Posts by Dean Porter

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kenneson,

I appreciate and echo your comments. It has been a very enlightening and fruitful discussion.

I have been able to look at and study certain scriptures that I wouldn't have otherwise.

I'm sure we will exchange comments on other threads too.

It is good to have the interchange of thoughts and still remain amicable.

respect and best wishes,

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kenneson,

I see the questions you have raised in reply , but I think you are skirting around the point.

I could argue further on the identity of the Angel of the Lord but it is not my concern to convince you of anything ( although it would be nice to ).

My point was merely to show that despite what has been argued on this thread about how Jesus could not be viewed as an Angel ; the fact is that the majority of all trinitarian commentaries I have read actually ARGUE that Jesus WAS the Angel of the Lord. Thus it is not improper to refer to Jesus as an Angel.

I am not particularly interested anymore in what the J.W.'s say on the matter, and maybe you are not interested in what other trinitarians may say either !

However, I would like to reply to your last question as to why I don't go the rest of the way with the trinitarians reasoning.

Well I think I already alluded to the point that I think their reasoning is flawed. Certainly there is other grounds of reasoning that we haven't discussed here yet that suggests Jesus was the Angel of the Lord and with which I would agree. However, I depart from them when they say this Angel is ACTUALLY GOD because of the worship it receives.

This is flawed for two reasons.

1) The whole point of having an Angel is that a Principal sends an agent on their behalf to represent them.
So you don't send a representative if you actually go yourself !

2) The worship received by the angel is not directed at that angel personally but rather to God who the
angel represents. The angel is not appearing for itself but rather as the emissary of God. Here comes
that word again SHALIACH. The angel is God's Shaliach i.e. it carries God's name, his authority and
speaks as if it is God, and yes even receives worship ( histachawa / proskyneo ) on behalf of God.
But it is NOT LITERALLY God.

So all that is required is a correct understanding of the bible terms for WORSHIP and SHALIACH and we arrive at the correct understanding.

By the way, before anyone trys to use the arguement about God not sharing his worship with anyone.
By me saying the Angel recieves worship for God , I am not saying God is sharing worship. The Angel is to all intents and purposes God in this role as the Shaliach Angel of God. So the worship is God's no one else's.

It is a FINE point but one which needs to be seen for what it is.

regards to you,

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kenneson,

I hadn't commented on Gabriel as I was still looking at the scriptures in question but I'm happy to comment now.

I have continued to look at various internet sites via a Google search on " the angel of the lord " and have found some very interesting comments.

Whilst I don't believe that a majority view is always the right view - certainly the majority view of the pages I have read are by trinitarians and they almost all identify Jesus as The O.T. Angel of the Lord.

They seem to come to this view because of the "worship" that the Angel often receives and thus they simply trade off worship of Angels for the second member of the trinity being an Angel !

As I previously said the stumbling block to the correct understanding here is the SHALIACH principle and the of the terms Histachawa and Proskyneo.

Now, as regards Gabriel, the scriptures refer to him as Jehovah's angel. This at first reading appears to be the same as the Angel of the Lord but at a closer look it appears not to be.

A point that comes out of the various websites I looked at, was that the Angel of the Lord is the manifestation of Jehovah's presence. The angel is described as "the face of God" which is why Jacob, after he had wrestled with the Angel of the Lord, named that place Peniel, (Gen.32:29,30).
Note that he asked the angel what his name was ? The angel would not identify himself, why? because he was representing Jehovah and not appearing in his own identity.

The point being , Gabriel cannot be the O.T. Angel of the Lord or the Face of God, for the very reason that he identifies himself as Gabriel !

Gabriel is an exalted angel, perhaps one of the Seven Spirits surrounding God's throne ?

But he is not the Angel of the Lord for the reason stated and also Zechariah did not believe he had just seen God , he was aware it was an exalted angel but it was not God's presence before him !

The various sites I visited , to a one , all said that the Angel of the Lord does not appear in the N.T.

Could this be for the reason that the Angel of the Lord had divested himself and became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ ?

Having said that , I think the Angel of the Lord does make an appearance in the N.T.

For me this makes total sense when I read John 20:28 where Thomas sees the resurrected Jesus and realises this is the Angel of the Lord and states "My Lord and My God ".

Thomas realises he is in the presence of God by means of the Angel of the Lord standing before him just like the O.T. Theophanies.

Makes perfect sense to me.

regards,

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kenneson, How does a " special angel" become so special that it is no longer an angel ? Whether it is an ordinary angel or a special one it is still an angel. Joshua spoke to an angel and WORSHIPPED before him and received no rebuke. If this angel was not Jesus, as you argue, then why does he receive worship ? If this angel was Jesus , as MANY trinitarians argue, then Jesus is an angel in the O.T. The point I am trying to make is that the issue of whether Jesus is an Archangel is not the cut and dry matter that you and Hooberus have tried to say on this thread. Also, that the fact the angels worship Jesus does not necessarily prove he is actually Jehovah. The fact is, that for the trinitarian, the Joshua account presents the problem of Jesus being an Angel but at the same time being actually Jehovah. When he in fact CAN'T be both. Whereas for the non- trinitarian, there is no conflict or problem. If Jesus is this special angel , then he is not actually Jehovah but as Jehovah's "Shaliach" he can be worshipped as IF he was Jehovah. I have mentioned this term many times on this board because it is the Key to understanding all these controversial scriptures about Jesus identity. If Jesus is the Shaliach of Jehovah then LEGALLY he is Jehovah ( as his AMBASSADORIAL REPRESENTATIVE ) without actually BEING Jehovah. As was the Angel of the Lord ! I know we will never convince each other , but it is illuminating trying. cheers, Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kenneson,

By raising these questions I am playing Devil's Advocate. I fully appreciate that it is God we should Worship and this is what the scriptures say. However, it has been observed by many commentators that the English term WORSHIP is not really adequate to cover the range of meaning implied by the various hebrew and greek terms that are translated as worship in most english translations.

You quote Matt. 4 : 10 which is particularly pertinent because it uses two terms Proskyneo and Latreu.
"Proskyneo" ( generally translated as worship ) CAN be applied to men , angels and God. "Latreu" on the other hand specifically refers to God.

So when you say that there is not even an "inkling" that worship ( by which I take you to mean Proskyneo or the equivalent Histachawa in Hebrew ) could be directed to anyone but God , with respect, I think you are mistaken.

" The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Vol. 4 page 249 "....." histachavah.....the action can be performed before PERSONS as a greeting or as a token of RESPECT or SUBMISSION. "

It seems that histachawa or proskyneo means worship when APPLIED to God but means submission or obesience to men or angels. Thus it is not its use that makes the recipient GOD but rather who it is used of determines if it means worship or obesience in context.

Therefore because it is used of Jesus , it does not in my opinion mean automatically that Jesus is God.

Personally, I see Joshua's action as being one of respect and obesience to the authority of this angelic figure.

But to return to my main point of issue here, is Jesus the 'angel' who is speaking to Joshua ?

If so then it is not wrong to refer to him as being an angelic figure, an archangel in fact.

Commentary on Joshua 5 : 14,15 by John Calvin

"Joshua was then alone, whether he had withdrawn from public view to engage in prayer, or for the purpose of reconnoitering the city. I am rather inclined to think it was the latter, and that he had gone aside to examine where the city ought to be attacked, lest the difficulty might deter others. It appears certain that he was without attendants, as he alone perceives the vision; and there can be no doubt that he was prepared to fight had he fallen in with an enemy. But he puts his question as if addressing a man, because it is only from the answer he learns that it is an angel. This doubt gives more credibility to the vision, while he is gradually led from the view of the man whom he addresses to the recognition of an angel. The words, at the same time, imply that it was not an ordinary angel, but one of special excellence. For he calls himself captain of the Lord's host, a term which may be understood to comprehend not merely his chosen people, but angels also.
We have said that in the books of Moses the name of Jehovah is often attributed to the presiding Angel, who was undoubtedly the only-begotten Son of God. He is indeed very God, and yet in the person of Mediator by dispensation, he is inferior to God. I willingly receive what ancient writers teach on this subject, -- that when Christ anciently appeared in human form, it was a prelude to the mystery which was afterwards exhibited when God was manifested in the flesh".
footnote:
Several modern commentators, among others Grotius, have maintained that the personage who thus appeared was merely a created angel. In this they have only followed in the steps of the Jewish Rabbis, who not satisfied with holding that he was an angel, have gone the farther length of fixing what particular angel it was. With almost unanimous consent they declare it to have been Michael, though they are unable to support their opinion by anything stronger than the first verse of the twelfth chapter of Daniel, [Da 12:1] in which it is said, that "at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which stands for the children of thy people." The sounder view here advocated by Calvin, and generally adopted by the early Christian Fathers, is well expressed by Origen, who says, in his Sixth Homily on this Book, "Joshua knew not only that he was of God, but that he was God. For he would not have worshipped, had he not recognized him to be God. For who else is the Captain of the Lord's host but our Lord Jesus Christ?" It would make sad havoc with our ideas of divine worship to admit that the homage which Joshua here pays could be lawfully received, or rather could, so to speak, be imperiously demanded by one creature from another. -- Ed.

This qoute from one authority shows well the inconsistency I spoke of previously.
It shows that it has been long held by many trinitarians that it was Jesus appearing as an Angel !
They nonetheless state that he is still truly God because of the worship offerred by Joshua.

I think the misunderstanding of the use of the term histachawa has coloured the doctrinal understanding.

However, I think it is clear that some trinitarians clearly identify Jesus as an Angel !

I think this accords well with how the Book of Hebrews speaks of Jesus, as an angelic figure and 'Captain' of our faith. (Heb. 2 : 10 )

So what do you think Kenneson ?

Is Jesus an Angel ?

respect and regards,

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

kenneson,

Yes, I should have been more specific. I am thinking of several passages. Certainly, a couple of the ones you mentioned.

Exodus 3 ( Angel in the Burning Bush ) and Judges 13 ( manoah & wife ) are good examples but the one I found particularly interesting was Joshua 5: 14,15.

This is the account of Joshua meeting the Captain of the Lord's Host. Joshua ' worships ' before this angel. Now, Unger comments on this account and states that the Angel is the preincarnate Jesus as was the angel in the Burning Bush and the angel that appeared to Manoah.

Now if we look at the Joshua account in a neutral bible like the ' King James ' we see the expression Worship. Joshua worshipped the angel !

So what does this tell us about Worship given to authorised angels and the worship given to Jesus ?

Is Jesus the Captain of the hosts in this account and if so, is he not an Angel ?

regards,

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kennesson,

Fair enough, I hear what you are saying.

Personally, ( and with respect ) I can't say I agree with the point you make though. I don't think these terms were 'just the best words they could come up with '. Let's not forget these words are supposed to be INSPIRED and thus they should be the RIGHT AND ONLY WORDS to use.

I had a fruitful dialogue with LittleToe a few months ago where we discussed this point of Begotten.
Whilst I would agree that Jesus existence is different from the Creation of which he was the Agent of ; I still see the biblical language as showing a difference in existence between the FATHER and the SON.

I appreciate the comments you have made.

As regards the Angel of the Lord. It is a good point you make about Gabriel.

However, what prompted my question was the conclusions that many Trinitarian Commentators have
expressed in publications and internet sites I have read. The conclusion being that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the Pre-Incarnate Jesus.

I have read this conclusion recently in my copy of UNGERS Bible Handbook where Unger makes the point repeatedly that the theopanic Angel of the Lord was Jesus. It appears that the reason for this conclusion is because this Angel receives ' WORSHIP ' on many of its appearances.

So, to get around the problem of angels being worshipped , he believes it must be the second person of the trinity that is spoken of here as an Angel.

But therein lies the catch 22 of this reasoning.

If the Angel of the Lord is not Jesus, then angels can receive Worship; and therefore Jesus receiving Worship in the N.T. need not necessarily prove he is Jehovah.

Alternatively, if Jesus was the O.T. Angel of the Lord, then it is quite proper to think and speak of him in angelic terms despite what has been alledged on this thread.

I have to say it does seem strange that some trinitarians will argue against Jesus being spoken of as an Angel and other trinitarians will argue he was an Angel.

What do you think ?

regards,

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kenneson,

I appreciate your candor in that you say you don't fully understand this point about Eternally Begotten.
So can I take it that you are conceeding the point that " Grammatically " it IS an Oxymoron ?

You say there are many words or expressions that we use that are not found in the scriptures. This is true but should we build or support a Doctrine on an unscriptural term ?

Also you suggest it is O.K. if the CONCEPT is there. But I don't think the Concept of Eternal Begetal is there.

The scriptures do contain the terms Eternal and Begotten, but they are not used together. If the concept was there then why were the writers not inspired to combine these terms ?

Rather, the Concept that is found in the scriptures is conveyed by the terms like BEGOTTEN ; SON ; FIRSTBORN. Do not these terms imply a life that arises from the procreative process of a parent ?

If God is a trinity of co-eternal persons, Why use terms like FATHER and SON and ONLYBEGOTTEN and FIRSTBORN to describe their relationship ? By using these terms they have IMPLIED a difference between them in terms of temperal existence.

The terms are used so as to convey some understanding to the human comprehension - so why use terms that actually imply the opposite of what the trinity is supposed to be ?

In my opinion, I see in these terms a concept that cannot be described by the oxymoronic expression eternally begotten.

With regard to Rev. 3:14 and Colossians 1:15 it is a case, I think, that the greek terms there can be understood in different ways 'depending' on your doctrinal position.

If you believe Jesus is not created you will read these terms one way and a non trinitarian will read it another way.

You mentioned that Jesus is the SOURCE of creation and thus is the uncreated creator. This in fact takes us back to a point I was making earlier on this thread ( or was it another one) where I was making the point that in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 it is the Father who is described in the greek as being the Source of creation whereas Jesus is described as the means or Agency of creation.
The point was that all things are " of " the Father ( ex ou ) but only " through " the Son ( di ou ).

"Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament'
there is one God, the Father (all hmin eiß qeoß o pathr). B omits all here, but the sense calls for it anyhow in this apodosis, a strong antithesis to the protasis (even if at least, kai eiper). Of whom (ex ou). As the source (ex) of the universe (ta panta as in Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16) and also our goal is God (eiß auton) as in Romans 11:36 where di autou is added whereas here di ou (through whom) and di autou (through him) point to Jesus Christ as the intermediate agent in creation as in Colossians 1:15-20; John 1:3.

In reply to your direct question re: Gen 1: 26 , I personally think it was the Son that the Father was speaking to. However, no one can be absolutely dogmatic on this point as it could equally have been the whole angelic hosts that he was addressing as thought by many commentators.

On the point of Commentators and angelic hosts.
Can I ask you who do you think the Theophanic Angel of the Lord was ?

The Angel in the Bush on Sinai : the Prince of the Army of God before Joshua etc. ?

regards,

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Kenneson,

thank you for your response. I am happy to comment further.

You mention the point about the Son being ETERNALLY - BEGOTTEN. I don't personally see that as proof of Jesus being Almighty God like the Father for the two following reasons:

1) the expression is an oxymoron - it is self contradictory and makes no logical sense.

2) it is not a scriptural term and therefore has no bearing on a discussion on inspired scripture.

With regard to Jesus being the WORD, you ask if ever there was a time that God was Mute?

That is an interesting thought, but I think we have to remember that the greek term LOGOS, whilst generally being translated as the Word, there is not really a completely suitable english term to translate the full understanding of the greek.

Logos refers not only to God's Word bur also his expressions, his mind, his thoughts ,his plans etc.

So whilst God will always have had these faculties it was not always the case that they were 'manifested to creation'. When God expressed himself to creation it was through the LOGOS.

As I stated previously the logos is Gods communication to the world, his messenger, his ambassador,
his SHALIACH.

As the image of God , Jesus is the ultimate representative of God to Humanity.

Adam was made in the image of God and Jesus became the second Adam.

Adam was God's visible representative to the earth, the physical embodiment of God's rulership of the earthly creation.

Likewise Jesus as the Image is the ultimate representative of God over the earthly creation.

Therefore as I see it to call Jesus the Image of God , is actually to say he is NOT God but rather God's
ambassador.

With regard to the use of O.T. passages being applied to Jesus in Hebrews, I would reiterate my recommendation to read Buchanan's Commentary on Hebrews particularly on that very point.

Suffice for me to point out this now that in Chapters 1 and 2 it is not only passages relating to Jehovah that are applied to Jesus but there are passages there that are quoted with reference to Jesus which are originally in the O.T. addressed to King David , King Solomon and I believe Isaiah also.

So are we to reason that this proves he IS King David and the others ? I think not.

I don't have time to comment further on other points you raised as it is late and I'm tired and my mind is going...... Daisy , Daisy , give me your answer true.

til the next time,

Regards

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Earnest,

Thankyou for giving me the full reference for Werner's Book. I will definately try to obtain the book either through my local Reference Library or see if I can find it on Amazon.

I have seen quotes from this work on many internet sites and have always found his comments truly revealing.

Thanks again.

regards,

Dean.