Moses, I will reply to as
much of this as I can get through.
Think of the significance of
such an assertion, “Jesus Christ is LORD”. It means that Jesus is their Master
or Ruler. In Matthew 16, Jesus
asked the significant question, “who do you say that I
am?” Now, recall, all the answers before
Peter’s are in line, substantially, with your stance on Christ – that he is a
created man. For the prophets of old
were also created men. If Peter was
confessing Christ to be a mere man in the words, “thou are the Christ, the Son
of the Living God,” what is the substantive difference with that confession and
what the other apostles said? The different is that Jesus was not
the people that were listed. At
best, only a functional difference can be pointed out in that Christ was the
one who made atonement while the others proclaimed the coming of the
atoner. To confess Christ as “the Son of
God” or the “Son of the Living God” is to confess that Christ shares the same
nature as His father – Deity. Incorrect, because Deity is not the
son of God, the angels are called sons of God, and we by adoption are sons of
God, God is not his own Son so what you just stated is completely unbiblical. I believe this to be the true and biblical teaching for
if the “sons of Adam” are so because they inherit his nature, then surely
Christ is called the “Son of God” because He has the nature of His Father - the
one and indivisible God. You got the
sons of Adam part right, but the comparison is that Adam is the Creator of
the fallen Creation, and Jesus is the Creator of the New Creation. But when it
comes to God, there is only one God, the Father, and you are trying to say that
the Son of God means God had a little baby God named Jesus with the same nature
as God, and Scripture doesn't teach that they had the same nature,
Preachers taught you that. Jesus was a and still is a man, and God is not and never was a man. So they do NOT have
the same nature.
That
Christ is God/Lord is essential for salvation as well. For what does the Scripture say? “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord
Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will
be saved” (Romans 10:9). Notice here the
necessity of the confession of Christ as God, as kurios , as YHWH! The Deity of Christ is essential to true
Christian faith! I already handled this
in my previous email. You don't know what Lord (kurios)
means yet.
You mentioned also that we are
Christ’s because “he bought us for a price.”
In Acts 20:28, Paul commands the elders of
Before
proceeding to Hebrews, I would like to reiterate that I am not arguing for language
but for concepts that are in Holy Scripture. That some of the “language” that I have used
comes from early Creeds might possibly be so. I myself have never studied the
Creeds You
aren't alone, most Trinitarians haven't. but I have read
a few selections of some Church Fathers and I would assert to you that their
ideas and did not originate with men but are solidly grounded in the exposition
and exegesis of Scripture. You mean
like Purgatory? and Transubstantiation? and Praying to Dead People? and
calling Mary "the Mother of God?" I disagree,
those concepts of the Church Fathers do not come from Scripture, and are
far from being exegesis.
One
other thing I would like to address is the translation of the Greek and
Hebrew. First, it is true that “elohim” is used to refer to “false
gods”. Elohim is the general noun, or name, for Deity in the O.T. False, not all the time, when
Moses is called "elohim" it doesn't refer to him being a "false
God." It is a reference to the Power and Authority that God gave to
him. On a side note, elohim is also plural. It's a
plural word that is only used in the singular. When you put
on shorts to go cut the grass, that's a plural word that is used in the singular.
You don't have 2 garments around your waist. Please don't try to prove an
entire Doctrine of a plural nature of God with a Hebrew word of the fiercely
monotheistic Jews. Sorry, that's won't hold water in any debate. Please tell me
that you know that the Jews never thought that their God was a plural being
just because the word elohim is a plural word. Come on. Second, the way that one distinguishes between God –
capital G – and god – false god or one functioning in the place of god – is
always CONTEXT! For instance, because we
know form the testimony of other Scriptures, even the whole of Scripture, that
there is only one Being that is the true God (Monotheism), we can read Psalm
82:1 which says, “God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among
the gods…” On the basis of the
revelation of the one true God, we know that there is only one God who alone is
God and reigns supreme. Thus, the first elohim is translated as “God” and the
second elohim is translated as
“gods”. The same Hebrew word is used but
CONTEXT is what makes the difference.
So, what is the context of Psalm 82:6?
These who are called “gods” are unrighteous judges of
I am going to stop here. I must admit that your words (or Rhema) are very scholarly, but the concepts (or Logos)
therein are very religious and immature. You have spent a lot of time trying to
prove what you believe with what you believe, and have not seriously
looked into simple concepts like "son of" or "Lord" or
"Messiah." So I will respond to the rest tomorrow if I find
that there is something in the 2nd half of this paper worth responding to. If
not, I will bow out of the Debate seeing as you are unable to respond to my points, or Hidden's points so far.
In regards to Hebrews, first
things first: original intent of the
author. The audience/recipients of the
letter were Jews who became Christians and were under persecution for their
Christian faith. Correct. A group of
people that would have thought that worshiping a man as God to be Idolatry.
Under these circumstances, and
seeing that their Jewish brethren and friend were not being persecuted or
enduring such harsh circumstances, they were actually considering abandoning
Christ and their faith and returning to Judaism. The author’s purpose in writing is to exhort
and admonish these brethren to persevere in their Christian faith by offering
various arguments on how Christ is better than Judaism. Thus, begins the book of Hebrews.
“GOD, who
at various times and in various ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the
prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…” Amen. The writer makes a clear distinction between
God and His Son Jesus Christ. There is no concept of Christ being a GodMan nor of a Triune God to be
found here. And there is a transition from the OT in vs
1 to when Christ came in vs 2. And
lastly, when we read the rest of vs 2
below, we find that God has appointed Jesus heir of all things. God
is not an heir, God already has all things, He has willed them to His Son Jesus
Christ (and to us).
In the introduction, there is the acknowledgement of the
validity of the Jewish religion because God did indeed reveal to the Jews, the
ways of God. I agree. But
now, in the coming of Christ, God has again spoken and with finality (hence the
aorist tense of the verb “to speak”).
The author begins to speak of Christ and the status He has over the
prophets of old, and even over all creation.
“…whom [Christ] He [God] has appointed heir
of all things, through whom [Christ] also He
[God] made the worlds [aion = ages, or this age]; who [Christ] being
the brightness of His [God’s] glory and the express image of His [God’s]
person, and upholding all things by the word of His [Christ’s] <- no, that His is [God's] power, when He [Christ] had by Himself purged our sins,
sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty on High, having become so much better than angels, as He
[Christ] has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (v2-4) Amen. Clear distinctions between God and Christ. The writer in no
way thought Christ was God.
And
we will see more distinctions between God and Christ below:
From here, the author gives
reason why Christ is better,
“For to
which of the angels did He [God] ever say:
‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’
”?
And again,
‘I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be
to Me a Son’ ” ?
But
when He [God’s] again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’ ”
Angels,
however, at their very best are ministering spirits for the people of God (v7,
14). Now we come to verse 8 and the
author, again, makes his arguments as to why Christ is better than angels. We read:
But to the
Son He [God] says:
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter
of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated
lawlessness;
Therefore, God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of
gladness more than your companions.’
And:
‘you, LORD, in the
beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
They will perish, but You
remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
Like a cloak You
will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the
same,
And Your years
will not fail.’ ”
As
pointed out in my initial paper, these passages are from Psalm 45:5-6 and
102:25-27. Psalm 45:5-6 appears to be a
coronation ceremony for the king of
Now, returning to Hebrews 1, the author explicitly
applies what the Psalmist taught about the Messiah and the one true God to
Jesus Christ, the Son. Absolutely incorrect.
The writer of Hebrews applies the relationship and authority and power that
YHVH had with OT Israel to the relationship and authority and power that the Meshuak has with the NT Church. You are completely ignoring
what "appointed heir" means in vs 2, and
what "Jesus' inheritance" is and vs 4, and
that the author if speaking of "the world to come" in Heb 2:5. Jesus
is an heir to the throne, that's what the writer is talking about. The
sure thing that we can conclude the author of Hebrews to be teaching is that
Jesus Christ is YHWH God of the Old Testament. When
you say "we can conclude," I agree, that is
what Trinitarians conclude because of their eisegesis of the Scripture. That Jesus
Christ is not the Father is also clear from the context because the author has
demonstrated how the Father speaks to Jesus Christ,
and not the Father’s testimony about Himself.
The syntax will not support that the Father and Christ are the same
person here, nor anywhere in the Bible. I
know, because the Father is YHWH, and the Son is the Messiah. The are not the same at all.
That God is superior over angels goes without saying, and
the Hebrew audience would have surely knows that. The author of Hebrews is proving the
superiority of Christ over angels and he does this by acknowledging the person
of Jesus Christ to be declared by the Father to be the Creator, eternal, and
immutable along with Himself. Hence, the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. That sentence was utter nonsense, and textbook
eisegesis. Where do you get "co-eternal" from when we just saw that
there is a beginning point of Jesus' reign as King.
Jesus is appointed heir of God.
AS for your comments about the context of Hebrews 1:8-12,
they are true as far as the O.T. quotes were originally given because they
>>pointed to the coming of the Messiah<<. But in Hebrews, the Messiah has already come. Right!
That's what it's about, but you just said earlier that it was Jesus that was on
the throne back in the OT according to the Psalmist, so which is it? Was Jesus
always on the throne? or is that something that
recently happened? You are trying to say both, and are therefore communicating
confusion, not truth. As mentioned before, the overall context of the work is
to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Judaism as arguments to
convince these Hebrew Christians to persevere in their Christian faith. I agree, but it doesn't change the nature of God
as you Trinitarians are trying to do. We have the same God as the OT Jews had;
the difference is that we have the Messiah too (2John 9). You are missing that.
Thus, the context of the quote is in the
midst of the demonstration of the superiority of Christ, particularly over
angels (later arguments include His superiority over Moses, the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, and the O.T. sacrificial
system). I would like to know your thoughts Hebrews
You asserted; “So thinking that the authority that God
has given to the Messiah (prince) makes the Messiah God is like thinking that
Pharaoh literally thought Moses was God in Exodus 7:1. Both would be poor scholarship.” I totally agree which is why I never asserted
that the Messiah was “made” God. In
fact, in the light of Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12, I would asserted that the God was always the Messiah in the second
member of the Trinity, the eternal son, Jesus Christ. You can assert that if you like, but the text
doesn't. God cannot be made.
So if I assert that Christ is God, it would be utterly inconsistent to
assert that Christ, the Messiah, was “made God.” You completely missed my point of the
comparison. The comparison is that Moses was called or thought of "as
God" by Pharaoh means the same thing as when Jesus is called or thought of
"as God" in Heb 1:8. both verses are a
reference to these 2 men having Authority and Power over the people by the Will
of God, and both men being liberators or saviors of men by the Will of God. And
you have still ignored that very simple point. My belief about the Messiah is that it is God in the
flesh as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Wow,
not even close. Isa 53 is prophetic of the suffering
Christ that will happen centuries later. That's what the entire OT is about. On a side
note, Exodus 7:1, it seems, is meant to who the function and relationship of
Moses to Aaron since Moses does not feel competent enough to speak to
Pharaoh. Let me elaborate.
Notice
in Exodus 6:28-30 that Moses questions God about how he, “being of
uncircumcised lips” will be taken to by pharaoh. The verses that follow are an analogical
Explanation of how Moses will
give words to Aaron to speak to Pharaoh in the like manner that God will speak His word to Moses to
give to the people. The analogy is that
as God speaks to Moses, so Moses shall speak to Aaron the Word of God to Pharoah. Exodus 7:1
in no way is intended to state or declare the ontological nature of Moses as
God, or a god. To support this, God
thoroughly declared in Isaiah 40-48 that He alone is God and there is no other
(Monotheism). I explained it above, again,
and you've ignored it so far.
Finally, I would like to address the charge of “textbook
eisegesis” in regards to Col. 1:15-17, particularly verse 16, in which you said
Trinitarians try to make the text say
“that Jesus Christ created the Heavens and the Earth back in Genesis, when the context
is Paul talking about the Resurrection and the New Creation through Jesus
Christ…” My friend, I don’t have to make
the text say that for it already does.
Colossians 1:15-17 says, My
friend, I didn't say that you were making the text in vs
15-17 say anything different. What I said is that you are ignoring the context.
Start in vs 1 and read the dang chapter. You can't
get "context" of the 3 verses by just reading the 3 verses. Goodness,
you are too bright of a guy for me to have to tell you that. Read the context,
starting in vs 1. Vs 2 makes
a clear distinction between God and Jesus Christ; Paul had never heard of this
Roman GodMan. You will get to vs
5 (our Hope- the Resurrection), and vs 12 (the
inheritance of the Saints -the Resurrection and Eternal Life) and vs 14 (the Crucifixion of Jesus), and see that vs 15 is about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then
see that vs 16 is about Jesus Resurrecting all of
Creation. That's the highlights of the context that you are completely
ignoring. Paul is talking about the Resurrection of Christ,
and the Resurrection of us. He is not talking about the creation from back in
Genesis.
“He
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation. For by Him all things were
created that are in heaven and are on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for
Him. And He [Christ] is before all
things, and in Him all things consist.”
All
these pronouns (He, Him) all refer back to “the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood…” found in verses
13 and 14. If it is “by Him”, that is,
through the agency of Christ that “all things” were made, then does it not
follow that Christ’s existence precedes the creation of all things. If Christ precedes
the existence of all things, then isn’t Christ eternal? Well he is
now, because God has resurrected him unto Eternal Life (vs
15, vs 18).And
what Paul is saying here consistent with what John said in John 1:1 (see my
exegesis in the first letter)? Verse 17
is so clear: “And He is before all things.” I know, he is Lord over all things. But sorry, Jesus being before
all things doesn't make him God, it makes him Lord.
I guess the moral of the story is that if you don't know what
"Lord" means, then you can easily be fooled by the Doctrines and
Traditions of men.
I think I have sufficiently replied to the relevant
points in your last response. If there
was something that you think I missed or need to elaborate on more, feel free
to ask me to do so. As far as your
“questions” in your first response letter, I will meditate on that some more
and search the Scriptures. What I have
offered I believe to is according to sound exegesis at the Scriptural level
(i.e. comparing Scripture with Scripture) and even at the grammatical and
syntactical levels of the original languages.
These last levels especially, are where true exegesis takes place. Neglect of these levels is the beginning of
eisegesis.
I
hope that you will respond back to these particular passages that I have dealt
with and not merely with general statements or refutations about the
Trinity. If you and I both believe that
the Scriptures are the Word of God, then it is the word of God that must
convince us of our belief and hold our consciences captive. I look forward to your next response. Until then…
You have still ignored my very simple question from my first email:
If Jesus is God, then why would Jesus need to be given all
Power? (Mat 28:18) Wouldn't Jesus have always had all Power if he is
God?
Elect in Christ, That's right, you are elect "in Christ" not in some
Pagan GodMan
Moses
Hidden,
This response is primarily for the edification of you and I, in the Truth of God's Word. I understand that
Trinitarians that are entrenched in their Dogma will not look into such
Spiritual things, they will just continue in that Dogma. All I can do is plant;
I cannot give the increase.
Your Brother in Christ