoober.

I think since God created time and space, he lives outside of these, and so some of the things that Jesus says quite naturally should be confusing to us who are only familair with living inside of time and space.

I would like to use a modern metaphor, for Jesus, and say that he was facsimile(FAX) of God, I think it's very poor metaphor, but nonetheless true, but only very limitedly, ,,perhaps all metaphors of which we use to discribe God can only be used in a very limited way to help us to understand or discribe God.

God being outside of time, is not bound by it, nor is he bound by space. So God could divest Himself (so to speak) of all his glory and come to this earth, but since he is beyond our comprehension, and not bound by time, He could still be spoken of as still in heaven even while Jesus was on Earth.(one of the perks of not being bound by space-time)

Jesus being God divested of all his glory, could now be spoken of as the "Son of God." Being that he was "now man" and subject to all the limitation that men are subject to, and as such he would be obliged to worship God, even though he was God.

logansrun

It's all bullshit.

B.

LittleToe

Frankie:That sounds like a form of modalism to me.

Bradley:I see you've returned to you most convincing of arguments (and I've finally reaslised who your god is ).
If you don't like the toys, just go to another sandpit...

frankiespeakin

LT,

From your link:

These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

I wouldn't say that my beleifs are modalism, and I must confess I never heard of the term.

I think God is the great Absolute Reality, and since He created time and space is not confined to its limitations like we are. I tend to think that "perhaps," God's personality is infinite (not like ours "mono") and far beyond anything our human intellect can conjure up in the imagination. For He can even be far more than just a "trinity," He may be an "infinity" of personalities and all of them fully loving in its purest form.

I also tend to think that all these many stars throughout the universe, that a certain percentage have planets that have evolved intelligent life like us on them. And just like us, God has communicated with them through inspired messages and even personally visited them the same way he visited us through Jesus Christ, by taking on whatever life form that they are, and if they are disobedient like us, which I'm sure high percentage are, being that God has given them free moral agency, that God in that form was also put to death, in order to pay the penalty for sin and to make possible for them to get everlasting life with Him.

In this belief I don't think I'm out of harmony with God's word the Bible. While I personally don't know that any religion teaches this, these are my own conclusions that are not written in stone and subject to change through divine revelation.

But I must admit that CS Lewis has had a great influence on me. I think that a good imagination goes along way it holding God in awe. In fact I think that are imagination has a lot to do with how big box we put God in. If we have a small imagination the box we put God in his very small, and if we a big imagination the box we put God is that much bigger,, of course God cannot fit into any of those boxes, because we cannot possibly imagine how great God really is.

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

Share this