You have written:

“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.”

Xion, I hope Vynette answers each question.

Report comment to moderator

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

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

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

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

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

Report comment to moderator

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

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

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