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,

As per my Unger's Bible Hand Book, The Masorites carried out their vowel pointing work from circa 600 A.D.

However, I think they were not the first to do this but only the most skilled and celebrated.

I see what you are getting at , but does it make any difference.

Surely the work of the Masorites was to safe- guard the text and the Oral Reading tradition ?

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, If this verse restricts anything, it restricts the second lord from being Jehovah. Therefore as you appear to concede , this psalm is not a trinity Proof Text. 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,

with respect, I don't think you know what you are saying now. You seem to be confused by your own reasoning.

You stated....
Conclusion: Since Romans 11:36 teaches that all things are "of" and "through" Jehovah, and since 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches that all things are "of" the Father and "through" the Son, then both the Father and the Son must together be the Lord (Jehovah) of Romans 11:36. Note the word"through" in Romans 11:36 and the word "through" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 are the same Greek word.

Because 1 Cor. 8:5,6 does not refer to all things being " of " Jesus, this presents the problem that only the Father is the source of creation, which doesn't fit your trinitarian viewpoint.

Therefore you referred to Romans 11:36 to tie in the " of " statement to the LORD JEHOVAH as qouted by Paul from ISAIAH 40:13. Thus you then make the tenuous link in thought that Jesus is this LORD JEHOVAH referred to in Romans and is thus spoken of in the same terms namely that all things are " of " this Lord.

However, as Earnest pointed out , Paul also quotes ISAIAH 40:13 again at 1 Cor. 2:16 but adds the thought that although we don't know the Mind of the LORD we DO Know the Mind of the Christ.

Thus the clear inferrence is that the Lord Jehovah spoken of here is not referring to the Christ. Therefore once again Jesus does not have the phrase " of " used of him.

Therefore , whilst all things are " through" both the Father and the Son ; all things are only " of " the Father.
Unless you can show me a referrence to Jesus with "of all things" as I already asked.

The point being that in 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 Paul clearly outlines his Theology here.

The Father is God, the Source of Life; the Son is Lord i.e. the Agent of Creation who will rule it for the Father as the Messianic King.

"OF" such a small word but yet such a large meaning !

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,

the phrase ' intermediate agent in creation ' means to me that Jesus was the Agency that the Father used to accomplish his work of creation.

The Father is the Creator , the Son is his agent.

Now I am fortunate to have some knowledge of Agent or Agency as a Legal Term in Scots Law. The Law of Agency is much the same I'm sure in most lands.

An agent is a party who is given authority or power from a Principal' party to act or accomplish some task for
or on behalf of the principal.

The Principal is thus the instigator and the party who is responsible for the work done even though it is the Agent who actually does it. The Principal would thus get the credit or in fact the blame for the result of the work.

Therefore , as I see it the greek text shows that the Father is the Principal party who instigated the creation because all things are " of " ( or 'out' of as the greek literally reads) whereas Jesus is the Agent who does the creative work for his principal and thus all things are " through' him.

You mention Genesis 1:26 but a point to note there is that God says let us MAKE man ( hebrew na-aseh ); he does not say let us CREATE man ( which is the hebrew word Ba-ra ).

So it appears he is not actually sharing the creative work but sharing the process of MAKING.

Also, if the Father and the Son were Co-Creators together, then surely Paul would have stated that all things were " of " the Father AND " of " the Son in 1 Cor. 8:5,6.

It is clear to me that Paul is drawing a distinction between the roles of the Father and Son showing that they are not the same. He shows that the Father is God , the Source of all things and Jesus is the Lord by which the Father accomplished this creative work.

This is the crux of the matter , Jesus is NOT shown to be the source of creation, only the Father is shown to be the source.

Also as a small issue , you mentioned the word in John 1:1 as being a ' HIM' actually the greek word can be translated either HIM or IT.

I am reading some seminar notes at this moment from a scottish universtiy and they suggest that it is now being understood how the Jews thought of Wisdom and the WORD as being Angels in some circles of thought. Interesting isn't it.

I will try to find the reference works you mentioned as they certainly sound worth reading.

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,

for your information, off the top of my head. The word number 136 in your concordance is probably Adon.
which is the ' parent ' word for Lord as you put it.

There are derivative forms of it such as Adonai & Adoni. It is to be noted that both words are spelled the same in hebrew but are clearly differentiated by means of the ' vowel pointing '.

Note what a Jewish Exegesis website says of this matter in a quote from one of their articles on Psalm 110.

DISCUSSION ON PSALM 110 taken from Messiah Truth Website

In the rest of the verse, the Hebrew term (adoni; pronounced "ah-do-NEE"), my lord/master, is mistranslated in the KJV and in many other popular Christian Bibles as my Lord, thereby alluding (via the capital "L") to Jesus, G-d the Son in the Trinity. The Tetragrammaton, , the ineffable title of the Creator that is written in the Hebrew in terms of the four-letter sequence (yod-heh-vav-heh), Y-H-V-H, appears in vs. 1,2,&4, and is punctuated with vowels to be pronounced as "a-do-na-i". This is translated in the KJV as The LORD, alluding to G-d the Father, the second personage in the Trinity, by using all capital letters in order to distinguish it from The Lord, G-d the Son. The actual word (A-donai), another one of several common titles used in the Hebrew Bible for the Creator, appears as the first word in v. 5. It should be noted that in the Hebrew, both (adoni), my lord/master, and (A-donai), G-d, are identically spelled, but are punctuated with different vowels. The KJV, having made the "my Lord" mistranslation of [(adoni), my lord/master] in v. 1, had no choice but to render [(A-donai), G-d] in v. 5 as "The Lord" (i.e., G-d the Son)........

........(1) Since the specific term of interest is (ladoni), all 24 citations are shown. Moreover,
since Psalms 110:1 is one of nine verses among these 24 citation which contain both the
Tetragrammaton , and the term , all nine verses are marked with an asterisk (*).

It is evident from the data in Table IV.B-2 that the KJV translators understood rather well that the term (adoni), with and without attached prepositions, means my lord or my master. Specifically, regarding the term of interest in Psalms 110:1, (ladoni), in 23 cases the KJV rendered it correctly as to/unto my lord/master, and only in Psalms 110:1 they translated it as unto my Lord, with the capital L, which imparts to it the desired Christological significance. This fact becomes even more obvious when one considers the nine cases in which both the Tetragrammaton, , and the term (ladoni) appear in the same verse. On eight occasions, the KJV has LORD & lord/master, and only in one case, at Psalms 110:1, the combination LORD & Lord appears in the KJV.

According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, there is no connection between (adoni) and , The L-rd, because the appellation (adoni) is never used to address G-d; it is used exclusively to address a (mortal) man. ( end of quote ).

There is really no doubt about it, Adoni is not the same type of lord as the LORD Adonai.

You say that if this verse and use of Adoni ' could possibly ' just refer to his earthly lordship ( by which I take it that you are conceeding the point as you don't provide any proof against that conclusion). Therefore, I think the point is made that Psalm 110 did not give the Jews any expectation of a DIVINE MESSIAH or indeed GOD in the Flesh.

It is also evident that this verse does not picture Jehovah the Father speaking about Jehovah the Son as the tetragrammaton only appears addressed to the first LORD not the Second lord.

This is such an important point to understand because when the N.T. writers like Paul use the greek word Kyrios to refer to Jesus ; they are simply meaning Adoni and are not meaning Adonai. Thus by calling Jesus Lord in the greek they are not equating him with the Lord God Jehovah.

The confusion is that the greek has only one word for Lord whereas the hebrew has several which mean different things.

You say you 'may' address other points that I made at another time. However, I would like you to address the question I put to you in my last post and I would prefer if you gave me an answer now.

The question was ... If there is one God, who is three persons, then HOW MANY JEHOVAHS ARE THERE ?

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

Earnest,

You took the words right out of my mouth as I was intending to make the same point.

So , obviously the Lord ( of whom it is said all things are " of " ) cannot refer to the Christ.

Therefore, Hooberus's tenuous link between Christ and the Lord here, to try and prove that creation is " of " christ, falls flat.

The Lord here is the Father.

Creation is "of " the Father because the Father is the Source of Life.

" Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament " re : 1 Cor. 8:5,6.

Yet to us 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.

regards

Dean.

15

Existing in the nature of God

by ClassAvenger in

i preached to a jw and they used the following verse against me:

phi 2:6

"who existing in the nature of god, did not consider being equal to god something to be held onto," he said that this was one of the texts that disproved the trinity because it does not state that he was god, but that he existed in the nature of god: divine.

Dean Porter

Myxomatosis,

thanks for your replies.

I appreciate your comments and please accept my apologies if I was a little 'severe' in my comments.

It is just the fact that this is a 'pet subject' of mine to which I have gone to some lengths to study and research.

So I get a little irksome when I see the facts being misrepresented.

I have to say that from your initial response I got the impression that you were being a bit cheeky with me. It is difficult to gauge the actual ' tone' of posted comments when they are read. So I accept that I may have misjudged your tone and for that I apologise and hope I wasn't too cheeky myself.

With regard to the Bible , yes I do have a high regard for it and I continue to try and understand it better with an open mind. However there are some subjects like the trinity that I believe I have a fixed understanding and position on.

As gumby said, the biggest trouble with all this is that to learn more about Jesus and scripture you first have to wade through a load of 'rubbish' and be able to discern between the made up and the factual.

If you are interested in knowing more about the term HO OHN in EXODUS 3:14 get yourself an Interlinear bible and have a read at Revelation chapter 1 and see what you can find !

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,

you speak about a unitarian APRIORI VIEW that God is one person. You say this as if the Trinitarian View is

the view that is not APRIORI.

I think you have got this reasoning backwards. The Monotheism of unitarians is surely the same monotheism held by the Jews as taught in the Old Testament. This Monotheism believing that God is One Person IS the original orthodoxy as held by God's covenant people.

Surely it is the case that the onus of proof is on the Trinitarian to PROVE that God is three persons; not for unitarians to prove God is NOT three.

You say that the use of ADONI for the second lord does not exclude it refering to the Messiah as being God.

Well, I think it does exclude that view as ADONI is not used in the O.T. to refer to God.

Adonai is used of God , not adoni. Adoni is used of men and angels.

In another post you refer to Genesis 19:24 as an example of two persons addressed as seperate Jehovah's.

This begs the question : If there is ONE God, but THREE Persons; how many Jehovahs are there ?

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,

Is there a scripture that refers to Jesus or the Son or the Messiah etc. that uses the same expression " of " which is used of God the Father in 1 Cor, 8:5,6. ?

Dean.

15

Existing in the nature of God

by ClassAvenger in

i preached to a jw and they used the following verse against me:

phi 2:6

"who existing in the nature of god, did not consider being equal to god something to be held onto," he said that this was one of the texts that disproved the trinity because it does not state that he was god, but that he existed in the nature of god: divine.

Dean Porter

Myxomatosis,

You have answered my question much as I thought you would.

I asked the question as I believe you were ' taking a liberty ' with the greek text. I don't believe the New Testament says anywhere in the greek text that Jesus is 'ego eimi ho ohn '.

It certainly has Jesus using the expression ' ego eimi' ,but as I suspect you actually realise only too well, that is entirely different to it referring to him as 'ego eimi ho ohn'.

You quoting of John 8.58 and adding an INTERPOLATION of ho ohn into the text is - frankly shocking !

It shows a scant disregard for TRUTH.

Did you honestly think that would convince me !

No, Jesus did not take the title " I AM " from Exodus 3:14 , because if he did the greek text in John would have to read 'ego eimi ho ohn' as it does in the Septuagent'.

Also you state that the hebrew expression Ani Hu is the equivalent of this title in hebrew. Again you are much mistaken.

Ani Hu is indeed the hebrew equivalent of the greek ego eimi, however, the hebrew expression in Exodus 3:14 is not Ani Hu but rather it is EHYEH ASHER EHYEH.

It is the word EHYEH that the greek Ho Ohn translates in the LXX. Thus the title I AM is EHYEH or Ho Ohn.

Ho Ohn does appear in the New Testament , but is not used of Jesus.

So , I think your assertion that Jesus called himself ego eimi ho ohn is wholly untenable and is not warranted by holy scripture.

You asked me to say if I think you are full of crap. Well, I don't know you and I would not want to be offensive

as I don't post on this forum to fall out with people.

However, if I restrict my comments to your scriptural exegesis then I would say it is CRAP.

KAY !