Posts by Dean Porter

38

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

by hooberus in

jehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.

" psalm 110:1 asv.

unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

I'm glad you found the site. Yes, it is very interesting information.

It has opened some doors in my thinking which I am now investigating further.

I also found the articles by Hurtado and Davila, on the same subject , as equally enlightening.

All good stuff.

Dean.

38

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

by hooberus in

jehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.

" psalm 110:1 asv.

unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.

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.

38

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

by hooberus in

jehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.

" psalm 110:1 asv.

unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.

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.

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,

your quote regarding ' roles' and ' office ' seemed to lend support to what Earnest was saying rather than refute it.

It made me think of the passage in LUKE 20: 9-17. There Jesus gives the parable of the vineyard owner who sends his Servants to his Tenants. The Servants are Sent ones i.e. Shaliachs; they are authoritative agents of the Owner and thus represent him when they deliver his message. They are Messengers or Angels in the true sense of the greek term.

When the Tenants don't listen to them , the Landlord sends his Son as his Shaliach or authoritative Messenger or Angel.

Thus we see that whilst the Son was the greater by virtue of his Sonship he nevertheless shared in the same role or office as a Messenger that his fathers servants had also.

You mention worship being directed to the Son in Hebrews but as expressed elsewhere in scripture the worship is to the Glory of God the Father. Remember the Son is the Agent or Apostle of God. As the Psalms says " Kiss the Son ( i.e. prostrate oneself ) lest God be angry".

Did you know that in the Jewish mindset, there were DIVINE MEDIATORS who acted as Angelic intermediatories for God. Wisdom ; Logos ; Son of Man; Melckizedek ; Enoch etc. The writings like Sirach and the Book of Enoch as preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that these figures were thought of as being Angelic and received worship as representatives of God.

So with this in mind a first century reader of the book of Hebrews would see Jesus as the Ultimate Angelic Mediator.

By the way in the gospel of John, Jesus continually says that what he speaks is not of his own originallity but what the father speaks he tells us. In other words he is passing on a message from someone other than himself- thus he is an AGGELOS.

Some interesting comments I found on the web from theologian Martin Werner seem pertinent here :

Then, to, notwithstanding its fervently sustained insistence upon monotheism, upon the belief that the only true God was the transcendental God of the Jewish Scriptures, Judaism, the cradle of christianity, sometimes went surprisingly far in applying divinizing terms to angels, to the personalized concepts of Wisdom and the Logos and even to men. Angels could carry the designations "son of God," "lord" and even "god"- the Qumran documents have brought further evidence of this. Jewish writing about Wisdom, the Logos and the Torah(the Law of Moses)contains close parallels to the New Testament description of Jesus Christ as God's image, the effulgence of God's glory, his firstborn, God's agent in the creation of the world and so on.

Noteworthy first of all is the fact that, in his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared to God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God's heavenly court, just as the angels were- though as God's Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them. Small wonder, then, that angel christology was a prominent strand of early christological thought, as Martin Werner has emphasised and other scholars have recognised.[Werner, op.cit.pp.120-41. Cf, too, Grillmeier, op.cit.pp.52-62.]Werner further argued that in calling Jesus "Lord"("Kyrios"), Paul and the early church meant that Jesus "was a high heavenly being of an angelic kind", the designation "Lord" being a particular instance of the designation and invocation of angels as "lords"("kyrioi") in late Judaism.[Werner, op.cit.p.124.]

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,

I am fully with you on this matter, we are clearly 'on the same wavelength'. You have expressed in your quotations and your reasoning , the same thoughts I was having , but you have expressed them more eloquently than I could.

I have much appreciated your input here.

With regard to Kenneson's quote from Augustine; I read it and thought , this actually upholds what WE are saying rather than refute our position.

As I see it , the book of Hebrews shows that God 'speaks ' to man via MESSENGERS or AGENTS. It contrasts the use of the Angels with the Son. But the point is that both the Angels and the Son are MESSENGERS or MEDIATORS or AGENTS that represent God to Man.

The very fact that the Son speaks for God shows he is an ANGEL or MESSENGER or AGENT. The Role that Jesus has as the Word or Logos is to represent to men the Message / Revelation / Mind of God.

He is the SENT ONE or SHALIACH of God. He is the authoritative AGENT of the Father and has thus been given a Greater name than the other BENE HA ELOHIM.

But again , the point is He and the Angels are by ' NATURE' both SONS OF GOD but his Sonship is GREATER by virtue that he is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON.

They are both Aggelos / Shaliach in their roles but he is the LOGOS and therefore the Father's primary AGENT.

Regards,

Dean.

38

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

by hooberus in

jehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.

" psalm 110:1 asv.

unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

with respect, my friend, I did not ask " does it MATTER "? Because I do think it matters.

What I asked was " does it make a DIFFERENCE " ?

That is to say , would the removal of the vowel pointing change or affect the meaning that could be taken from the verse.

You are correct in saying that I am 'assuming' that the Oral Tradition has remained unchanged over the years but I think that numerous bible translators who have relied upon the Masoretic text over the years have done the same too.

You mentioned the Dead Sea scrolls, and I recall reading something on them recently in this context. Do have anything specific on that point as to what the Scrolls may reveal about the accuracy of the Masoretic readings ?

You mention that the Mormons and the J.W.'s believe that a great Apostasy set in after the 1st Century : but I think that was in reference to the Christian Congregation NOT with regard to Judaism !

I found a page on the web which addresses this point and makes mention of the LXX and the bearing it may have on the Masoretic accuracy, here is a part of it.

SIT THOU AT MY RIGHT HAND
(Psalm 110:1)
by Allon Maxwell

CONFIRMATION FROM THE SEPTUAGINT
There are some who persist in reading the word ADONAI in this verse, instead of ADONI. This is usually justified by claiming that the Massoretes have assigned the wrong vowel points. However the "Greek factor" from the Septuagint version (LXX) supports the Massoretes.

The following information was passed on to me recently by Bill Wachtel. (5)

The Hebrew text in Ps. 110:1 is actually LADONI ("L" + "adoni").

ADONI = my lord.
LADONI = TO my lord.

In the Greek of the LXX, LADONI becomes:
"to kurio mou" (= to my lord)

If the text had read:
LADONAI (= to the Divine Lord) the Greek would have read simply "to kurio."

Thus the LXX confirms for us that the original Hebrew is ADONI, and that the Massoretes got it right.

THE MASSORETIC VOWEL POINTS
The following information on the Massoretes and their work has been condensed from various
books, encyclopedias and Internet sources.
The ancient Hebrew texts were comprised of consonants only. There were no vowels or punctuation
marks. The Massoretes were Hebrew scholars who, over several centuries, established a system of vowel
markings to indicate the traditional pronunciation and intonation. We call these the "vowel points."
This work was not completed until several centuries after the beginning of the Christian era.
One sometimes encounters people whose determination to retain Psalm 110:1 as a Trinitarian "proof text"
leads them to (selectively) discount the reliability of the Massoretic vowel pointing system, in favour of
some other personal preference, especially when it suits their particular theological bias. However unless
there is compelling documented evidence for changes of this kind, they are seldom helpful. We must be
very cautious about introducing arbitrary changes of this kind, lest we leave ourselves open to accusations
of "intellectual dishonesty."
The following summary will provide a brief introduction to the Massoretes:
- The work of the Massoretes was done principally in the period AD 500-900.
- Although there were different schools of Massoretes, their differences seem to have left us very few
variations in the meaning of the Hebrew consonantal text.
- It was the goal of the Massoretes to preserve the traditional meaning of the Hebrew text. (This was
perceived as necessary, because ancient Hebrew is a strictly consonantal language, and therefore prone
to error in transmission.)
- One of the ways they did this was to develop a system of vowel pointing, which indicates the traditional
pronunciation and meaning of the text.
- Since Hebrew is a consonantal language, there are many places where the same consonants are used for
quite different words.
(Note:- That is no different from English! Often the same consonants form different words when
associated with different vowels. Often the same combination of consonants and vowels has a
different pronunciation, and a different meaning. When that happens, we use context and tradition
to interpret the intended meaning.)
- The Massoretic vowel pointing indicates the traditional meaning, understanding, and pronunciation which
had formerly been passed down from generation to generation, by oral tradition, through their teachers.
- In cases where identical groups of consonants were traditionally understood to be different words, with
different meanings attached, the pointing system made that clear and preserved it for future generations.
- Our current English translations all rely heavily on the pointed text.
As a LAYMAN, I conclude that what we have now is the work of dedicated Jewish Scholars, which reflects the best consensus about what was ALREADY accepted as the traditional understanding of the text, over many centuries.
Consequently when the Massoretes reported "adoni" instead of "adonai," in Psalm 110:1, they were following the oral tradition. As we have already seen above, the LXX, which predates the pointed text by centuries, supports this conclusion.
The Massoretes knew that in the unpointed text for that verse, the word "ADNY" was properly read and understood as a human lord, "ADONI," and not the divine Lord, "ADONAI."
And in the providence of God, they inserted vowel points which preserved it that way for us (and our English translators).

5. Bill Wachtel has an M.A. in New Testament from Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. He was an instructor
at the former Oregon Bible College of the Church Of God General Conference, from 1962 to 1968, and president
from 1963 to 1968. At OBC he taught Greek classes, as well as other subjects.
______________________________________________________

Regards

Dean.

38

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

by hooberus in

jehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.

" psalm 110:1 asv.

unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.

Dean Porter

Hooberus,

Does Adoni restrict Jesus' lordship to a 'human' lordship only ?

Not necessarily, as in fact Adoni is used in the O.T. as a designation of ' Angels '. So it could refer to Jesus' Heavenly Lordship in that sense.

For example ,see Zechariah Chapter 4 , verse 4. Where an ANGEL is addressed as lord ( ADONI ).

Moffat's translation uses the expression " Sir " in this verse.

Therefore , according to the bible usage of Adoni we can see that it is used of men and angels but NOT of God.

Therefore, it could refer to either Jesus' human or heavenly lordship, and probably both. However, the term does restrict the meaning so that it could not be referring to him as being God.

Here are a few quotes from a website that investigated this matter that I think backs up the above points.

Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?

?Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.?

Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.
Adoni ? ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]

Adonai ? ref. to God?Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).

?The form ADONI (?my lord?), a royal title (I Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI (?my Lord?) used of Yahweh.? ?ADONAI ? the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adonai [with short vowel] = my lords? (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ?Lord,? p. 157).

?Lord in the OT is used to translate ADONAI when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word?has a suffix [with special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction?between divine and human appellative? (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, ?Lord,? Vol. 3, p. 137).

?Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT?Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, II Kings 2:19 [etc.]). We have to assume that the word adonai received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai, [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords? (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).

?The lengthening of the a¯ on Adonai [the Lord God] may be traced to the concern of the Masoretes to mark the word as sacred by a small external sign? (Theological Dictionary of the OT, ?Adon,? p. 63 and Theological Dictionary of the NT, III, 1060ff. n.109).

?The form ?to my lord,? l?adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference?the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)? (Wigram, The Englishman?s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22) (Herbert Bateman, ?Psalm 110:1 and the NT,? Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).

Dean.

38

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

by hooberus in

jehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.

" psalm 110:1 asv.

unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.

Dean Porter

Hooberus,

Thankyou for answering that question re: How many Jehovah's are there ?

I agree with you that there is only ONE Jehovah as this is clearly the scriptural position bearing in mind the Shema.
So, then the Trinity point of view must be that there is ONE God, who is ONE Jehovah But who are THREE persons.

You earlier quoted Genesis 19:24 as support of your view that two persons of Jehovah can be seen to be acting and be addressed seperately at the one time. This being so that to prove that Jehovah the Father in Psalm 110 : 1 can be seen as seperate to Jehovah the Son.

However, I think this creates a problem with the understanding of there only being ONE Jehovah. Consider.

In Genesis 19:24 the scripture does not state anything about different Persons of this Jehovah being spoken of here. It doesn't say that it was Jehovah the Father speaking to Jehovah the Son. Keeping in mind that the Jews did not worship a Triune God , this idea of several persons of Jehovah being mentioned here would be anathema to them.

Also, if Jehovah is spoken of twice here surely this , without qualification in scripture, means there are TWO Jehovah's.

Therefore , if Jehovah is THREE Persons , then this scripture would mean that there are SIX Persons mentioned here.

Thus it should come as no surprise that some Trinitarian Commentators have saw the need to leave this scripture alone and not use it as a Trinity Proof Text.

e.g.

Verse 24. The Lord rained-brimstone and fire from the Lord] As all judgment is committed to the Son of God, many of the primitive fathers and several modern divines have supposed that the words hwhyw vaihovah and hwhy tam meeth Yehovah imply, Jehovah the Son raining brimstone and fire from Jehovah the Father; and that this place affords no mean proof of the proper Divinity of our blessed Redeemer. It may be so; but though the point is sufficiently established elsewhere, it does not appear to me to be plainly indicated here. And it is always better on a subject of this kind not to have recourse to proofs which require proofs to confirm them. It must however be granted that two persons mentioned as Jehovah in one verse, is both a strange and curious circumstance; and it will appear more remarkable when we consider that the person called Jehovah, who conversed with Abraham, (see chap. 18.,) and sent those two angels to bring Lot and his family out of this devoted place, and seems himself after he left off talking with Abraham to have ascended to heaven, ver. 33, does not any more appear on this occasion till we hear that JEHOVAH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from JEHOVAH out of heaven. This certainly gives much countenance to the opinion referred to above, though still it may fall short of positive proof.

From Adam Clarke Commentary.

and also

24. Then the Lord rained.
To this point belongs what Moses says, that the Lord rained fire from the Lord. The repetition is emphatical, because the Lord did not then cause it to rain, in the ordinary course of nature; but, as if with a stretched out hand, he openly fulminated in a manner to which he was not accustomed, for the purpose of making it sufficiently plain, that this rain of fire and brimstone was produced by no natural causes. It is indeed true, that the air is never agitated by chance; and that God is to be acknowledged as the Author of even the least shower of rain; and it is impossible to excuse the profane subtlety of Aristotle, who, when he disputes so acutely concerning second causes, in his Book on Meteors, buries God himself in profound silence. Moses, however, here expressly commends to us the extraordinary work of God; in order that we may know that Sodom was not destroyed without a manifest miracle. The proof which the ancients have endeavored to derive, from this testimony, for the Deity of Christ, is by no means conclusive: and they are angry, in my judgment, without cause, who severely censure the Jews, because they do not admit this kind of evidence. I confess, indeed, that God always acts by the hand of his Son, and have no doubt that the Son presided over an example of vengeance so memorable; but I say, they reason inconclusively, who hence elicit a plurality of Persons, whereas the design of Moses was to raise the minds of the readers to a more lively contemplation of the hand of God.

Commentary by John Calvin. (1509 - 1564)

Therefore, this verse does not in fact support the view that you were wringing out of it.

As the above quotations allude to, this unusual turn of phrase is obviously a Jewish Idiomatic Figure of Speech used to emphasise the Divine Origin of this destructive incident.

Thus we can see in Moffats translation the Sense of the thought by simply rendering the verse, " and then the ETERNAL rained sulphur and fire 'FROM HEAVEN' on Sodom and Gomorrah".

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,

Now , of course I have read the whole chapter of John - Many times. Jesus is the embodiement of the Logos.

The point I was making that the Jews of that time were familiar with writings ( i.e. non-canonical writings ) that talked about Personified Wisdom and The Logos and the Angel of the Lord etc.

These 'figures' were in some circles thought to be angelic figures. Thus when like minded ones read John chapter 1 for instance, they would not automatically think of a triune Godhead but rather of High Ranking Angelic figures acting " with " God.

Hebrews, yes it outlines the superiority of the SON over the Angels.

However , put your objective head on for a moment. IF the Son, the LOGOS was a High Ranking Angel like a Seraphim then he would be superior to the Angels who are the lowest ranked Bene Ha Elohim. Yes !

By the way , the Son's superiority is contrasted by his Sonship. Yet, as I have just observed, the Angels were Bene Ha Elohim and were thus themselves by their very nature SONS of God.

The point is that the Son Jesus is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON. His Sonship is superior to the Angels but they are both Sons.

The 1st Peter quote is interesting. I will " take avizandum ' on that one.

The John 1 : 10 reference still refers to his Agency in creation as the underlying greek means by or through - not "OF".

By the way if you want to look into the area of the LOGOS and the begetting of the Son re: John chapter 1 etc. Have a look at the Unitarian thinking of Anthony J. Buzzard.

He makes some challenging thoughts on the Word / Logos.

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

Hooberus,

You say....

The Trinitarian viewpoint is that all three persons with the Godhead 'participated' in creation.

Why do you only say 'participated' now. You seem to have watered down the roles of your trinity Godhead.

The point is, that, if God is a Trinity then all three persons are the source of creation regardless of what each did. Therefore it should be said that 'all things' are " of " each one of them.

Once again , 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 only states that all things are "of " the Father. Only the Father is the Source of creation. Thus only He is the Creator.

By the way, the "Trinitarian Viewpoint" can say what it wants. It means nothing unless scripture backs it up.

This verse , most definately , does not back it up.

Dean.