The "Deity" of the Messiah continued
Here are some more recent discussions with a different person. Perhaps these discussions may address issues which still are on your mind or which you may find interesting:
MA wrote:
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> It's good to talk to you again. Thank you for taking my call today.
> I did read the revision article on the diety of Christ and found it quite
> thoughtful.
Mark Lerner: Thanks again for your call, which I really appreciate. I
want to repeat my recommendation of Barton Stone's article, which you
can read by clicking the link, 'Read Barton Stone first?' which is right
under the first title, 'Trinitarian Dogma: The Very . . .' It sounds
like you clicked on the 'deity of the Messiah' link in the first
sentence below the Barton Stone link, which is good, but the Barton
Stone article is what I was talking about on the phone.
MA: I believe your model of high and low Christology is a very good
> word picture for describing the field. However, I'm not quite through with
> you yet. You know by now, I hope, that I am with you on all the main
> points--even your basic twist on the diety of Christ. But I am going to
> make an effort to convince you that you are still using some wrong language
> to describe it. The fact of the matter is, there IS a way in which the
> scripture refers to Christ as diety. Do you deny this?
ML: As we discussed on the phone, the "deity" of the Messiah means that the Messiah is not just the Son of Yhwh but Yhwh Himself, not just the one THROUGH whom Yhwh made everything but also the One who made everything, the one, true God, the Creator. If this is what you mean by the "deity" of the Messiah, that Yeshua is both the agent of creation AND the Creator, which is exactly what expert trinitarians such as Zodhiates state, I do not believe in the "deity" of the Messiah. I believe that Yeshua is the Word of Yhwh, just as Aaron was as the "mouth" of Moses (Exo 4:16), as Pharoah gave Joseph his signet ring but not his throne (cf. Gen 41:38-45), as Daniel was second only to King Darius (Dan 5:29 - 6:28) and Mordecai, to King Ahasuerus (Est 10:3). I believe that these all are "types" of the relationship between Yhwh and Yeshua, illustrations to make it perfectly clear, along with a host of other information, that Yhwh is the "head" of Yeshua and that Yeshua is not "equal" to Yhwh either in rank or "Being." When Moses was on Mt. Sinai forty days and nights, Aaron lost control of the situation, and the children of Yisrael built the golden calf. Without Moses, Aaron couldn't manage. Without Yhwh, likewise, Yeshua can't manage, as Yeshua said, "Of my own self, I can do nothing . . ." Yeshua is above the angels and every other being, but Yhwh is the one and only supreme Being, the "most high God," as Yeshua said, ". . . the Father is greater than I." The doctrine of the "deity" of Yeshua, therefore, doesn't measure up to the Biblical picture.
The question is HOW
> they do it, and what they mean by it. Our task is to ILLUMINATE that
> scriptural voice, not eliminate parts of it all together because it has been
> a source of confusion. There is a way in which to say all the things you
> are saying AND present the "diety" of Christ, not in the WRONG way, the way
> that trinitarianism does, but in the RIGHT way, the way that scripture does.
ML: This is a question of rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Sometimes scripture seems contradictory or even incomprehensible. On the one hand, for example, we are "no longer under the Law"; on the other hand, Yeshua said Mat 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven," and the original Jewish disciples and the Apostles were "zealous for the Law" (cf. Acts 21:20). How can we be both "no longer under the Law" and "zealous for the Law"? This seems like an incomprehensible contradiction, and in fact there still are various schools of thought about how to resolve this apparent contradiction.
So we are like the ancient Babylonians, who spoke different languages on the Tower of Babel and couldn't understand each other and so left Babylon and scattered everywhere.
How shall we solve this problem? We, too, are scattered into a multitude of denominations and sects. Trinitarians advance trinitarian dogma as the one and only solution to this problem, but a significant number of people disagree with trinitarian dogma so the trinitarian (and modalist) majority will try to impose trinitarian dogma by force, as they have in the past, which will lead to the Great Tribulation, after which a remnant will survive.
Will that remnant believe in the "deity" of the Messiah? Will they impose the doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah on everyone? Does Yhwh insist on conformity to this doctrine?
Since this is something that people can't seem to agree on, Yhwh must decide the matter. My view is that He already has, and He has announced His decision, particularly in the Book of Revelation, to those who have eyes and ears. Those who worship the "beast," those who receive his mark or the number of his name, shall be tormented forever in the presence of the Lamb and the holy angels (Rev 14:9-11). Who or what is "the beast"? At first the beast was ancient Babylon. Then it was the Medo-Persian Empire, then the Greek Empire, then the Roman Empire, which never really disappeared. The Russian word "Czar" means "Caesar." The German word "Kaiser" also means "Caesar." The Statue of Liberty is a Greco-Roman goddess. People like George Washington conceived of the United States as the restoration of the Roman Empire, and so it is.
The Roman Empire seemed to be dead, but it just was wounded and now grows stronger by the minute. People literally worship the Pope wherever he goes. The Catholic Church has been around for centuries. It seems immortal. "Who can fight against the beast? The nations honor the Pope. All are moving towards a consensus, and trinitarian dogma is the heart of that consensus, as it always has been. And what is the heart of trinitarian dogma? The doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah, absolutely. This is why trinitarians and modalists, those who believe in the trinity and those who believe in the "deity" of the Messiah, collaborate, even though they disagree: It's because they both agree on the main point, which is the "deity" of the Messiah. The doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah is life-blood of both trinitarian dogma and the beast. Trinitarian dogma is the very "mystery Babylon" and "666" of the Book of Revelation.
If you are honest, you must admit that the doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah is the crux of trinitarian dogma. It is what trinitarians insist upon more than anything else. It was the "deity" of the Messiah, "homoousias," that was at the heart of the Arian Controversy. This single idea, "homoousias," of the same substance, "One in Being," is the very life and breath of the Catholic Church. Trinitarian dogma is the axis around which Catholicism, and no less "evangelical Christianity," revolve.
I thank Yhwh that He has saved me from this beast. If I were a trinitarian, I really could go places and be somebody in the Messianic world. Trinitarian dogma is the ticket to "success," just as it always has been, and for a conservative, evangelical religious professional to oppose trinitarian dogma is to commit professional suicide. Like Moses, though, I would rather be a slave than eat Pharoah's delicacies. Like David, I face Goliath with my puny slingshot, and like David, I know that my puny slingshot shoots farther than Goliath can throw his giant spear. All I have to do is sling my rocks, and I know that the beast will fall. As Yhwh showed David Goliath's weak points, Yhwh has shown me the weak point of the beast. Trinitarian dogma is the very "mystery Babylon" and "666" of the Book of Revelation! I shout these words anyway I can. The dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah IS part of it; indeed, it is the core.
If you have any doubts about this, doubt not, lest you be numbered among those who "worship the beast." What is better, to lose a job or to lose everything. Indeed, what is better, to lose everything or to lose your soul? I don't expect many people to attend my congregation. I have a job, but I won't be surprised if I lose it. I'm not afraid, though, because I know that every time the beast demotes me, it's really a promotion because the Lord stands by those who stand with Him. So I'm not worried about losing jobs or members. The only thing I worry about is how to spread the Word more and more.
MA: > We know that the scripture says that "God was IN Christ, reconciling the
> world to Himself." 2 Cor. 5:18. Very good. That is what you call midline
> Christology. This understanding served as background
ML: Not background. Foreground.
MA: for everything else
> the Apostles taught about Christ. And KNOWING that it was in the background
> for their hearers, they were quite willing take liberties in the language
> that they used in speaking about Christ, language that does in fact refer to
> him as diety. For example Romans 9:5 "...Christ came, who is over all the
> eternally blessed God."
ML: Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ
for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory,
the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the
promises;
Rom 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh,
Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
So runs the NKJV. This is a great example of exactly what I am talking
about, viz. the ever so slight, yet definitely tangible exaggeration of
the position of the Son in relation to the Father. Where there are no
commas in the Greek (Nestle's 21st edition) from the comma after fathers
to the comma after ages, in the NKJV English translation there are
four, which is one trick, which changes the complexion of the verse. The Greek text goes, ". . . of whom the fathers, and from whom
the Messiah according to the flesh; the [one] being over all God
blessed unto the ages, amen." That is Alfred Marshall's Interlinear
Greek-English NT literal translation, in which, it seems to me, it is clearer that the original intent of the author was to say, not that the Messiah is the eternally blessed God but that the Messiah is blessed forever by the most high God. "Over all" cannot refer to Yeshua because Yhwh is the "head" of Yeshua. [One] also is added by the author and not in the text. The text just says "the": Literally, ". . . of whom the fathers, and from whom
the Messiah according to the flesh; the being over all God
blessed unto the ages, amen." The Messiah, in other words, was Jewish, and the most high God blesses him unto the ages. As in so many cases, theoretically, one could interpret the verse either way, but many obvious things, such as the death of the Messiah, his being sent by the Father, his submission to the Father, sitting at His right hand, etc., as I described in the deity of the Messiah link in my website, preclude the interpretation that the author meant to identify the Messiah completely as Yhwh or to say that the Messiah is "fully God."
Modern translators, in fact, are aware of the traditional trinitarian or modalist bias in translation and have taken some steps to cure the problem. Thus, the RSV says: ". . . patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen." Then the RSV has a note at the bottom: "Or Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever," all of which shows that there is disagreement about the verse and that the RSV translators prefer a different, less stilted translation than the traditional. Even the New American Bible, which is a new Catholic translation, tries to be more reasonable. It says: ". . . patriarchs, and from them came the Messiah (I speak of his human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over all!" Again, at least the identification of the Messiah as "God" is totally absent.
"I and the Father are one." This is a solemn declaration of the Messiah. Did Yeshua mean that he is the Father? If so, why did Yeshua call himself the Son? If Yeshua is the Father, why didn't he just say so? Why the double-talk? This, in fact, is exactly the problem with both trinitarian dogma and modalism: Parables are one thing. Double-talk is another. The world is so full of double-talking con artists. Heaven forbid that the Messiah himself should turn out to be another double-talking shyster.
If, on the other hand, we just accept the plain sense meaning of the text, as the rules of hermeneutics say that we should, "I and the Father are one" just means that the Son says and does the same things as the Father--"like father, like son," as the saying goes. Yhwh spoke through the prophets, and some prophets were greater than others. Moses spoke to Yhwh "face-to-face," the way one speaks to one's friend, but Yhwh's face was obscured by the smoke of the incense. So the greatness of a prophet is proportional to how close to Yhwh he is. The Messiah Yeshua is as close as one can get, "at His right hand." In the beginning, the Word (Yeshua) was "pros," i.e. facing Yhwh. So Yeshua is as great as one can be, except for Yhwh. This is what the "oneness" of the Father and the Son means. No doubletalk whatsoever is necessary to understand this picture--a picture, btw, which scripture reiterates over and over, e.g. Isaac and Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Joseph and Pharoah, etc.
Does scripture anywhere preach and teach the "deity" of the Messiah, i.e. that the Messiah Yeshua is the One who formed Adam from the dust of the earth, told Noah to build an ark, told Abraham to leave Ur, appeared to Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness, etc.? Was it Yeshua who thundered to Adam, "Who told you that you were naked?" Are Yhwh and Yeshua like Clark Kent and Supeman? Are they really the same Being, who only appears to be two?
Everything that was made, Yhwh made through Yeshua. "Let US make man in our image," He said. Yhwh made Adam the same way He made the plants, animals and everything else: Just as we type email messages on a keyboard, Yeshua is like Yhwh's keyboard. Yhwh commands, and Yeshua translates into action and being. No man ever has seen or can see Yhwh. Adam, therefore, did not see Yhwh.
How do we fit all these pieces together? Since Yhwh made everything, including Adam, through Yeshua, through Yeshua,Yhwh formed Adam from the dust of the earth. It was not Yeshua who said, "Let us make Adam in our image." It was Yhwh. Yhwh and Yeshua operate like Moses and Aaron. Moses was "like God," and Aaron was like Moses' "mouth." They work together, but Yhwh is the "head" of Messiah, just as Moses was "as God" to Aaron: They're not "equal," much less "ontologically equal." Yet, I don't think it was Yeshua who breathed the "ruach" of life into Adam. It was Yhwh, whose ruach also activates His Word, just as our breath causes our vocal chords to vibrate so that we can speak. Yeshua, therefore, is not the Father of Adam or mankind, and the dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah is misleading--kind of like President Clinton's now-(in)famous statement: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski." What Clinton meant was that he did not have sexual intercourse with Monica Lewinski, but he was trying cleverly to hide the fact that they did other adulterous things. In the same way, the dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah appears to be true, but it cleverly conceals the truth, which is that it is idolatrous. This is why the dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah cannot be (and has not been) left untouched.
This model, which is depicted graphically in my 'Cosmological Organization Chart' in my website, the duality and inequality of Yhwh and Yeshua, linked together by the Holy Spirit, I believe can be applied to any and all scripture because it is the Biblical model. My Cosmological Chart also shows how this Biblical model differs from either trinitarian dogma or modalism because of the Nicene attempt to effect a marriage between Christianity and paganism, at the expense of Judaism, which is the basic theory of classical Christianity. As E. L. Woodward said, though, paganism "could only rival Christianity by using the methods and even the doctrines of the church, and . . . These new elements could never really attach themselves to the old pagan foundations." The marriage, in other words, was a "shotgun wedding," with Constantine's guards standing by literally to force church representatives to consent to the union, which tradition of coercion, manipulation and doubletalk continues to this day and continues to offer the most convincing proof of all of the illegitimacy of trinitarian dogma. Without coercion to back it up, people will not be faithful to trinitarian dogma or modalism because they can sense that neither is completely "kosher."
So this is my answer: No, scripture does not preach and teach the "deity" of Yeshua; rather, even scripture has been molested by trinitarians and modalists, as the NKJV of Rom 9:5 above also illustrates, to force the Word of Yhwh into conformity with mystery Babylon. Together with the mainstream Jewish attempted assassination of the New Covenant, these are the greatest holocausts ever, and the fanatical majority enthusiasm for these abominations only serves to elucidate Jeremiah's prophecy, among others:
Jer 30:11 (NKJV) "For I am with you,' says Yhwh, 'to save you; Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, Yet I will not make a complete end of you. But I will correct you in justice, And will not let you go altogether unpunished.'"
Why will Yhwh wipe out most of civilization? Because most people fall so easily into the hands of the enemy. Because most people, like Esau, care so little about the heritage of Jacob. Because most people, even the "righteous," refuse to follow Yeshua.
MA: We ought to be free to do the same thing. To
> DENY that any of us can use this kind of language is to put us at odds with
> abundant scriptural rhetoric, and to pick a fight that you do not have to
> pick in order to make your case.
ML: I do not deny you the use of the dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah.. Yhwh denies you. I am just a scribe instructed concerning the Kingdom of heaven, who offers you treasure new and old. You are free to take my treasure or leave it. Perhaps you consider it garbage and throw it out. That is up to you. I am not picking a fight. I am fighting, that is true, but I am fighting against the ultimate pollution. That is not picking a fight. That is refusing to be intimidated. That is following Yeshua. Trinitarian dogma is a bully, which intimidates people into silence and even death--even perdition. I am the little kid that no one expects, who looks for the bully's weak point and goes for the jugular. I am David with his slingshot, facing Goliath with his spear like a weaver's beam. I know that trinitarian dogma is Goliath. I know that the doctrine of the "deity" of Yeshua is the heart of the deception, and to avoid that issue is to fail to root out the problem and to fail as a Messianic Jew. I know that just to fight against the enemy is to win; therefore, I intend to win.
MA: This will cause an unnecessary reaction to
> your message. It is a needless distraction.
ML: It is not a needless distraction. It is the heart of the matter.
MA: Be free to develop the true
> doctrine of Christology, in your arguments, and in your discussions. Let it
> all come out. But don't do it at the expense of language that IS found in
> the scripture.
ML: Where? Not in Rom 9:5. And Rom 9:5 is typical of the rest of the trinitarian and modalist "proof-texts." Translations are stilted, sometimes even to the point of blatant forgery, as in I Jn 5:7 and I Tim 3:16. I think Barton Stone did a good job of correcting some of these mistranslations, and plenty of others have worked on the problem and done a lot to solve it, especially during and after the Reformation. Much of that work, though, is out of print or censored, but if you have any other examples you want to discuss, I will try to explain them.
MA: In other words, don't define your points in reaction to how
> others have defined the "diety of Christ" and in so doing end up eliminating
> some important scriptural vocabulary. RECLAIM and REDIFINE the "diety of
> Christ" in the same way the Apostles understood it.
ML: I don't believe that I am eliminating any scriptural vocabulary. I did not eliminate the meaning of Rom 9:5; rather, I reclaimed it. Nor did the Apostles affirm the dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah. The Israeli Jewish disciples of the Apostles, in fact, broke off their relations with the Greek church fathers in the second century because the Greeks became too docetic. This information is recorded in Newton and Mosheim, if not elsewhere. Since these Israeli Jewish disciples were the direct heirs of the Apostles, this break in relations with the Greeks tends to show, along with many other things, that the dogma of the "deity" of Yeshua is not apostolic.
MA: Just because the term
> has been contaminated, does not mean we have eliminate it all together.
ML: If the dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah is the heart of mystery Babylon and threatens to destroy the Kingdom of Yhwh, we must eliminate it altogether, taking a firm stand against it and calling upon others to repent.
MA: > Now you may be asking, where does the term "diety of Christ" appear
> in Scripture? To my knowledge, it does not, and at the moment cannot even
> think of an occurance of the word "diety."
ML: I believe it does occur, as a matter of fact: "In him, the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily." Theotes, "Godhead," also could be translated "Deity." The Godhead, i.e. Yhwh, dwelt IN Yeshua, just as you dwell in your house, but you are not your house, and Yeshua is not "fully God." Spirits may dwell in people and cause them to do and say things, but this does not make those spirits those people. Spirits may leave people, and those people may return to their normal selves. To dwell "bodily" or "materially," though, means simply that the words and actions of the Son are the words and actions of the Father, even though the Son is not the Father. The doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah, though, means that the Father and the Son are not just one in word and deed but also in "Being," which is an oxymoron. This is not rightly dividing the Word of Truth; this is babel.
MA: But this is not at odds with my
> point. The concept is available in verses like the one quoted above, and
> English parlance could just as well say "diety of Christ" as "Christ...the
> eternally blessed God."
ML: Scripture DOES refer to Yeshua as God, but it also refers to others, especially the judges, as "elohim" (cf. Exo 21:6, 22 and 22:8-9), a point which Yeshua himself made (see Jn 10:35ff, which, btw, is another key passage that has been distorted). The mistake that many are making is equating the fact that scripture refers to Yeshua as God with the doctrine of the "deity" of Yeshua. The fallacy of that equation is that one might then speak of the deity of the judges or the deity of all those "to whom the Word of God came":
John 10:34 Yeshua answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are elohim"'?
John 10:35 "If He called them elohim [God], to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
John 10:36 "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
The Word of God has come to all the members of the body of Messiah. May we not, then, speak of the deity of Paul, the deity of Peter, the deity of Mark, etc.? If one believes in the "deity" of the Messiah because he is called God, why not also believe in the deity of all the others, whom scripture calls God. If so, then what does one mean when one speaks of the "deity" of the Messiah? Did we all form Adam from the dust? Did we all live before the foundations of the earth were laid? Should we all bow down to each other? Are we all immortal, i.e. Yhwh? Well, I suppose we are, in a sense, so we all should worship ourselves.
Perhaps you will agree that the idea that the doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah is valid just because Yeshua is called God in scripture doesn't lead where we are trying to go. Not where I am trying to go, anyway. To speak of the "deity" of someone properly means he is the one and only supreme Being, over all others. There only can be one supreme Being, unless you believe in more than one. Personally, I just believe in one supreme Being. I believe in the deity of Yhwh, and I believe that the Messiah Yeshua is Yhwh's dearest Son, which is the basic confession of the New Testament.
MA: If the Apostles could use such phrases as tools for
> thought and expression, within the scope of correct interpretation, so can
> we.
ML: Scripture has been tampered. I have mentioned a few examples, and there are others, notably Matt 28:19. Translations also may be and are misleading. This is not a cause for panic or despair. This is a cause for correction and better translations. I Jn 5:7, for example, more and more is being corrected in new translations. Even the New American (Catholic) Bible has it right now, and this process of correction needs to continue. When it is done, Biblical support for trinitarian dogma will decrease substantially, and people won't be so inclined to think that trinitarian dogma or modalism is apostolic.
MA: Have I aritculated this in such a way that you see that I do not
> disagree with your message?
ML: What would happen if you started preaching publicly against the deity of the Messiah? How long would you remain in your position in your congregation? Let me guess: About one week, or maybe a month.
Suppose I joined your congregation and told others that I don't believe in the deity of Yeshua. Suppose I started circulating such ideas, especially in writing. How long would I remain a member of your congregation? Not long, I suspect. I have done this before, and the reaction is predictable.
If I were in your congregation, then you might be on the spot. As a pastor, you might have to decide either to defend me or not. You might even have to participate in my expulsion. If you defended me, you risk losing your position, your friends, etc.
There is no middle ground on this point. We are either for the Lord, or we are against him. What he requires of us is the same thing he required of the original believers: Total committment. The problem is that people want to hold back a little--like Ananias and Sapphira. Look what happened to them, which was to make it clear that Yhwh will not accept partial committment. That's not good enough. We must go all the way, as it is written:
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.
We must be willing to die, not stupidly, but like a soldier, who is willing to die for his country. The Kingdom of Yhwh is our country, and the confession that the Messiah Yeshua is Yhwh's dearest Son and the (original autograph of the) New Testament, not trinitarian dogma or modalism, is our pledge of allegiance. If we confess trinitarian dogma or the dogma of the "deity" of the Messiah, life will be easy and people will love us, but we will be like most Jews, who still reject Yeshua and therefore enjoy all the privileges available to them in the Jewish world. Once a Jew openly confesses Yeshua, he or she loses his or her right to immigrate to Israel, to join synagogues or other Jewish organizations, etc. One becomes an outcast. Likewise, once a Christian renounces trinitarian dogma or modalism, he or she is considered "no longer a Christian" and no longer eligible for the privileges of being a Christian. One becomes an outcast, like Yeshua and his disciples. Yet this is precisely what it means to follow Yeshua. We must go the "narrow way, which leads to life, which few people find." We must renounce both trinitarian dogma and modalism and stick just to scripture. That is the narrow way, but trinitarianism and modalism are the "broad road to destruction."
MA: I only say these things because I think it is
> important.
ML: The only reason to shy away from the "deity of the Messiah" fight is to make a peace treaty with the bully in which he continues to bully and others continue to be bullied. If Yeshua had followed this route, he would have made a deal with Caiaphas, et. al., and we would be dead in our sins. Following Yeshua is not allowing Satan to continue in power. Both Satan and Yeshua cannot be Lord. Satan must go; therefore, trinitarian dogma must go, root and all.
If a car is black, it isn't blue. To speak of the "deity" of the Messiah is like saying a black car is blue. You can redefine and reclaim all you want, but black is black, and blue is blue. The doctrine of the "deity" of Yeshua is just playing with words. Scripture certainly does not require any such confession. Why, then, do you and others? This is what is known as Christian legalism, which is just the non-Jewish counterpart of Jewish legalism. Granted, the "deity" of the Messiah is a tricky issue, but at the end of the day (which is not far away), it's just not required, and it's not even really there.
Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!" but Yeshua immediately chided Thomas for his unbelief and his demand for visual proof and blessed those who believe, even though Yeshua is in heaven and they can't see him. What Thomas exclaimed, in other words, was not exactly right. Just a few paragraphs before, Yeshua had said:
John 20:17 Yeshua said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, and to MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.'"
Yhwh, in other words, is Yeshua's Father and God, too, but Thomas, because of his unbelief, called Yeshua his Lord and God. Yeshua did not object because Yeshua is elohim, but Yeshua is not "fully God"; therefore, Yeshua did not bless Thomas because Thomas still exhibited unbelief by calling Yeshua "God." When Peter had called Yeshua the Son of God, Yeshua blessed Peter and gave him the keys of heaven, but Yeshua blessed those who believe without seeing instead of Thomas. So it is not good to speak too aggressively of Yeshua as God or to believe in the "deity" of the Messiah., which is just another illustration of how "proof texts" turn out not to be so. Thomas wasn't exactly right, and neither is the doctrine of the "deity" of the Messiah.
>
> Your Brother,
>
> MA
ML: I do not counsel you to do anything rash. I counsel you to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. This change will not come without conflict; therefore, you must walk a thin line between going too fast and going too slow. There are some who know better, yet who say and do nothing or not enough, and the beast is swallowing them. Others have acted too quickly and been knocked right off the track. I will try to help you in any way I can.
Shalom.
--
Mark R. Lerner, Pakid HaK'hilah (Pastor)
Beit Yisrael Elohim (The House of the Israel of God)
Messianic Judaism, Yes! Trinitarian Dogma, No! Trinitarian Dogma is
the Very "mystery Babylon" and "666" of the Book of Revelation (see
http://www.bigfoot.com/~mlerner)!
Mat 13:52 Then [the Messiah Yeshua] said to them, "Therefore every
scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder
who brings out of his treasure things new and old."
Return to Trinitarian Dogma: The Very . . .