Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
What Would Jesus Buy?
On Friday, America will awake from its bloated slumber and consume something besides turkey. We will consume Christmas. The consumerism of Christmas is less about missing the point of the Nativity and the Incarnation and more about just being greedy and needy. What Would Jesus Buy? is a documentary about the Church of Stop Shopping, a sort of performance art group that travelled across the country last year and showed up at places like the Mall of America, singing songs (that sounded suspiciously like Christmas songs) about why we shop too much.
Like all good documentaries, [What Would Jesus Buy?] starts with an intriguing phenomenon and presents it with verve. Before I saw it, I was worried that the troupe might exploit Jesus for comic purposes, for example by offering mock prayers. That worry turned out to be groundless. The Church employs the choir-and-preacher format to comic effect, but nimbly avoids religious belief itself.
I’m glad that the zeitgeist is beginning to care about the consumerism of Christmas. If we keep this up, we might actually become less consumerist in the other eleven months of the year, too.
back to top56 Comments to “What Would Jesus Buy?”
Well, I have pretty much opted out of the whole “gift buying” at Christmas thing. I’m not a scrooge and I do enjoy the more peaceful elements of the holiday. I avoid the mall and big stores like the plague between now and Dec. 31st.
Most of our celebrating is around going out for a nice meal and enjoying each others company these days. We all draw one name with a $20 limit.
Christmas Day is actually a fairly quiet day for us now. We like it much better.
As I said in another blog, I almost wish Christians would rescue the holiday from the retailers and the commercialization it has become.
Report comment to moderator
He already made His purchase.
Report comment to moderator
I am a Christian, but I don’t believe other Christians any more when they complain about the commercialization of the Christmas season. When I tell friends who engage in such complaining that I don’t buy Christmas presents, and haven’t for years, they react as if I am the worst type of selfish ogre. Many who complain about the way people are cheapening Christmas are really complaining about how OTHER people are cheapening Christmas.
I don’t feel any irritation towards people who celebrate by purchasing, but the season is so much more peaceful to me since I opted out of the system.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an interesting idea for Friday:
Report comment to moderator
That’s a great idea! Nice find, Derek.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe Jesus would buy anything, after all the time we call Christmas, is in celebration of His Birth, so in essence it would be Him we would/should be giving. LOTS to think about when you look at it this way.
We give to one another at Christmas time. We don’t give gifts to others except our immediate family, and that does not include siblings.
We decorate our home, which was started last Saturday, its beautiful.
We don’t shop the day after Thanksgiving, what a zoo -
Report comment to moderator
He’d buy a hybrid, organic fair trade clothes, and would probably be a vegan. He’d be a long haired hippy.
Report comment to moderator
Aww, DCL, that’s adorable. You think Jesus looks just like you, when in fact He looked like none of us.
I think it’s good to poke fun at the commericalism; Americans have demonstrated that the best way to deal with our problems is to mock them.
Report comment to moderator
I think he’d be partial to getting his-self a new pair of shoes for his tired, dirty dogs. For a heavy mileage walker like him, he’d be absolutely floored by the Nikes, Tevas, Birkenstocks, and Merrells that are available in the shoe department today. I think he might opt for a pair of Crocs. Comfortable, airy, waterproof, easy to clean. Functional and practical, yet far from fashionable.
And I know he’d have some great comeback line for anyone who made fun of his new “Jesus sandals”. He always had great comebacks.
Report comment to moderator
I think Jesus would buy one of those 1960’s silver Christmas trees with a color wheel
Report comment to moderator
Christ would have nothing to do with the modern celebration of the Christmas holiday, Anlir. If you knew Him you would know that. We’re praying you someday will meet someone in real life who will help you find the Truth.
Report comment to moderator
Here is what Jesus (i.e. God) said about the pagan holiday of Saturnalia which we now call Christmas:
For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Don’t get me wrong. We celebrate this pagan fest, but we try to keep it as Christ focused as possible. Thank heavens for online purchasing!
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Yes, Christmas does have its origins in the Roman feast of Saturnalia but then most of what passes for Christianity had its origins in Roman and Hellenistic religion.
For instance, you said “…Jesus (i.e. God)…”
The New Testament does not teach that Jesus was God, or any part thereof. On the contrary, it teaches that Jesus was not equal to God in any way except as it pleased God to make him so. It teaches that he was one of us, human in every way, born of normal parents in a perfectly normal fashion.
The post-apostolic creeds were formulated by men whose minds were set in the key of a different structure, whose prevailing religions were those of Hellenism and Latinism. The creeds have nothing whatever to do with the Hebrew Jesus of Nazareth, or his followers, or those who wrote the New Testament.
We can truly celebrate the life of Jesus only by “testing all things” and “holding fast to that which is good.”
Report comment to moderator
You think Jesus looks just like you, when in fact He looked like none of us. — RobHays
Could you please give us a description?
Report comment to moderator
It teaches that he was one of us, human in every way, born of normal parents in a perfectly normal fashion.
Holy cow, #13, what kind of a Bible have you been studying?? The New Testament clearly states, over and over again, that Jesus Christ was not “one of us, human in every way,” but rather that He was “made a little lower than the angels” so that he could be the sacrifice sufficient for our sins.
Ever read John 1? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God . . . and the World became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten son of God . . .”
Report comment to moderator
Actually, RobHays, I think he probably looked Jewish. I never understood all these pictures of him that some Christians have, you know the ones where he looks like Daniel Day-Lewis? It’s laughable.
And you know, I may be wrong about the hybrid. He probably wouldn’t buy a hybrid. He’d live a car-free life, definitely carbon neutral.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve heard from Vynette before, Outkast, but it’s been a while. Same kind of comment, IIRC.
All her pretensions are blown away by John 20:28-29, however, and of course the prologue as you’ve cited.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette, you state:……“The New Testament does not teach that Jesus was God, or any part thereof.”
Vynette, the New Testament does teach that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. You must have missed these passages.
Report comment to moderator
To all those who have responded to my comment #13, I am more than willing to expound on each and every one of your proof texts…if you so wish.
RR, you said “All her pretensions are blown away by John 20:28-29, however, and of course the prologue as you’ve cited.”
I rather think it was the pretentiousness of the church fathers who created the “Jesus Christ” of doctrine in their own image, according to their values and their delusions of grandeur.
But, to address your first response – In John Chapter 20, Jesus draws a previous and definite distinction between himself and God: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” (verse 17) Verse 28 must be viewed with this already stated distinction in mind: “Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” Thomas is here addressing the two separate entities of verse 17 – both Jesus as Lord and the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
To lift verses out of context destroys the New Testament’s carefully crafted arguments that Jesus was an ordinary man, a man chosen from among the people, and ‘anointed’ with plenipotentiary powers to speak and act in the name of YHVH. As such, the New Testament accords him all the honour and glory due to one in his exalted position.
I could address John’s Prologue, and every other proof text quoted, but that would probably need the blessing of this thread’s moderator.
Do I have that blessing, and do commentors wish to engage?
Report comment to moderator
Vynette
What organization or church are you affiliated with? I am affiliated with an Evangelical Church.
Do you believe the Bible to be the inerrant inspired Word of God? I believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette hasn’t yet responded to my post, Victoria, so I seriously doubt she’ll have the ability to respond to yours. We’ll see.
I’ve run into Unitarians before, and they cannot defend their stand biblically without doing some serious linguistic gymnastics (as Vynette did above re: John 20:17).
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t sure of the Church affiliation, however Unitarians are famous for this, I agree.
Thanks for the ‘heads up’ many times people don’t or won’t give Church affiliation.
Report comment to moderator
re 19: Jn 20:17. Rather, Jesus is drawing a distinction between his own relationship with the Father, and theirs. He could call God “my God” without doing violence to his own nature.
John 20:28 above interpretation of v17 notwithstanding, the plain sense of the text is that Thomas has Jesus in view as the object of his description, not the Father. Verse 29 would be Jesus’ perfect opportunity to rebuke such a blasphemous idea (if indeed it were blasphemous) but he instead blesses him.
Vynette, are you a Jehovah’s Witness, by any chance? Some of your arguments are similar to those I’ve heard from them. If not, I mean no offense, just curious.
Report comment to moderator
There’s actually a Pentecostal church here in Dubuque that takes a Unitarian view of God. It’s pretty scary how apostasy is creeping into churches that traditionally have been theologically sound.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, is the church you refer to a “oneness” church? I think those churches teach that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really the same, one person – a form of modalism.
The comments above sound JW-ish to me (altho I’ve been wrong once or twice before): only the Father is truly God; Jesus is the “firstborn of the creation” in the sense that he is God’s first creation, accorded a place of honor but not a partaker of the divine majesty. The Spirit is impersonal force in this scheme, I think.
I would like to hear Vynette’s views on how humans (created in God’s image, but separated from His blessing due to sin) may be made right with Him. If Jesus is not who He says He is, we who have believed in Him are to be pitied above all men. But if He is indeed who He says He is, I would not want to be among those who deny the glory due His name.
Report comment to moderator
We have witnessed apostasy and “falling away” here too. It’s hard to watch as you have stated “It’s pretty scary how apostasy is creeping into churches that traditionally have been theologically sound.”
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2 Thessalonians 2:3
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the length of this post, but so many issues have been raised…
Let me state that I am affiliated with no church at all. As far as I know, all the sects and denominations of Christianity are united in their proclamations that Jesus is ‘divine’ a claim I most vigorously deny as being unscriptural.
Victoria, I use the term ‘Scripture’ to refer to the 66 books comprising the Old and New Testament canon found in Protestant bibles.
I ascribe to the ‘inspired’ view for the writings in the original languages and also for canonical selection. I ascribe to the view that the ideas expressed in the following passage also apply to the New Testament even though it is the Old Testament scriptures to which the author refers:
“From infancy, you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:15-17).
I ascribe to the view that there is no necessity to depart from scripture for teaching. I interpret Scripture by the yardstick of Scripture, not by the teachings or traditions of the churches. Where similar texts occur, the meaning in one case determines the meaning in the other. No scripture is of private (or special) interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). Only by this method of interpretation can a perfect and just weighing of the evidence be assured.(Deut. 25:15)
I do not, however, ascribe to the ‘inerrancy’ of words but rather to the ‘inerrancy’ of the fundamental values and principles underlying the words. Words can be twisted and made to serve many purposes; values and principles cannot.
All statements I make are open to be measured by the yardstick of scripture. This principle automatically applies to the teachings of the ecclesia which I measure in like manner.
RR, you said: “If Jesus is not who He says He is, we who have believed in Him are to be pitied above all men…”
My point is that Jesus never claimed to be divine: such a concept would have been totally foreign to him, to his disciples, and the writers of the New Testament – the most monstrous idolatry in fact. When the Hebrew scriptures fell into Greek and Latin hands, the men who devised the divinity doctrines had absolutely no knowledge of the Hebrew God or the expectations of the Hebrew people regarding their ‘Messiah.’ Your belief is grounded in an invention of the post-apostolic fathers.
I do not say these things lightly – I realise that most Christians sincerely believe what they have been taught. But if we are to be followers of Jesus we must take heed of his words to Pilate – he said he was “born to bear witness to truth.” Can we do any less?
Victoria’s reference to “falling away” happened shortly after the apostolic age. The doctrines of the Greek and Latin fathers represent this “falling away.”
Now, if you wish me to go on, we can talk about how man is made right with God, or the Virgin Birth or John’s prologue…or something else.
Each of these topics requires a very lengthy and detailed response. For instance, I would begin my analysis of the prologue with the following overview of John’s gospel:
John gives the spiritual presentation of Jesus that the other gospels lack and, unfortunately, it is from a banal interpretation of these spiritual words that the incarnation and pre-existence doctrines draw their support.
One major reason for the universal misunderstanding of certain statements in John’s gospel is a failure to discern the framework within which the work is set. Another is the practice of proof-texting to support various points of doctrine.
The work was written after the resurrection. Being removed from the misjudgements of the moment, it represent a clear, analytical appraisal of Jesus’ life and work viewed in relationship to its impact upon accepted thought and contemporary values.
The author speaks of others besides Jesus as being “sent” by God and being “begotten” of God (1:6,12).
The yardstick for determining if a man is sent from God is whether he does, or does not, speak the words of God (3:34).
In the case of those “begotten” of God, it is obvious that the author is speaking in spiritual strain as they were procreated by normal means. 1 John 4:7 makes it clear that the “begotten of God” are those who love the brethren.
Being written after the resurrection, there is no anomaly in John’s reference to Jesus as the “only-begotten” son of God. The day of Jesus’ resurrection was the day he became the “only-begotten” (Acts 13:33).
The author, along with four disciples, at least at one stage, had believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, thus of human parentage (1:45). He did not find this thought incompatible with the Baptist’s PREVIOUS identification of Jesus as “the son of God” (1:34), nor with the SUBSEQUENT similar identification by Nathaniel (1:49).
“Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph…Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.”
When the Baptist spoke of Jesus as being “before” him, he was not referring to time but to status.
If the author of John is also the author of 1 John,* he could not possibly be testifying that Jesus is actually YHVH because he states: “No man has seen God at any time; The only-begotten son, he has declared him.”
With this framework in mind, we may now examine the opening words of John’s gospel…
Report comment to moderator
Words can be twisted and made to serve many purposes
Such as you have been doing on this thread, Vynette?
For example, in the last Scripture you quoted above, “no man” refers to “no human,” which does not include the Son (you forgot to capitalize that!) of God, “who has declared Him.”
Report comment to moderator
I have NEVER read a more confused, tangled statement which makes no sense.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette, your doctrine aligns closely with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Ever study with them?
What you are tripping over is the difficulty of the Trinity, one in essence, yet three persons. None of us would claim to fully understand that (except you perhaps), yet the Bible clearly speaks of both. Jesus is both separate from the Father, being the Son, yet also one in essence with him.
There are a multitude of proof texts that state clearly Jesus was God, but there are many more where Jesus indirectly behaves like God. He accepts worship, he forgives sins. It is clear to those around him, that this would be blasphemy if he were not God. He was murdered for blasphemy. If his claim to be God did not come about until hundreds of years later, then why did they murder him for claiming to be God?
If you do not believe Jesus was God, what do you believe about him? Did he blaspheme? If he claims to be God and yet is not, then he was not good. That would make him a liar and a deceiver and you an unbeliever. Is that what you think of him?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you said ” I have NEVER read a more confused, tangled statement which makes no sense.”
Of course it seems confusing to those who have been reared in the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Can you be more specific? Let us deal with the issues one by one.
Xion, you say of the Trinity that “None of us would claim to fully understand that (except you perhaps), yet the Bible clearly speaks of both.”
The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in scripture: it is merely an attempt to maintain the ‘divinity’ of Jesus yet reconcile all those parts of scripture that say otherwise. God is not a God of confusion.
You also said: “Did he blaspheme? If he claims to be God and yet is not, then he was not good.”
Jesus did not claim to be God. In fact, he castigated the Jews for presuming that he was claiming to be God. And, no, Jesus is certainly not a blasphemer, a liar, or a deceiver. He is God’s instrument of intervention in the affairs of humanity.
John 19:7 gives the precise reason for the charge of blasphemy –
“The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
In John 10:34-36, the issue is clarified. The trumped-up charge of blasphemy was brought about by his accusers’ ignorance of their own scriptures. Jesus criticised them for thinking he was claiming to be YHVH and quoted Psalm 82:6 to prove his point:
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, say he of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
There can be no greater authority to turn to than Jesus himself! Because of the greatness of YHVH, those to whom the his word came were themselves ‘gods’ or ‘exalted ones.’
On Jesus’ testimony there were a number of ‘gods’ among whom were: Jeremiah (Jer.1:9), Ezekiel (Ez. 2:7), Shemaiah, Elijah, and Moses (1 Kings 12:22, 17:24, 8:53). This differed from the pagan concept in that the men themselves had no claim to divinity.
As for Jesus accepting ‘worship,’ the Greek word usually translated as ‘worship’ in the New Testament denoted an act of reverence whether paid to a creature or the Creator. So when the disciples ‘worshipped’ Jesus, or when John ‘worshipped’ the angel (Rev 19:10), it was not an indication that either were regarded as other than creatures.
KUNEW means “to kiss,” and reflects the Eastern custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet. The use of PROSKUNEW in the LXX shows that this term was frequently used to describe varying degrees of homage including ‘worship’. In view of its application in the LXX, to use the word PROSKUNEW as proof of ‘worship’ is not possible because its semantic range encompasses much more than ‘worship’. The New Testament authors used the word in varying degrees, in different contexts, for humans as well as God.
I have already stated somewhere on this thread that I have no connection with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I have also stated that Jesus was anointed with plenipotentiary powers by YHVH including the authority to forgive sins. Just as he was delegated the authority by God, Jesus, in turn, delegated the authority to forgive sins to the apostles. If the authority to forgive sins is a reason to claim ‘divinity’ for Jesus, then the apostles also possessed a similar claim.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette,
You say you are not a Jehovah’s Witness, yet that is one of the tactics of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to claim that they are not Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Regardless, your doctrine lines up 100% with JW heresy. I am very familiar with the JW Sunday School material that you are quoting here. Your use of YHWH, your well worn twisting of Greek hermeneutics that is easily refuted with an average lexicon, your heavy use of scripture references which on cursory examination don’t support your thesis. None of the verses you site say anything about the prophets being gods.
You say Jesus did not claim to be God. Of course, he did many times. During Christ’s trial, the chief priests asked Him point blank, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” And He said,
– “I am.” (Mark 14:60-62)
– “Yes, it is as you say.” (Matt. 26: 63-65)
– “You are right in saying I am.” (Luke 22:67-70)
If he actually was God, then he did not blaspheme, in which case you would be correct — the charges were trumped up. But if he was not God, then he would be considered a liar.
How can anyone but God forgive sins? If someone sins against you, can I forgive them in your place? Of course not! Everyone can only forgive sins against themselves. Jesus was able to forgive sins only because he was God.
As for your Greek interpretation of proskuneo, it is made moot by Thomas who falls down and worships and says, “My Lord and my God!” Thomas worshiped him and Jesus did not refuse it.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette
No Vynette, lets deal with your presumptuous attitude first.
Yynette, you know nothing about me, how I was reared, and it is presumptuous of you to even guess, what doctrine I was taught. It’s obvious that you do a lot of ‘guess work’ -
You say God is not a God of confusion and I agree with you, so why are you confused about the Deity of Christ?
The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in the Deity of Christ and many of those who are part of the ‘Sacred Name Movement’ don’t either, and a host of others. One thing I know after interviewing, study and research, most of those involved in many of these groups no longer admit the group or organization they are involved which, they did in the past. In fact, they feel it their right to abstain from a direct question as to involvement, change the subject and ‘try to move on’ – This answer to what group/denomination they belong to is a common occurrence to those of us who research false religions and cults. I have been doing research for some time, and it never changes, in fact, its much more the norm, than a straight answer.
Jesus was truly God the Son/Deity, to say otherwise would not put Jesus in a place to die for our sins.Christ couldn’t save anyone if HE wasn’t Deity, its obvious. Only God can forgive sins. Since God is triune, we understand that His Son being made lower than the angels, coming to earth to die for our sins would be part of the triune God….God manifested in the flesh.
I, even I, am the LORD, and BESIDE ME THERE IS NO SAVIOUR.
Isaiah 43:11 – Old Testament
21 – Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 – Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23 – I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Isaiah 45:21-23
And my spirit hath rejoiced in GOD MY SAVIOUR. Luke 1:47
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11
Vynette, as we study we see that in Isaiah 43 – the LORD says “beside me there is no Savior” then we see in Isaiah 45 that God says “there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me, then in verse 22 “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.”
Christ is born, and He is the Savior.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a SAVIOUR WHICH IS CHRIST THE LORD. Luke 2:11
The New Testament confirms Christ as Savior, which means he is God manifest in the flesh, ….. Savior of the world.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I posted. Now I read your post. Yes, I agree.
Have a blessed Thanksgiving, may your time spent with family be warm and fruitful.
We will be spending our Thanksgiving with family, its a rich time of memories, and thankfulness of our being family, remembering those who have gone on to be with the LORD. Talking about our childhoods spent together, spilt gravy at the table. Laughing till our sides would split. Tears now that many are gone whom we loved, but will see again.
It’s almost 11:30 PM here, time to get ready for our big day.
God bless you and your family,
Victoria
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, when I used the word ‘reared’ it was not in the sense of growing up to adulthood but in the sense of building a foundation. It is obvious to all readers of this thread that the foundation stones of your beliefs are the major doctrines of orthodox Christianity – the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and so on.
I have now twice stated that I have NO affiliation to any sect, group, organisation, denomination, etcetera, etcetera.
Xion, you have now called me a liar.
If you have studied the Jehovah’s Witnesses as you say then you must certainly be aware that they hold to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth whereas I most definitely do not!
But that is not really the point. You and Victoria have both resorted to ‘ad-hominen’ arguments and set up a straw-man in order to deflect attention from my statements, all of which are open to be subjected to the test of scripture – the full test of scripture, not just proof texts lifted out of context without regard to their Hebrew origins or their Hebrew modes of thinking and expression.
On the subject of forgiveness of sin, I have already pointed out that others besides Jesus were given the authority to forgive sins so this is no way implies deity.
Victoria, you raised the point that God is the ‘Saviour’ of all men and Jesus is described as a ’saviour.’
Therefore, you assume that Jesus is God. But you have overlooked the fact that God also raised up other men to act as ’saviours’ –
“And when the children of Israel cried unto YHVH, YHVH raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother.” (Judg. 3:9)
“But when the children of Israel cried unto YHVH, YHVH raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed.” (Judg. 3:15)
“And the people said unto Saul, shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel?” (1 Sam. 14:45)
“And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be YHVH’s (Obad. 1:21)
In addition to these, the whole people of Israel were delegated a ’saving’ role to the Gentiles – “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22)
Just as the authority to forgive sins does not imply deity, neither does the role of ’saviour.’ YHVH delegates authority to perform ALL of his works on earth to humans of his choice.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette,
Not believing someone isn’t exactly the same as calling her a liar. It allows for the possibility of being wrong. I also said ‘regardless’, meaning it does not matter whom you affiliate with. I have addressed your arguments one by one. But you ignored both of my main points in #32.
As I said, your scriptural references don’t support your arguments, neither does your Greek or Hebrew. That is not an ad hominem attack. Go back and reread all your references on ‘gods’. None of them use the word ‘elohim’ or ‘el’ or ‘eloah’. I am not being mean, I am merely pointing out your error.
You said that you interpret scripture with scripture in #27, but then you contradict yourself in the very same #27 saying that “One major reason for the universal misunderstanding of certain statements in John’s gospel is a failure to discern the framework within which the work is set.”
In other words, scripture is not sufficient to interpret scripture. We need to use a ‘framework’, presumably your ‘framework’ which allows you to reinterpret scripture any way you like.
You say, “I do not, however, ascribe to the ‘inerrancy’ of words but rather to the ‘inerrancy’ of the fundamental values and principles underlying the words. Words can be twisted and made to serve many purposes; values and principles cannot.” But then you go on to twist words by reinterpreting them according to your ‘framework’.
In your ’savior’ verses you are merely pointing out that anyone who saves someone is a savior. A doctor is a savior, but that is quite different from being THE Savior. Pointing out that they were called ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came, is something quite different from being ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1 Tim 3:16).
Philippians 2 explains how God became flesh. It says that Jesus “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”. In other words, he steals nothing from God by claiming to be equal with God. In other translations, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” He was in his very nature God, but he did not hold onto to this. He humbled himself and took on the nature of man temporarily. And so God has exalted him above every name, the Lord of all to whom every knee will bow in worship.
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6
How can a child that is born be THE MIGHTY GOD and the EVERLASTING FATHER?
Report comment to moderator
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Report comment to moderator
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Xion, and thanks for exposing the obvious heresy of Vynette in your posts above!
Report comment to moderator
Vynette – 35
However you want to use words and twist them about is your choice, however, I don’t play games, … as you now want to change the meaning of your sentence as in “reared” in your first paragraph, just for starters, and then it goes on and on – You make no sense!
I believe Xion has answered you, and I agree with him -
Report comment to moderator
Very well then Xion, I will address your points one by one:
“As I said, your scriptural references don’t support your arguments, neither does your Greek or Hebrew. That is not an ad hominem attack. Go back and reread all your references on ‘gods’. None of them use the word ‘elohim’ or ‘el’ or ‘eloah’”
I didn’t say they did. It was Jesus who said that those to whom the word of God came were themselves gods. So argue with John 10:34-36.
The ‘ad-hominem’ arguments you used were referring to me as possibly a Jehovah’s Witness, possibly an unbeliever…and I notice that outkast has now called my statements “heresy.”
You write three paragraphs on the assumption that the “framework” I mention is one set by myself. On the contrary, it is the one John sets for himself. Every writer presents arguments set within a framework. It is John’s own framework I referred to. In other words, no single verse from John can be understood without reference to the whole of his gospel.
You said,”Pointing out that they were called ‘gods’ to whom the word of God came, is something quite different from being ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1 Tim 3:16).
You are using an English translation of 1 Tim 3:16 which is based on eigth or ninth century manuscripts. The earliest manuscripts do not include ‘theos’ in this verse.
We do not have to rely solely on the dating of manuscripts, however, because Paul states his position clearly in Romans 16:25-27:
“Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith: to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever…”
According to Paul, it is the “mystery” that has been manifested in the flesh and proclaimed to the Gentiles, not God himself.
To address your points about “saviour.” Jesus was “clothed with the garments of salvation.” Salvation was not intrinsic to the person of Jesus – it was an honour conferred upon him by God.
“The Spirit of the Lord YHVH is upon me…I will greatly rejoice in YHVH, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation…” (Isaiah 61:10)
You are using English translations which capitalise the word “saviour” to imply differences between Jesus and other saviours. The only difference is that Jesus was appointed the task of saving spiritually, while other individuals were appointed to save physically. But note that the nation Israel was also given the task of saving spiritually.
Translators capitalise words according to their own theological convictions.
Phillippians 2:5-9
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (v. 5).
Certain arguments that Paul addressed to the Phillippians were a warning to them to guard against self-righteousness and works glorifying themselves. In these arguments ‘proof’ is found for Jesus’ pre-existence and divinity. Shorn of Paul’s qualifying statements, verses 5-8 appear to support the accepted teaching. Paul leaves no doubt, however, as to when Jesus existed in the ‘form of God’ for he continues in verse 9:
“Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name…”
It was after Jesus became “obedient unto death, yes, the death of the cross”. Jesus existed in the ‘form of God’ after the crucifixion.
Paul was saying that even Jesus, now exalted by God, had been a servant of God during his lifetime and the Phillippians should imitate his example.
In Romans 1:3-4, Paul clearly states the sequence of events: “concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead…” (See also John 5:27, Ps.71:16)
Paul’s timely warning to guard against personal self-righteousness has been made the servant of false doctrines.
In my Soncino edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, Isaiah 9:6 is translated thus:
“For a child is born unto us, A son is given to us;
And the government is upon his shoulder;
And his name is called
‘Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.’
This verse is actually in the perfect, or completed, tense, and originally referred to Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz. As you can see, it is the child’s name which embodies all the attributes of God, not the child himself.
It correctly applies “messianically” also to Jesus. Verse 7 goes on to tell us that it is YHVH who will perform all this whereas the ‘god’ of verse 6 is ‘el’, a generic word for ‘god’ that is incorporated into scores of Hebrew names, most notably that of the much cited ‘Immanuel’.
Are there any other points you have raised which you would like me to address?
Victoria, I have not changed the meaning of “rear.” Check a dictionary for the semantic range of “rear.”
Report comment to moderator
Jesus was “clothed with the garments of salvation.” Salvation was not intrinsic to the person of Jesus – it was an honour conferred upon him by God.
You don’t seem to understand the fact that Jesus was both fully man and fully God, Vynette. Until you understand (agree to) that simple fact, there is no other description of your twisted religious beliefs than heresy.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
And heresy it is.
I hope your Thanksgiving was wonderful. We had a great time -
Report comment to moderator
Are there any other points you have raised which you would like me to address?
Yes, you still have not addressed my points in #32.
So argue with John 10:34-36.
Jesus said he is in the Father and the Father is in him. This matches Phil 2:6, where it says he was the very nature of God. The works Jesus did were the works of God, because he is God.
I notice that outkast has now called my statements “heresy.”
The denial of the deity of Christ is the simplest form of heresy. (1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7)
‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1 Tim 3:16). You are using an English translation of 1 Tim 3:16 which is based on eight or ninth century manuscripts. The earliest manuscripts do not include ‘theos’ in this verse.
Out of the 5300 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are missing the first two letters of the word “Theos”, rendering the word “os” or who. Given the age and wear of these manuscripts, it is hard to tell whether the ink was worn away.
Grammatically, the word “who” does not fit. “Great is the mystery of godliness who…” is grammatically incorrect. Yet, a few liberal scholars prefer to reject the vast majority of manuscripts in favor of bad grammar.
Yet even with this dubious scholarship, the meaning it still intact. “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great. He appeared in a body.” Who appeared in a body? The previous sentence is talking about “the church of the living God … who appeared in a body… was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory”. God appeared in a body, was preached to the world and rose from the dead.
We do not have to rely solely on the dating of manuscripts, however, because Paul states his position clearly in Romans 16:25-27. According to Paul, it is the “mystery” that has been manifested in the flesh and proclaimed to the Gentiles, not God himself.
Rom 16:25-27 does not use the words “manifest in the flesh”. Moreover, the mystery is clearly referring back to the first part of the sentence. It is the “gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ” that was hidden in the Old Testment, but “now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God”. Jesus is the Word of God who was manifest (John 1:1-5). And the Word was God.
Phillippians 2:5-9
It was after Jesus became “obedient unto death, yes, the death of the cross”. Jesus existed in the ‘form of God’ after the crucifixion.
Are you saying that Jesus became God after the crucifixion? In that case, do you agree that Jesus is God now? As for the text, it makes no sense to say that he humbled himself and took on the nature of men, if he wasn’t something other than human prior. Verse 6 clearly states that “he existed in the form of God”. How can you so glibly skip over this verse?
In Romans 1:3-4, Paul clearly states the sequence of events: “concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead…” (See also John 5:27, Ps.71:16)
This is not a sequence of events. The resurrection was definitive proof that Jesus was the Son of God. Verses John 5:27; Ps 71:16 have nothing to do with this.
In my Soncino edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, Isaiah 9:6 is translated thus:
“For a child is born unto us, A son is given to us;
And the government is upon his shoulder;
And his name is called
‘Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.’
This verse is actually in the perfect, or completed, tense, and originally referred to Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz. As you can see, it is the child’s name which embodies all the attributes of God, not the child himself.
No, you are not reading the Soncino text, you are reading an English translation of the Hebrew text that was specifically doctored after C. D. Ginsburg’s edition of 1894 drew protests after he converted to Christianity. So they specifically went through and modified all translations that would support the deity of Christ.
I have studied both modern and ancient Hebrew for the last 25 years and Aramaic for several years. When I read the Old Testament, I read it in Hebrew. I can read the Syriac version of the New Testament from the 5th century.
In ancient Hebrew there are only two tenses: perfect and imperfect, meaning an action is either completed or not. The text is clearly not in the past tense, which is why your translation and every other translation do not use the past test to render this.
And why does this specifically anti-Christian translation feel compelled to insert the word “is” between council and God, since the word clearly does not exist. The text clearly states, “And shall call his name …” followed by a simple list of the things that he shall be called.
It correctly applies “messianically” also to Jesus.
Yes.
Verse 7 goes on to tell us that it is YHVH who will perform all this whereas the ‘god’ of verse 6 is ‘el’, a generic word for ‘god’ that is incorporated into scores of Hebrew names, most notably that of the much cited ‘Immanuel’.
So are you saying that YHVH is not God? ‘El’ is the word for God. When it is used in proper names, it still means God. It is short for Elohim, which is the plural form. What does it mean to use a plural word for a single God? Clearly this fits with a multi-person Godhead.
Vynette, you clearly have studied extensively, but you do not allow scripture to stand on its own. When you find scripture you disagree with, then you search for minority texts, alternative translations from non-Christian sources and dubious commentaries in order to jam these into your preconceived and heretical framework. My advice to you is to let God speak for himself.
It is clear that Jesus was the Messiah, which you claim to agree with. However, it is equally clear that this Messiah from Bethlehem was eternal (Micah 5:2). Yet, only God is eternal. The Messiah has the very nature of God. Anyone who denies that this eternal Messiah is come in the flesh is not of God and is against Christ. (1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7).
Report comment to moderator
And the silence from Vynette is deafening indeed . . .
Great job, Xion!
Report comment to moderator
I just came back to this thread after a two-day absence, and must add my hearty amen to Outkast’s. Xion, thanks for your work on this.
My prediction FWIW is that Vynette will be back at least once more for another try. My second prediction is that she will continue to avoid the substance of the issues raised by Xion in 32 (and those raised by me in 25).
There is simply no proper apprehension of the gospel apart from a proper apprehension of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I see you have cheerleaders urging you on to even greater efforts whereas I have no support team but nevertheless I will press on until kingdom come if necessary.
You said : “Vynette, you clearly have studied extensively, but you do not allow scripture to stand on its own. When you find scripture you disagree with, then you search for minority texts, alternative translations from non-Christian sources and dubious commentaries in order to jam these into your preconceived and heretical framework.”
Xion, I could say exactly the same about you. You don’t allow scripture to stand on its own, you approach the Bible from an orthodox
Christian standpoint, you only accept translations and commentaries from Christian sources and you “jam” these texts into your preconceived framework, etcetera.
You will not address Jesus’ own words in John 10:34-36, but skip to other verses which appear to support your position, such as –
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that
I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:9-10)
Jesus draws absolute distinctions between himself and God constantly, in this text and many others where he adamantly denies ‘divinity.’ As I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was devised to attempt to reconcile all these texts. This cornerstone of orthodox Christinity imposes upon the minds of believers the necessity for an Orwellian type of “double-think” where one can believe two opposing concepts at one and the same time.
When the Bible talks in terms of being “in” of “hearing,” “seeing” or “speaking face to face” with God, it is speaking in spiritual strain, because “no man has seen the Father at any time.”
“Out of the 5300 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are missing the first two letters of the word “Theos”…”
You must know that most of these “5300″ Greek manuscripts are copies of the Byzantine-type texts of the eighth or ninth century. The “handful” you dismiss are a very important handful – the Alexandrian-type texts such as Codex Sinaiticus,(”who”) and Codex Claremontanus, the Peshitta, Coptic, Ethiopic etc (”which”). But the most telling fact is that none of the pre-Nicene Fathers used this verse to justify their claims for ‘divinity’ of Jesus. This vital piece of evidence for their position would certainl have been used to great effect if manuscripts containing “theos” were available to them, which demonstrates that “theos” is a later addition. But aside from all that, the fact is that it is the “mystery of godliness” that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself.
Similarly, it is the “Word” of God that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself. Jesus is not the “Word,” he is the physical manifestation of the Word, the means by which God speaks and acts out his Word.
“Are you saying that Jesus became God after the crucifixion? In that case, do you agree that Jesus is God now?
No, I am not saying that at all. The “form” of God is synonomous with the “image” of God. This passage is another example of Paul’s “first Adam” – “last Adam” and “Old Creation” – New Creation theology. Adam was created with the potential to be the “image” of God but Adam’s human weaknesses led to the “fall.” So also Jesus was created with the potential to be the “image of God” but as a man like Adam, was subject to all Adam’s weaknessses, e.g. temptation and disobedience. Jesus’s conscious rejection of those sins of Adam and his striving to live as God intended, in God’s own “image,” led eventually to his death. Thereafter God “highly exalts” him.
Paul sees him as being created anew – the New Creation. The potential of man to live in the “image” of God has now become a reality,
man has become perfected, which is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam.” No single verse can be just plucked out of context and given a meaning which contradicts the rest of the New Testament.
Jesus effectively restored mankind to the position it held with God in the beginning. By this atonement, he has made it possible for all humans to become “godly.” Humans now know the “way, the truth and the life,” they have no excuse, no “cover for sin.” Follow the old man, Adam, or the new man, the “last Adam.” Our choice.
What is Romans 1:3-4 if not a sequence? From Jesus’ birth to his resurrection?
“No, you are not reading the Soncino text, you are reading an English translation of the Hebrew text that was specifically doctored…”
I say again – I AM reading the Hebrew text of the Soncino which uses the Leningrad Codex B19A, which is precisely the same as the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. All of these Hebrew texts read exactly the same and all say that child’s name is called “pele joez el gibbor abi ad sar shalom.” I say it again, it is the name of the child which reflects the attributes of God, not the child himself.
You asked: “And why does this specifically anti-Christian translation feel compelled to insert the word “is” between council and God, since the word clearly does not exist.”
As a person who has studied “modern and ancient Hebrew for the last 25 years” you must know that present tense forms of the verb “to be” – am; are; is; – are not included in ANY Hebrew texts but merely implied. They are supplied in English translations for readability.
Why single out just one example out of many thousands as being somehow deceptive and heretical? And how can any Hebrew text translated into English by Hebrews be described as “heretical.” Heretical to what or whom? Christian doctrinal sensibilities? Orthodox Christian translators have arrogated to themselves proprietary rights over the Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah.
“So are you saying that YHVH is not God? ‘El’ is the word for God. When it is used in proper names, it still means God. It is short for Elohim, which is the plural form. What does it mean to use a plural word for a single God? Clearly this fits with a multi-person Godhead.”
Do you deliberately misunderstand my statements Xion? Of course YHVH is God. YHVH is the name of the Hebrew God and refers to the Hebrew God alone. El or Elohim are words that CAN be used to refer to the Hebrew God but are also used to refer to “other” gods – even humans. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHVH, is a ‘majestic’ plural which is numerically singular because it is governed by a singular verb. This majestic plural is a grammatical form that denotes greatness without any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If Elohim always means a multi-person God, and is always plural, then Moses is a multi-person Moses –
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
As I have said many times on this thread, humans can be referred to as “gods.”
“However, it is equally clear that this Messiah from Bethlehem was eternal (Micah 5:2).”
No, “olam” doesn’t always mean “eternal.” In this context, where the writer is talking about a ruler descended from David as well as coming from David’s city, the translation should read “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” i.e descended through a long line from David.
RR, I have addressed your questions in para 13 above. Now, seeing it is 2:45am down-under, and having spent a very long day organising my son’s birthday party, I will bid you goodnight. But fear not, I will be back tomorrow to address Xion’s questions in #32.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I see you have cheerleaders urging you on to even greater efforts whereas I have no support team but nevertheless I will press on until kingdom come if necessary.
You said : “Vynette, you clearly have studied extensively, but you do not allow scripture to stand on its own. When you find scripture you disagree with, then you search for minority texts, alternative translations from non-Christian sources and dubious commentaries in order to jam these into your preconceived and heretical framework.”
Xion, I could say exactly the same about you. You don’t allow scripture to stand on its own, you approach the Bible from an orthodox
Christian standpoint, you only accept translations and commentaries from Christian sources and you “jam” these texts into your preconceived framework, etcetera.
You will not address Jesus’ own words in John 10:34-36, but skip to other verses which appear to support your position, such as –
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that
I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:9-10)
Jesus draws absolute distinctions between himself and God constantly, in this text and many others where he adamantly denies ‘divinity.’ As I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was devised to attempt to reconcile all these texts. This cornerstone of orthodox Christinity imposes upon the minds of believers the necessity for an Orwellian type of “double-think” where one can believe two opposing concepts at one and the same time.
When the Bible talks in terms of being “in” of “hearing,” “seeing” or “speaking face to face” with God, it is speaking in spiritual strain, because “no man has seen the Father at any time.”
“Out of the 5300 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are missing the first two letters of the word “Theos”…”
You must know that most of these “5300″ Greek manuscripts are copies of the Byzantine-type texts of the eighth or ninth century. The “handful” you dismiss are a very important handful – the Alexandrian-type texts such as Codex Sinaiticus,(”who”) and Codex Claremontanus, the Peshitta, Coptic, Ethiopic etc (”which”). But the most telling fact is that none of the pre-Nicene Fathers used this verse to justify their claims for ‘divinity’ of Jesus. This vital piece of evidence for their position would certainl have been used to great effect if manuscripts containing “theos” were available to them, which demonstrates that “theos” is a later addition. But aside from all that, the fact is that it is the “mystery of godliness” that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself.
Similarly, it is the “Word” of God that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself. Jesus is not the “Word,” he is the physical manifestation of the Word, the means by which God speaks and acts out his Word.
“Are you saying that Jesus became God after the crucifixion? In that case, do you agree that Jesus is God now?
No, I am not saying that at all. The “form” of God is synonomous with the “image” of God. This passage is another example of Paul’s “first Adam” – “last Adam” and “Old Creation” – New Creation theology. Adam was created with the potential to be the “image” of God but Adam’s human weaknesses led to the “fall.” So also Jesus was created with the potential to be the “image of God” but as a man like Adam, was subject to all Adam’s weaknessses, e.g. temptation and disobedience. Jesus’s conscious rejection of those sins of Adam and his striving to live as God intended, in God’s own “image,” led eventually to his death. Thereafter God “highly exalts” him.
Paul sees him as being created anew – the New Creation. The potential of man to live in the “image” of God has now become a reality,
man has become perfected, which is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam.” No single verse can be just plucked out of context and given a meaning which contradicts the rest of the New Testament.
Jesus effectively restored mankind to the position it held with God in the beginning. By this atonement, he has made it possible for all humans to become “godly.” Humans now know the “way, the truth and the life,” they have no excuse, no “cover for sin.” Follow the old man, Adam, or the new man, the “last Adam.” Our choice.
What is Romans 1:3-4 if not a sequence? From Jesus’ birth to his resurrection?
“No, you are not reading the Soncino text, you are reading an English translation of the Hebrew text that was specifically doctored…”
I say again – I AM reading the Hebrew text of the Soncino which uses the Leningrad Codex B19A, which is precisely the same as the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. All of these Hebrew texts read exactly the same and all say that child’s name is called “pele joez el gibbor abi ad sar shalom.” I say it again, it is the name of the child which reflects the attributes of God, not the child himself.
You asked: “And why does this specifically anti-Christian translation feel compelled to insert the word “is” between council and God, since the word clearly does not exist.”
As a person who has studied “modern and ancient Hebrew for the last 25 years” you must know that present tense forms of the verb “to be” – am; are; is; – are not included in ANY Hebrew texts but merely implied. They are supplied in English translations for readability.
Why single out just one example out of many thousands as being somehow deceptive and heretical? And how can any Hebrew text translated into English by Hebrews be described as “heretical.” Heretical to what or whom? Christian doctrinal sensibilities? Orthodox Christian translators have arrogated to themselves proprietary rights over the Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah.
“So are you saying that YHVH is not God? ‘El’ is the word for God. When it is used in proper names, it still means God. It is short for Elohim, which is the plural form. What does it mean to use a plural word for a single God? Clearly this fits with a multi-person Godhead.”
Do you deliberately misunderstand my statements Xion? Of course YHVH is God. YHVH is the name of the Hebrew God and refers to the Hebrew God alone. El or Elohim are words that CAN be used to refer to the Hebrew God but are also used to refer to “other” gods – even humans. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHVH, is a ‘majestic’ plural which is numerically singular because it is governed by a singular verb. This majestic plural is a grammatical form that denotes greatness without any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If Elohim always means a multi-person God, and is always plural, then Moses is a multi-person Moses –
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
As I have said many times on this thread, humans can be referred to as “gods.”
“However, it is equally clear that this Messiah from Bethlehem was eternal (Micah 5:2).”
No, “olam” doesn’t always mean “eternal.” In this context, where the writer is talking about a ruler descended from David as well as coming from David’s city, the translation should read “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” i.e descended through a long line from David.
RR, I have addressed your questions in para 13 above. Now, seeing it is 2:45am down-under, and having spent a very long day organising my son’s birthday party, I will bid you goodnight. But fear not, I will be back tomorrow to address Xion’s questions in #32.
…Now is it 7:16am and I see this post did not get through, so I’ll try again
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I see you have cheerleaders urging you on to even greater efforts whereas I have no support team but nevertheless I will press on until kingdom come if necessary.
You said : “Vynette, you clearly have studied extensively, but you do not allow scripture to stand on its own. When you find scripture you disagree with, then you search for minority texts, alternative translations from non-Christian sources and dubious commentaries in order to jam these into your preconceived and heretical framework.”
Xion, I could say exactly the same about you. You don’t allow scripture to stand on its own, you approach the Bible from an orthodox
Christian standpoint, you only accept translations and commentaries from Christian sources and you “jam” these texts into your preconceived framework, etcetera.
You will not address Jesus’ own words in John 10:34-36, but skip to other verses which appear to support your position, such as –
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that
I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:9-10)
Jesus draws absolute distinctions between himself and God constantly, in this text and many others where he adamantly denies ‘divinity.’ As I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was devised to attempt to reconcile all these texts. This cornerstone of orthodox Christinity imposes upon the minds of believers the necessity for an Orwellian type of “double-think” where one can believe two opposing concepts at one and the same time.
When the Bible talks in terms of being “in” of “hearing,” “seeing” or “speaking face to face” with God, it is speaking in spiritual strain, because “no man has seen the Father at any time.”
“Out of the 5300 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are missing the first two letters of the word “Theos”…”
You must know that most of these “5300″ Greek manuscripts are copies of the Byzantine-type texts of the eighth or ninth century. The “handful” you dismiss are a very important handful – the Alexandrian-type texts such as Codex Sinaiticus,(”who”) and Codex Claremontanus, the Peshitta, Coptic, Ethiopic etc (”which”). But the most telling fact is that none of the pre-Nicene Fathers used this verse to justify their claims for ‘divinity’ of Jesus. This vital piece of evidence for their position would certainl have been used to great effect if manuscripts containing “theos” were available to them, which demonstrates that “theos” is a later addition. But aside from all that, the fact is that it is the “mystery of godliness” that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself.
Similarly, it is the “Word” of God that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself. Jesus is not the “Word,” he is the physical manifestation of the Word, the means by which God speaks and acts out his Word.
“Are you saying that Jesus became God after the crucifixion? In that case, do you agree that Jesus is God now?
No, I am not saying that at all. The “form” of God is synonomous with the “image” of God. This passage is another example of Paul’s “first Adam” – “last Adam” and “Old Creation” – New Creation theology. Adam was created with the potential to be the “image” of God but Adam’s human weaknesses led to the “fall.” So also Jesus was created with the potential to be the “image of God” but as a man like Adam, was subject to all Adam’s weaknessses, e.g. temptation and disobedience. Jesus’s conscious rejection of those sins of Adam and his striving to live as God intended, in God’s own “image,” led eventually to his death. Thereafter God “highly exalts” him.
Paul sees him as being created anew – the New Creation. The potential of man to live in the “image” of God has now become a reality,
man has become perfected, which is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam.” No single verse can be just plucked out of context and given a meaning which contradicts the rest of the New Testament.
Jesus effectively restored mankind to the position it held with God in the beginning. By this atonement, he has made it possible for all humans to become “godly.” Humans now know the “way, the truth and the life,” they have no excuse, no “cover for sin.” Follow the old man, Adam, or the new man, the “last Adam.” Our choice.
What is Romans 1:3-4 if not a sequence? From Jesus’ birth to his resurrection?
“No, you are not reading the Soncino text, you are reading an English translation of the Hebrew text that was specifically doctored…”
I say again – I AM reading the Hebrew text of the Soncino which uses the Leningrad Codex B19A, which is precisely the same as the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. All of these Hebrew texts read exactly the same and all say that child’s name is called “pele joez el gibbor abi ad sar shalom.” I say it again, it is the name of the child which reflects the attributes of God, not the child himself.
You asked: “And why does this specifically anti-Christian translation feel compelled to insert the word “is” between council and God, since the word clearly does not exist.”
As a person who has studied “modern and ancient Hebrew for the last 25 years” you must know that present tense forms of the verb “to be” – am; are; is; – are not included in ANY Hebrew texts but merely implied. They are supplied in English translations for readability.
Why single out just one example out of many thousands as being somehow deceptive and heretical? And how can any Hebrew text translated into English by Hebrews be described as “heretical.” Heretical to what or whom? Christian doctrinal sensibilities? Orthodox Christian translators have arrogated to themselves proprietary rights over the Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah.
“So are you saying that YHVH is not God? ‘El’ is the word for God. When it is used in proper names, it still means God. It is short for Elohim, which is the plural form. What does it mean to use a plural word for a single God? Clearly this fits with a multi-person Godhead.”
Do you deliberately misunderstand my statements Xion? Of course YHVH is God. YHVH is the name of the Hebrew God and refers to the Hebrew God alone. El or Elohim are words that CAN be used to refer to the Hebrew God but are also used to refer to “other” gods – even humans. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHVH, is a ‘majestic’ plural which is numerically singular because it is governed by a singular verb. This majestic plural is a grammatical form that denotes greatness without any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If Elohim always means a multi-person God, and is always plural, then Moses is a multi-person Moses –
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
As I have said many times on this thread, humans can be referred to as “gods.”
“However, it is equally clear that this Messiah from Bethlehem was eternal (Micah 5:2).”
No, “olam” doesn’t always mean “eternal.” In this context, where the writer is talking about a ruler descended from David as well as coming from David’s city, the translation should read “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” i.e descended through a long line from David.
RR, I have addressed your questions in para 13 above. Now, seeing it is 2:45am down-under, and having spent a very long day organising my son’s birthday party, I will bid you goodnight. But fear not, I will be back tomorrow to address Xion’s questions in #32.
…It is now 7:30am and my repeated attempts to post this comment have failed. I am accessing this site from another computer so will try again……
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I see you have cheerleaders urging you on to even greater efforts whereas I have no support team but nevertheless I will press on until kingdom come if necessary.
You said : “Vynette, you clearly have studied extensively, but you do not allow scripture to stand on its own. When you find scripture you disagree with, then you search for minority texts, alternative translations from non-Christian sources and dubious commentaries in order to jam these into your preconceived and heretical framework.”
Xion, I could say exactly the same about you. You don’t allow scripture to stand on its own, you approach the Bible from an orthodox
Christian standpoint, you only accept translations and commentaries from Christian sources and you “jam” these texts into your preconceived framework, etcetera.
You will not address Jesus’ own words in John 10:34-36, but skip to other verses which appear to support your position, such as –
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that
I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:9-10)
Jesus draws absolute distinctions between himself and God constantly, in this text and many others where he adamantly denies ‘divinity.’ As I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was devised to attempt to reconcile all these texts. This cornerstone of orthodox Christinity imposes upon the minds of believers the necessity for an Orwellian type of “double-think” where one can believe two opposing concepts at one and the same time.
When the Bible talks in terms of being “in” of “hearing,” “seeing” or “speaking face to face” with God, it is speaking in spiritual strain, because “no man has seen the Father at any time.”
“Out of the 5300 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are missing the first two letters of the word “Theos”…”
You must know that most of these “5300″ Greek manuscripts are copies of the Byzantine-type texts of the eighth or ninth century. The “handful” you dismiss are a very important handful – the Alexandrian-type texts such as Codex Sinaiticus,(”who”) and Codex Claremontanus, the Peshitta, Coptic, Ethiopic etc (”which”). But the most telling fact is that none of the pre-Nicene Fathers used this verse to justify their claims for ‘divinity’ of Jesus. This vital piece of evidence for their position would certainl have been used to great effect if manuscripts containing “theos” were available to them, which demonstrates that “theos” is a later addition. But aside from all that, the fact is that it is the “mystery of godliness” that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself.
Similarly, it is the “Word” of God that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself. Jesus is not the “Word,” he is the physical manifestation of the Word, the means by which God speaks and acts out his Word.
“Are you saying that Jesus became God after the crucifixion? In that case, do you agree that Jesus is God now?
No, I am not saying that at all. The “form” of God is synonomous with the “image” of God. This passage is another example of Paul’s “first Adam” – “last Adam” and “Old Creation” – New Creation theology. Adam was created with the potential to be the “image” of God but Adam’s human weaknesses led to the “fall.” So also Jesus was created with the potential to be the “image of God” but as a man like Adam, was subject to all Adam’s weaknessses, e.g. temptation and disobedience. Jesus’s conscious rejection of those sins of Adam and his striving to live as God intended, in God’s own “image,” led eventually to his death. Thereafter God “highly exalts” him.
Paul sees him as being created anew – the New Creation. The potential of man to live in the “image” of God has now become a reality,
man has become perfected, which is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam.” No single verse can be just plucked out of context and given a meaning which contradicts the rest of the New Testament.
Jesus effectively restored mankind to the position it held with God in the beginning. By this atonement, he has made it possible for all humans to become “godly.” Humans now know the “way, the truth and the life,” they have no excuse, no “cover for sin.” Follow the old man, Adam, or the new man, the “last Adam.” Our choice.
What is Romans 1:3-4 if not a sequence? From Jesus’ birth to his resurrection?
“No, you are not reading the Soncino text, you are reading an English translation of the Hebrew text that was specifically doctored…”
I say again – I AM reading the Hebrew text of the Soncino which uses the Leningrad Codex B19A, which is precisely the same as the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. All of these Hebrew texts read exactly the same and all say that child’s name is called “pele joez el gibbor abi ad sar shalom.” I say it again, it is the name of the child which reflects the attributes of God, not the child himself.
You asked: “And why does this specifically anti-Christian translation feel compelled to insert the word “is” between council and God, since the word clearly does not exist.”
As a person who has studied “modern and ancient Hebrew for the last 25 years” you must know that present tense forms of the verb “to be” – am; are; is; – are not included in ANY Hebrew texts but merely implied. They are supplied in English translations for readability.
Why single out just one example out of many thousands as being somehow deceptive and heretical? And how can any Hebrew text translated into English by Hebrews be described as “heretical.” Heretical to what or whom? Christian doctrinal sensibilities? Orthodox Christian translators have arrogated to themselves proprietary rights over the Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah.
“So are you saying that YHVH is not God? ‘El’ is the word for God. When it is used in proper names, it still means God. It is short for Elohim, which is the plural form. What does it mean to use a plural word for a single God? Clearly this fits with a multi-person Godhead.”
Do you deliberately misunderstand my statements Xion? Of course YHVH is God. YHVH is the name of the Hebrew God and refers to the Hebrew God alone. El or Elohim are words that CAN be used to refer to the Hebrew God but are also used to refer to “other” gods – even humans. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHVH, is a ‘majestic’ plural which is numerically singular because it is governed by a singular verb. This majestic plural is a grammatical form that denotes greatness without any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If Elohim always means a multi-person God, and is always plural, then Moses is a multi-person Moses –
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
As I have said many times on this thread, humans can be referred to as “gods.”
“However, it is equally clear that this Messiah from Bethlehem was eternal (Micah 5:2).”
No, “olam” doesn’t always mean “eternal.” In this context, where the writer is talking about a ruler descended from David as well as coming from David’s city, the translation should read “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” i.e descended through a long line from David.
RR, I have addressed your questions in para 13 above. Now, seeing it is 2:45am down-under, and having spent a very long day organising my son’s birthday party, I will bid you goodnight. But fear not, I will be back tomorrow to address Xion’s questions in #32.
… It is now 7:30am and after repeated attempts to post this comment I am now trying again from another computer.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette is over on the Hitchens/Romney thread claiming she was being blocked from posting on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Nice hijacking of a thread.
All I wanted was to say we create God in our own image and hence he would buy what I would buy. Very little!
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been trying to post the following response to Xion for the past eighteen hours. One more try…
Xion, I see you have cheerleading team!
You said : “Vynette, you clearly have studied extensively, but you do not allow scripture to stand on its own. When you find scripture you disagree with, then you search for minority texts, alternative translations from non-Christian sources and dubious commentaries in order to jam these into your preconceived and heretical framework.”
Xion, I could say exactly the same about you. You don’t allow scripture to stand on its own, you approach the Bible from an orthodox
Christian standpoint, you only accept translations and commentaries from Christian sources and you “jam” these texts into your preconceived framework, etcetera.
You will not address Jesus’ own words in John 10:34-36, but skip to other verses which appear to support your position, such as –
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the
Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that
I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:9-10)
Jesus draws absolute distinctions between himself and God constantly, in this text and many others where he adamantly denies ‘divinity.’ As I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was devised to attempt to reconcile all these texts. This cornerstone of orthodox Christinity imposes upon the minds of believers the necessity for an Orwellian type of “double-think” where one can believe two opposing concepts at one and the same time.
When the Bible talks in terms of being “in” of “hearing,” “seeing” or “speaking face to face” with God, it is speaking in spiritual strain, because “no man has seen the Father at any time.”
“Out of the 5300 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are missing the first two letters of the word “Theos”…”
You must know that most of these “5300″ Greek manuscripts are copies of the Byzantine-type texts of the eighth or ninth century. The “handful” you dismiss are a very important handful – the Alexandrian-type texts such as Codex Sinaiticus,(”who”) and Codex Claremontanus, the Peshitta, Coptic, Ethiopic etc (”which”). But the most telling fact is that none of the pre-Nicene Fathers used this verse to justify their claims for ‘divinity’ of Jesus. This vital piece of evidence for their position would certainly have been used to great effect if manuscripts containing “theos” were available to them, which demonstrates that “theos” is a later addition.
But aside from all that, the fact is that it is the “mystery of godliness” that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself.
Similarly, it is the “Word” of God that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself. Jesus is not the “Word,” he is the physical manifestation of the Word, the human vehicle through whom God speaks and acts out his Word.
“Are you saying that Jesus became God after the crucifixion? In that case, do you agree that Jesus is God now?
No, I am not saying that at all. The “form” of God is synonomous with the “image” of God. This passage is another example of Paul’s “first Adam” – “last Adam” and “Old Creation” – New Creation theology. It is an explanation of how Jesus reversed the sin of of Adam. Just like Adam, Jesus was created in the potential “image of God” but just like Adam, he was subject to all human weaknesses. Instead of snatching at equality with God as did Adam (Gen.3:5), Jesus voluntarily emptied out this adamic tendency and took on the role of equality’s opposite – servanthood. His complete obedience to the will of God led to his death. Therefore God ‘highly-exalted’ him.
The potential of man to live in the “image” of God has now become a reality, man has become perfected, which is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam” and the “first-born” of the New Creation.
Jesus has effectively restored mankind to the status originally intended for Adam. By this atonement, he has made it possible for all humans to become “godly.” Humans now know the “way, the truth and the life,” they have no excuse, no “cover for sin.” Follow the old man, Adam, or the new man, the “last Adam.” Our choice.
What is Romans 1:3-4 if not a sequence? From Jesus’ birth to his resurrection?
“No, you are not reading the Soncino text, you are reading an English translation of the Hebrew text that was specifically doctored…”
I say again – I AM reading the Hebrew text of the Soncino which uses the Leningrad Codex B19A, which is precisely the same as the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. All of these Hebrew texts read exactly the same and all say that child’s name is called “pele joez el gibbor abi ad sar shalom.” I say it again, it is the name of the child which reflects the attributes of God, not the child himself.
You asked: “And why does this specifically anti-Christian translation feel compelled to insert the word “is” between council and God, since the word clearly does not exist.”
As a person who has studied “modern and ancient Hebrew for the last 25 years” you must know that the simple copulative forms of present tense “to be” are not written into Hebrew texts but merely implied e.g. I (am) sick; she (is) pretty; we (are) happy. The appropriate form, in this case IS, has been simply added, first to the Greek and then to the English, to conform with linguistic demands.
Why single out just one text out of many thousands as being somehow deceptive and heretical? And how can any Hebrew text translated into English by Hebrews be described as “heretical.” Heretical to what or whom? Christian doctrinal sensibilities? The Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah derive from the Hebrew people in general and their rights in this respect have been flagrantly disregarded for many centuries.
“So are you saying that YHVH is not God? ‘El’ is the word for God. When it is used in proper names, it still means God. It is short for Elohim, which is the plural form. What does it mean to use a plural word for a single God? Clearly this fits with a multi-person Godhead.”
Do you deliberately misunderstand my statements Xion? Of course YHVH is God. YHVH is the name of the Hebrew God and refers to the Hebrew God alone. El or Elohim are words that CAN be used to refer to the Hebrew God but are also used to refer to “other” gods – even humans. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHVH, is a ‘majestic’ plural which is numerically singular because it is governed by a singular verb. This majestic plural is a grammatical form that denotes greatness without any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If Elohim always means a multi-person God, and is always plural, then Moses is a multi-person Moses –
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
As I have said many times on this thread, humans can be referred to as “gods.”
“However, it is equally clear that this Messiah from Bethlehem was eternal (Micah 5:2).”
No, “olam” doesn’t always mean “eternal.” In this context, where the writer is talking about a ruler descended from David as well as coming from David’s city, the translation should read something like this – “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” i.e descended through a long line from David.
RR, I have addressed your questions in para 13 above. Now, seeing it is 2:45am down-under, and having spent a very long day organising my son’s birthday party, I will bid you goodnight. But fear not, I will be back tomorrow to address Xion’s questions in #32.
… It is now 7:30am and after repeated attempts to post this comment I am now trying again from another computer.
No luck so I tried posting the following comment on another WOW thread entitled “Hitchens: Romney’s Mormonism fair game”
“Some commentors on the thread “What would Jesus buy” are rejoicing because it appears that I have failed to answer their arguments. I have been repeatedly blocked from posting my latest comment and my interlocutors are rejoicing at my apparent disappearance.
Given that the topic of this post is “fair game,” I will see if I can get through here to let them know that someone is not playing fair.”
Report comment to moderator
It is now nearly forty-eight hours since I first tried to post this comment…meanwhile, I posted a comment on another thread to see if I could get through there. I could so why haven’t I been able to get through here? One more try…
Xion, I see you have cheerleading team!
You said : “Vynette, you clearly have studied extensively, but you do not allow scripture to stand on its own. When you find scripture you disagree with, then you search for minority texts, alternative translations from non-Christian sources and dubious commentaries in order to jam these into your preconceived and heretical framework.”
Xion, I could say exactly the same about you. You don’t allow scripture to stand on its own, you approach the Bible from an orthodox
Christian standpoint, you only accept translations and commentaries from Christian sources and you “jam” these texts into your preconceived framework, etcetera.
You will not address Jesus’ own words in John 10:34-36, but skip to other verses which appear to support your position, such as –
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the
Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that
I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:9-10)
Jesus draws absolute distinctions between himself and God constantly, in this text and many others where he adamantly denies ‘divinity.’ As I said before, the doctrine of the Trinity was devised to attempt to reconcile all these texts. This cornerstone of orthodox Christinity imposes upon the minds of believers the necessity for an Orwellian type of “double-think” where one can believe two opposing concepts at one and the same time.
When the Bible talks in terms of being “in” of “hearing,” “seeing” or “speaking face to face” with God, it is speaking in spiritual strain, because “no man has seen the Father at any time.”
“Out of the 5300 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are missing the first two letters of the word “Theos”…”
You must know that most of these “5300″ Greek manuscripts are copies of the Byzantine-type texts of the eighth or ninth century. The “handful” you dismiss are a very important handful – the Alexandrian-type texts such as Codex Sinaiticus,(”who”) and Codex Claremontanus, the Peshitta, Coptic, Ethiopic etc (”which”). But the most telling fact is that none of the pre-Nicene Fathers used this verse to justify their claims for ‘divinity’ of Jesus. This vital piece of evidence for their position would certainly have been used to great effect if manuscripts containing “theos” were available to them, which demonstrates that “theos” is a later addition.
But aside from all that, the fact is that it is the “mystery of godliness” that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself.
Similarly, it is the “Word” of God that was manifested in the flesh of Jesus, not God himself. Jesus is not the “Word,” he is the physical manifestation of the Word, the human vehicle through whom God speaks and acts out his Word.
“Are you saying that Jesus became God after the crucifixion? In that case, do you agree that Jesus is God now?
No, I am not saying that at all. The “form” of God is synonomous with the “image” of God. This passage is another example of Paul’s “first Adam” – “last Adam” and “Old Creation” – New Creation theology. It is an explanation of how Jesus reversed the sin of of Adam. Just like Adam, Jesus was created in the potential “image of God” but just like Adam, he was subject to all human weaknesses. Instead of snatching at equality with God as did Adam (Gen.3:5), Jesus voluntarily emptied out this adamic tendency and took on the role of equality’s opposite – servanthood. His complete obedience to the will of God led to his death. Therefore God ‘highly-exalted’ him.
The potential of man to live in the “image” of God has now become a reality, man has become perfected, which is why Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam” and the “first-born” of the New Creation.
Jesus has effectively restored mankind to the status originally intended for Adam. By this atonement, he has made it possible for all humans to become “godly.” Humans now know the “way, the truth and the life,” they have no excuse, no “cover for sin.” Follow the old man, Adam, or the new man, the “last Adam.” Our choice.
What is Romans 1:3-4 if not a sequence? From Jesus’ birth to his resurrection?
“No, you are not reading the Soncino text, you are reading an English translation of the Hebrew text that was specifically doctored…”
I say again – I AM reading the Hebrew text of the Soncino which uses the Leningrad Codex B19A, which is precisely the same as the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. All of these Hebrew texts read exactly the same and all say that child’s name is called “pele joez el gibbor abi ad sar shalom.” I say it again, it is the name of the child which reflects the attributes of God, not the child himself.
You asked: “And why does this specifically anti-Christian translation feel compelled to insert the word “is” between council and God, since the word clearly does not exist.”
As a person who has studied “modern and ancient Hebrew for the last 25 years” you must know that the simple copulative forms of present tense “to be” are not written into Hebrew texts but merely implied e.g. I (am) sick; she (is) pretty; we (are) happy. The appropriate form, in this case IS, has been simply added, first to the Greek and then to the English, to conform with linguistic demands.
Why single out just one text out of many thousands as being somehow deceptive and heretical? And how can any Hebrew text translated into English by Hebrews be described as “heretical.” Heretical to what or whom? Christian doctrinal sensibilities? The Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah derive from the Hebrew people in general and their rights in this respect have been flagrantly disregarded for many centuries.
“So are you saying that YHVH is not God? ‘El’ is the word for God. When it is used in proper names, it still means God. It is short for Elohim, which is the plural form. What does it mean to use a plural word for a single God? Clearly this fits with a multi-person Godhead.”
Do you deliberately misunderstand my statements Xion? Of course YHVH is God. YHVH is the name of the Hebrew God and refers to the Hebrew God alone. El or Elohim are words that CAN be used to refer to the Hebrew God but are also used to refer to “other” gods – even humans. The word Elohim, when it refers to YHVH, is a ‘majestic’ plural which is numerically singular because it is governed by a singular verb. This majestic plural is a grammatical form that denotes greatness without any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If Elohim always means a multi-person God, and is always plural, then Moses is a multi-person Moses –
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
As I have said many times on this thread, humans can be referred to as “gods.”
“However, it is equally clear that this Messiah from Bethlehem was eternal (Micah 5:2).”
No, “olam” doesn’t always mean “eternal.” In this context, where the writer is talking about a ruler descended from David as well as coming from David’s city, the translation should read something like this – “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” i.e descended through a long line from David.
RR, I have addressed your questions in para 13 above. Now, seeing it is 2:45am down-under, and having spent a very long day organising my son’s birthday party, I will bid you goodnight. But fear not, I will be back tomorrow to address Xion’s questions in #32.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette,
Our debate has devolved into arguing about a few missing letters in a few manuscripts and dubious translations by those who have a vested interest in denying the Messiah’s deity.
I wrote a lengthy response answering each one of your counterpoints, but we aren’t getting anywhere on that tact. So I’ve set that aside. Instead please do us all a favor and state clearly your position on Jesus. Who was he? Is he eternal? Was he an angel? Did he participate in creation? And also please tell us with what church or group you affiliate.
Here are some things the Bible says about Jesus Christ, which is believed by Christians around the world. So do you say Jesus was?
1. He was with God and was God (John 1:1)
2. He was before all things (Col 1:17)
3. He had glory with God (John 17:5)
4. He was loved by the Father before the foundation of the world (John 1:18; 17:24)
5. He eternally existed (Micah 5:2; Hab 1:12)
6. He was involved in creation (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)
7. He sustains creation (Heb 1:3)
8. He is the eternal Son of God (John 3:16-17; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:9,10,14
9. He was in the wilderness with the Israelites (1 Cor 10:4; Ex 17:1-7)
10. He is given the titles of deity (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:1)
11. Treated like YHWH. (John 1:19-23; 3:28 c.f. Isaiah 40:3)
(John 12:37-41 c.f. Isaiah 6:1-10)
(Luke 1:76 c.f. Mal 3:1)
(Rev 1:7; John 19:37 cf Zech 12:10)
(John 12:37-41 c.f. Isaiah 6:1-10)
12. Called the Son of God (John 5:18; John 10:30-36). A son shares the same nature as his father.
13. He is the first and the last, the Almighty (Rev 1:8,11; Rev 2:8; 22:13 c.f. Isaiah 44:6).
14. He possesses omnipresence (Mat 28:20; Col 1:27; John 3:13)
15. He possesses omnipotence (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Phil 3:32)
16. He possesses omniscience (John 2:24; 21:17; Luke 6:8; Rev 2:23)
17. He possesses immutability (Heb 1:12; 13:8)
18. All the fullness of the Godhead (Col 1:19; 2:9)
19. He performs the works of deity (John 1:3; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16-17)
20. He forgives sins (Luke 5:24; Col 3:13)
21. He grants eternal life (John 10:27-28)
22. He receives worship (John 20:28; Phil 2:10-11; Heb 1:6; 2 Pet 3:18)
23. He is associated with the Father on equal footing (Matt 28:19; John 14:1; 2 Cor 13:14; 2 Thess 1:2; 2:16-17; Rev 20:6; 22:3)
24. He is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15)
25. He is by very nature God (Phil 2:6)
26. He is the brightness of God’s glory and the express image of his person (Heb 1:3)
27. He was born of a virgin (Is 7:14; Matt 1:21)
28. The Word who was God (John 1:1) became flesh (John 1:14; 1 Tim 3:16)
29. He came to reveal God (John 1:18)
30. He was the promised Messiah (Luke 1:26-33; Matt 1:21-23)
31. He was sinless and incapable of sinning (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5)
32. His miracles bore witness of his deity. (Matt 9:6; Matt 11:1-6; John 5:36; Acts 2:22)
33. His kingdom was heavenly (John 18:36)
34. He sits on God’s throne (Rev 22:1,3; 1 Cor 15:24-25)
35. He raised himself from the dead (John 10:18)
36. He is in heaven preparing a place for us (John 14:3)
37. He answers prayer (John 14:13-14)
38. He is the head over all things (Eph 1:22)
39. He gives gifts and ministries to men (Eph 4:7-11)
40. He reveals his glory to the Gentiles (Col 1:27,29)
41. He nourishes the church (Col 2:19)
42. He defeated death and the devil (Heb 2:14-16)
43. He appears before God on our behalf (Heb 9:24; 1 John 2:1)
44. He receives our praise and thanksgiving (Heb 13:15)
45. He was glorified and gives us faith (1 Pet 1:21)
46. He will judge all the earth (Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1)
47. He will appear as the Lord of Hosts, King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:11-16)
Report comment to moderator
Vynette – 53
Xion doesn’t have a so called “cheer leading team” – what Xion has is God’s Word, … he not only stands behind it, but there are many of us who stand WITH HIM, we believe God’s Word, we know who Christ Jesus is, we don’t waiver when it comes to the DEITY of Christ or the TRINITY.
You can bring HERESY into this thread, or all of them for that matter, but those of us who know Christ Jesus as LORD and Savior, God the Son will not budge.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – 54
You have written:
Xion, I hope Vynette answers each question.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!