Posts by herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

Richie,

Where did you cut and paste your last post from? It is typical Trinitarian vagueness. You completely ignored the Jewish usage of God pertaining to the kings of their nation. Such rejection of the Scriptures will never lead to truth.

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

Richie,

Mighty God is an expression solely reserved for the only true God, the Supreme Being. When you study the original language, it is exactly as indicated where this title "Mighty God' belongs to Almighty God!

Your statement is quite pompous, ending as it does with an exclamation point. If you really are a student of the original language, as you seem to suggest by your statement, you know very well that "almighty" and "mighty" are not related words in the Hebrew language, even though they appear to be in English. The word "mighty" has to do with strength, power, and ability to prevail. The word normally translated as "almighty," which comes from a different Hebrew word, shadday, has to do with self-sufficiency or the "all-providing" character of God. It may also have reference to his "invincible" nature. Hebrew scholars are not in total agreement with the exact meaning of this word.

The Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament defines "Mighty God" as "divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty." It is precisely that same Messianic sense which allows the psalmist to address the king of Israel as "God," without inviting us to think that there are now two members of the Judeo-Christian God. The quotation of Psalm 45:6 in Hebrews 1:8 brings that same Messianic use of the word "God" into the New Testament. We should not misunderstand this very Jewish use of titles. It is a serious mistake to think that the Messiah has now stepped into the space reserved for the One God, the Father. However exalted the position of Jesus and despite his function as God's special representative, the strict unipersonal monotheism of Israel's faith is never compromised by any New Testament writer.

Regarding the Messiah's title "Mighty God," the NIV Study Bible footnote states: "His divine power as a warrior is stressed." There is no hint of the title belonging only to Almighty God, as you assume.

If you examine Isaiah 9 and 10 closely, you will note a distinction between Almighty God and Mighty God. They are not necessarily the same persons. Isaiah 9 concerns the origin of the Messiah. He starts as a child and goes through stages of development. He is not born as a government administrator: "The government will be on his shoulder." He is not born "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Those are titles "he will be called." (Verse 6) He will be a man. "He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom." Will he accomplish all this by his own power and authority? The answer is: "The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this." (Verse 7)

There are two ways of looking at the term "Mighty God" in Isaiah 10. (1) The fulfillment of verses 20-23 occurs long before the Messiah is born. At that time, the title is borne by God the Father. (2) According to Jewish understanding, Isaiah 9:6 had a fulfillment in King Hezekiah. Isaiah 10:21 also has its fulfillment in him. Isaiah 10 speaks of both "the LORD God Almighty" and "the mighty God" within a few verses of each other. See verses 21, 23 and 24. In the fulfillment, a faithful remnant led by Hezekiah survived the Assyrian invasion of 701 B.C., and later a remnant returned from Babylonian exile. Any return to the Almighty at that time required a return to Hezekiah, God's appointed leader of the people. That is a perfectly logical explanation of Isaiah 10:20, 21: "In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God [Hezekiah]."

If you can't acknowledge that men like Moses, David, and Hezekiah were rightly viewed as "God" by the Jews, your disagreement is with Almighty God and with the men he inspired to write the Old Testament.

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

Kenneson,

It seems to me that you pick and choose when the word God is used in an absolute sense. Somehow it's only limited when Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God" but not so when Jesus uses the title in John 20:17.

Your thinking baffles me. Thomas addressed Jesus as "my God" and Jesus spoke of his Father as "my God and your God." Just as Jesus was greater in relationship to Thomas, the Father is greater in relationship to Jesus. Put another way, "Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

The Bible clearly teaches that others of God's agents besides Christ were called "God." The real "picking and choosing" goes on when Trinitarians claim "God" means Almighty God with respect to Christ but not Almighty God with reference to angels, Moses, David, the judges of Israel and others.

Trinitarians also pick and choose by claiming that "God" in the New Testament sometimes means only the Father or only Christ but at other times means all three members of the Trinity.

herk

287

All About The Trinity

by UnDisfellowshipped in

when jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.

the one god is eternal (has always existed and always will), immortal (his divine nature cannot die), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (he is everywhere at the same time), god is the only one who can read human hearts and minds, god cannot sin and cannot lie, god does not change his morals or his nature.

the trinity is not one person revealed three different ways (this is what "oneness pentecostals" believe).

herk

Mrs Ozzie,

Thank you for such a well thought out and researched post.

If you will think carefully and scripturally, you will discover that Undisfellowshipped has not thought out his subject and has merely repeated the thinking of others. He has gone from one cult (JWs) into another (Trinitarianism).

It's great to have all those wonderful scriptures printed out.

The Scriptures teach the truth. However, Undisfellowshipped has inserted the Trinitarian interpretation of the texts he posted. Additionally, he uses many terms, phrases and speculations that are not found in the Bible:

Trinity
Three-in-Unity
The Son and The Spirit willingly submit to The Father's last word, although all Three definitely are involved in the decision-making process.
All Three are Equal in their Nature, Essence, Attributes, Powers, and Qualities.
A husband has a higher position of authority over the wife, but both share the same nature (human beings), and they are both equal in their nature as human beings. [Herk's comment: However, a husband and wife are separate beings, not one being as the three persons in the Trinity are said to be. Thus the husband-wife illustration is totally inappropriate.]
Several modern Translations change this Scripture around, and instead of saying "God was manifested", they say either "who was manifested" or He who was manifested". [Herk's comment: UnDisfellowshipped thus shows his preference for a Bible translation that is out of step with the latest understanding of biblical languages.]
Jesus then "emptied Himself" of the external appearance of God and added His Human Nature to His Divine Nature.
If Jesus is not Almighty God, then that means Thomas was a polytheist and a blasphemer [and Jesus would be too because Jesus did not correct Thomas, in fact, Jesus commended Thomas!]. [Herk's comment: This shows rejection by UnDisfellowshipped of the Bible's teaching that angels, Moses, David, the judges of Israel and others were called God due to their position as God's special representatives.]
Jesus Christ declared that He was God. [Herk's comment: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Not once did he ever claim to be God. He clearly stated that the Father is "the only true God."]

Now is the time to be free enough to think for ourselves, letting the Holy Spirit help us to "see" with unveiled eyes what is really the "truth".

No one who actually believes in the Trinity is thinking for himself or herself. It took hundreds of years following the completion of the Bible for men to "discover" what was never taught by Jesus, the apostles or any other servant of God in the Bible. After years of disputing, the doctrine was invented and fabricated by men who had gone astray from the Scriptures. There is not a single chapter, paragraph or even a verse that says God is three persons. To argue against inspired statements that clearly say God is "One" and to twist that into "Three" is not letting the Holy Spirit do the teaching. It is the mere following of men who had allowed themselves to be duped by pagan Grecian philosophy.

Many of us have taught others for years the "truth about the Trinity". We were so sure we had all the answers.

And that is exactly the same frame of mind that Trinitarians display. Just like JWs, they don't know how to think for themselves. All they can do is repeat what they find in books and articles written by other Trinitarians. Both claim to be guided only by the Bible, but they search the Bible for texts that support their pre-conceived notions rather than let the Bible speak for iteself.

Now here we are YEARS later having to completely re-think. It is terribly difficult, but SO WORTHWHILE. Things start fitting into place and the jigsaw puzzle starts to come together, It is possible to do but it does take time and effort.

It did not take years for the apostles to discover who Jesus was. When he asked them who he was, Peter did not say "You are God." Instead, he replied, "You are the Messiah (Anointed One), the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:16)

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

Kenneson,

You state that God "was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today." Then, what say ye of John 20:17?

Your question is unclear. John 20:17 states: "Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, "I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

"My God and your God" refers to God the Father. However, as I stated above, God "was not limited to its absolute sense" as we use it today. Please explain what you're asking about.

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

Richie,

Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us... And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father..."). Jehovah God is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only ONE God? Jesus is also called the ?Eternal Father? in Isa 9:6. Since only God is eternal, that is, has no beginning and no end, how can this be if Christ is not God but was ?created? by God? If ?Mighty God? and ?Eternal Father? are only titles given to Christ, why would he be given any ?title? in scripture that did not accurately apply to him?

The Trinity doctrine teaches that God the Father is one person and that God the Son is another person. You have combined both into one person by claiming that Jesus is the "Eternal Father" in the Trinity sense. Either he is the Son or he is the Father. He cannot be both.

If you will dismiss the Trinity from your mind and accept what the Bible simply says, there is no such contradiction. There is only one Almighty God. He is the Father and God of Jesus Christ. He is our God and Father. Jesus is not the Almighty God. He is called "Mighty God." There is a difference. Moses was called God. David and other kings of Israel were called God. The judges of Israel were called God. Like Jesus, none of them were Almighty God. They were called "God" because they spoke for God and acted on his behalf. Thus the Scriptures give us the two definitions of "God" in this context. One definition applies only to Almighty God the Father. He alone is "the only true God." (John 17:3) But he calls others "God" because they speak and act for him as his agents and representatives.

As for the expression "Eternal Father," the title was understood by the Jews to mean "the father of the coming (Messianic) age." The Greek Septuagint word for "eternal" in this case contains the concept "related to the future age," not to all eternity past and future. Jesus as Messiah will be the parent of the coming age of the kingdom of God on earth until "all things are subjected to him. Then the Son himself will be subjected to the one [God, the Father] who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28) In the Jewish community, a human leader can be called father. Isaiah 22:21 states of a leader in Israel: "I will entrust him with your authority. And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem."

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

hooberus,

What about the Watchtowers claim that the Son of God is an angel?

While I agree that the Watchtower is in error about Jesus being the archangel Michael, what about the Catholic and Protestant claim that the Son of God is "the angel of the Lord"?

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

hooberus,

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." Hebrews 1:10-12

Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quote from Psalm 102:25-27. The Psalm does not refer to the literal heavens and earth since these will not perish.

Numbers 14:21 - But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.
1 Chronicles 16:30 - Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalms 93:1 - The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalms 104:5 - Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Isaiah 11:9 - They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 45:18 - For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Habakkuk 2:14 - For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

The "heavens and earth" are used figuratively elsewhere:

Psalms 66:4 - All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee.
Psalms 96:1 - O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth.
M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Vol. IV, p. 122 - In Isa. lxv, 17, a new heaven and a new earth signify a new government, new kingdom, new people.

Psalm 102 is Messianic. It was written for the "generation to come: and the people which shall be created." (Verse 18, and compare verses 13-16.) The Messiah makes men and women for his kingdom. In the New Testament, "create" is frequently used in reference to this regenerative work of the Lord:

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Galatians 6:15 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Ephesians 2:10, 15 - For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make [create] in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.
Ephesians 4:23, 24 - And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
James 1:18 - Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

The heavens and earth which were to pass away, rolled up like a garment, are the Mosaic "heavens and earth." This is indicated by the following:

The writer to the Hebrews elsewhere in his epistle alludes to the language of Psalm 102:26 in describing the termination of the Mosaic order: "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13)

The people "that shall be created" refers to those in the new covenant. (Psalms 102:18) It was prophesied of Christ: "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first [old covenant], that he may establish the second. By the which will we [believers] are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:9) Again, the context indicates the termination of the Mosaic order.
The argument in Hebrews 1 is that the Son has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than the angels. (Hebrews 1:4) The reference to the Mosaic "heavens and earth" is an effective argument since angels administered the constitution. (Acts 7:38, 53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) This was the constitution to be folded up as a garment by the Son--therefore the Son must have a more excellent name than the angels.

Hebrews 1:10 might appear to ascribe the Genesis creation to Jesus, but in fact it does not do so. The writer expressly says that he is writing about "the world to come." (Hebrews 2:5; 6:5)

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

hooberus,

What does God say about the Son in the book of Hebrews? : "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Hebrews 1:8-9

Hebrews 1:8, 9, is a quote from Psalm 45:6, 7. That Psalm was addressed to the king of Israel sitting upon the Davidic throne. The word "God" as applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8, 9, meant the same as the way it applied to David in Psalm 45:6, 7. The writer of Hebrews was not using the word to suggest that Jesus is Almighty God any more than the psalmist was hinting that David was Almighty God. "God" in both texts was used as a royal title applicable to special representatives of the true God. Since they spoke for him and acted in place of him, their words were to be accepted as if God himself had spoken through them. The Hebrew word is elohim, a word that applied to Moses and others, as well as to David and Jesus. (Exodus 7:1; 22:9, 28; Psalms 82:6)

Though addressed as "God," the king on David's throne is said to have a God who "hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." David's "fellows" were his countrymen who were also blessed by God but not as greatly. Jesus' "fellows" are sanctified human disciples he is not ashamed to call "brethren". (Hebrews 2:11)

herk

92

Does Jesus being the "Son of God" mean that he is not God by nature ?

by hooberus in

in bible times the phrase "the son of god" was understood as a claim to the nature of god, not a claim to be a lesser being:.

" john 19:7. .

ron rhodes commments:.

herk

hooberus,

If the above is correct, and the phrase "the Son of God" also meant that Jesus was by nature God, then we would expect that He would be called both "God" and "Son of God" in the scriptures: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." John 20:28

We ought not to force John's Gospel to conform to historically later speculation by Greek theologians. Rather than looking at Thomas' expression through a Trinitarian prism, it would be far better to see his words "Lord" and "God" as simply Messianic titles from the Old Testament. The previously skeptic apostle did not suddenly adopt the Nicene or the Athanasian Creed and see his Lord as "very God of very God." Instead, he recognized in the risen Jesus the one appointed to be ho theos ["the God"] of the coming age, replacing Satan, the ho theos ["the God" - 2 Corinthians 4:4] of the present age.

In John 10:34, Jesus himself referred to men as "gods" because they served as representives of the one true God. On no occasion did Jesus refer to himself as God in the absolute sense. Thomas could call Jesus "my God" because the early Christians used the word with a broader meaning than is customary today. "God" was a descriptive title that applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman emperor. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

(Keep in mind that when Trinitarians claim the Jesus is God, they are not saying that Jesus is the person of the Father, but that Jesus is God by nature along with the Father).

Within the realm of human "nature" there are billions of persons who exist as billions of individual beings. But within the Trinitarian idea of God "nature" are three persons who exist as one being. The inconsistency of Trinitarian definitions should be obvious. They give the term "nature" one meaning when applying it to humans and another meaning when applied to God. A human father and a human son are not two persons existing as one human being. Yet, Trinitarians insist that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three persons who exist as one being.

herk