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,

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"Joshua was then alone, whether he had withdrawn from public view to engage in prayer, or for the purpose of reconnoitering the city.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.

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,

You ask what is it that distinguishes the Father from the angels and the whole of creation.

Well, I think your comments just prior to that question, answers it for you.

Clearly the Father is distinguished from all others by the fact that he is uncreated , is not made, is unbegotten and does not proceed from anyone else.

I find it strange that when the trinitarian definition itself shows the Son to be BEGOTTEN, whereas the Father is not, that you would still argue they are EQUAL. Clearly if the Son is Begotten, then he has not always existed in the sense that the Father alone has.

The Son, as the only - begotten son stands between the Father and the rest of creation.

This is why he is called the Logos. He is the IMAGE of God. He stands as the representative of God.

He could not 'represent' God if he is that same Almighty God. Surely that is why Hebrews calls him the Image and then goes on to prove that he is the ultimate spokesman for God.

Paul reasons in this Book that Jesus is the Greater spokesman, superior to the Angels divine and human.

Greater than Melchezidek, Moses, Joshua etc. ( they were all human in nature like Jesus but his authority and position was greater).

Greater than all the Angels ( divine sons of God in nature as Jesus is now but his authority and position is greater.)

If Paul believed that Jesus is God Almighty why would he bother reasoning on his superiority over these typical men and angels.

If he is God then his superiority is implied and there is no need to reason and prove this.

Clearly, this was not in Pauls mind. He is reasoning on the basis that Jesus is the ultimate MEDIATOR ;
PRIEST and KING, who rules for God and intercedes for man.

For more on this line of thought , I would direct you to read George Buchanan's commentary on Hebrews
printed as part of the Anchor Bible Commentary Series.

page 21 " For the author , the Son was the first-born, the Apostle of God, the reflection of God's Glory, and the Stamp of his Nature ( 1:3,6), BUT HE WAS NOT GOD HIMSELF."

Also, it is now known that these human mediators like Melchezidek and Moses were thought of in Second Temple Judaism as Angelic Mediator Figures. So the implication of Pauls reasoning is that he is equating Jesus as the ultimate Angelic Mediator Figure. A man who is gloryfied and exalted to a heavenly angelic mediatorial role.

Just a few thoughts to ponder on.

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,

I was taking you at your word that you " sincerely wanted to understand my position".

But as your next post showed you were all the time trying to trap me into saying something you could attack.

At least be honest about it. Don't say something like Sincerely if you don't really mean it.

As far as the texts you have posted in response; I don't need to comment on them further.

I have clearly pointed out what I believe, with reasoning and referrences. If you still want to TWIST what I have stated , then be my guest. If you want to catch me out on a point , then just be UPFRONT about it.

I post here so as to try and LEARN and to try and EDUCATE. I'm not here to play games.

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,

O.K. I'll try again and hopefully I can make clear to you my position.

Although you have asked specific questions and used specific phrases ; I will nonetheless answer in my own terminology; because from the questions you have phrased it is clear you have not understood me and are putting words in my mouth that I have not spoken.

With regard to nature, you mention 3 definitions. I see there being only "2" natures i.e. Divine Nature and Human Nature.

In this thread we all seem to be hung up on this question of ANGELS. This is how I see it.

What we generally refer to as Angels , are indeed divine spirit beings. However the term Angel really just means Messenger.

So Angel can simply be viewed as a Functionary title referring to the task that a messenger carries out.
Thus a human can be an Angel in the sense of being a messenger.

Therefore when talking of the divine messengers in the heavenly realms, I prefer to speak of them as "Bene ha Elohim" as this hebrew term tells us specifically what their NATURE is i.e. Sons of God or Beings of the class of Elohim.

This term then differentiates Divine Angels from any earthly Human 'angels'.

You asked me do I think Jesus was exalted to become an Angel ? Well I would say NO.

He was an 'Angel' whilst he walked this earth as a Man. Angel in the sense that he was a Messenger !

During his earthly life, I believe he was born a perfect sinless Human. I do not believe that he was a combination of Divine nature and Human nature. I don't think the scriptures say that.

As far as I read the scriptures they say he was Flesh - a Man. Not a spirit being having assumed a fleshly veneer .
I believe he was a perfect Man in exactly the sense that Adam had been created.

However, by means of his Resurrection from the dead, the Father raised him in the spirit to life as a Divine spirit being.

So whilst certain scriptures written after his death and resurrection refer to him as' The Man' Jesus this is to be understood as referrence to what he 'was'. So that whilst we understand him to be now at the Father's right hand in heaven, he is there as a Spirit being - a divine being.

In a similar, but still different way , when certain Bene Ha Elohim appeared as theophanies on earth , the bible accounts speak of them as Men or a Man. It is not saying they were literally men - it is figures of speech.

A last thought on Hebrews chapter 1.

The chapter contrasts, the 'means' by which God has spoken to mankind. The point though is that both the Angels and the Son spoken of and contrasted here are contrasted as Spokesmen.

I think the point is not a question of Nature per se but of Superiority and Rank and Importance.

Both parties are Sons of God ( by nature). Both parties are Angels ( by function) but the Son is Superior in Rank / Importance by virtue of him being the FIRSTBORN and his BEGETTAL by the Father.

I hope I have covered all the pertinant points and that my position on the matter is clearer to you.

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,

No we cannot agree on that point for the following reasons:

1) I have already stated my position in my post that you are replying to. I have tried to spell out clearly what I
am saying but still you don't seem to grasp it. I do not mean to be cheeky but I find that you don't really
seem to read my posts properly as evidenced by you asking me questions on subjects I have already
made my position clear.

2) As LittleToe has interjected, you appear to be willing to agree to a position that undermines what the
Trinity teaches about Jesus.

3) You also appear to be agreeing to a position that you have elsewhere denied. Namely, in another thread
you argued that Jesus in Heaven is now BOTH God and Man ; not simply a Man. ( In fact you have
elsewhere stated that Jesus on Earth was a God/Man, thus you don't believe at all that Jesus is simply a
Man )

So , as I have stated before, in reading your posts I have come to the conclusion that You don't even know
what you actually believe. Your reasoning does not appear to be consistant.

Regards

Dean.