This is the continuation of the "why do you believe" discussion from Vox Day's blog. The discussion thread is here. As you can see, this post won't dissappear off the end of _this_ blog for a very long time.
I changed over to blogger comments. I transferred all the comments that had any content from the post below.
UPDATE: I changed the template, the messages are much easier to read this way, I think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
I will post a couple of short things now, and address some others in more depth when I''ve had a chance to review them once again.
Concerning in what manner Jesus is the word of God, this is my view (largely based in Islam): Jesus (not having two human parents) came into being through the word of God in much the same way that Adam did; God said, "Believe", and he was given life. No more than this made Adam divine or a part of a triune godhead does this make Jesus. And (you may laugh at this one, I can take it) if Jesus was the word of God made flesh, what was the voice from Heaven, from God, that spoke at his baptism?
So now, because I do not really trust in the New Testament, is there any way that you can explain to me the Christian belief of this (in what way Christianity means that Jesus is himself the word of God) that doesn't scare me away by just repeating what John or Paul (who give me the willies more than any others) said
To say that Jesus is the Word of God, or the Word made flesh does not render the the other two members of the Godhead mute. John, when he used this terminology, was referring both to the Old Testament "Word of the Lord", and to the neo-platonists who talked a good deal about the Logos, or reason. Like calling him the Son doesn't mean that He is the literal descendant of the Father, calling Him the Word doesn't mean that He is the only member of the Godhead who can speak. Any human word or description of any member of the Godhead, or of the Godhead itself, is going to an approximation. No finite, human word, even a divinely inspired word, is going to be able to exactly describe divinity. We have to approach divinity metaphorically, analogically, and by negation.
Trying to describe Jesus without using the New Testament is rather difficult, but I will see what I can do. First I would like to know what it is about the NT that you find objectionable, If it is the results of some modern so-called scholarship, let me assure you that the same scholars, or their OT counterparts, are rougher on the OT. Most of their criticism, though is misdirected, as I pointed out in the thread earlier they generally start with baseless assumptions, add in lots of guesswork, and totally ignore the testimony of those who were contemporaneous, or nearly so, of the events in question.
But back to who the "Word" was. As I noted above identifying Jesus as "The Word of God", is a reference both to the "Word of the Lord" commonly found in the Old Testament and to the idea of "logos" that was typical of the neoplatonists. In the Old Testament, the "Word of the Lord" is a very common construction, and does, at times, seem to be personified. In addition the identity of Jesus can be seen in various prophecies, such as the messianic prophecy in Micah:
But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity."
One of the verses used by Jesus to demonstrate His identity:
The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
And among many from Isaiah:
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
When we Christians say that Jesus is "the Word of God", we mwan that He is literally God, and has existed from eternity past. He was in no way created, there was never a time when He was not.
I think that drawing a parallel between Christ and Adam is a little misquided, or rather, incomplete. What you say may be true of Jesus human nature, indeed, of all human natures, yours and mine included, but his divine nature was pre-existant. In Christian theology Jesus is the God-man, the theanthropos, he is both fully human and fully divine at the same time. As in the doctrine of the Trinity this is not really something that can be readily apprehended by the human mind, but as I said in regard to the Trinity this is not really surprising, if I _could_ apprehend the ontology of God, either as Trinity or theanthropos, I would be both surprised and suspicious.
Of course, that should have read God said, "Be".
One of my online sources for information of alternate (non-Trinitarian) interpretations of the NT is a website called Biblical Unitarians. There is a section of common verses in the NT that are used to support the doctrine of the trinity, which they alternately explain or refute. I could basically post the entire thing on this blog for my questions, because in general I believe the explanations cited there and would be interested in any refutations from "orthodox" Christianity of these points. Perhaps if you know of a website you think well "proves" the trinity (using the typical NT verses that are targeted for this) you could refer me there.
What English translation of the NT is judged to be the closest, most literal, to the Greek? I have not liked the NIV or NASB for translations of the Hebrew Tanakh, but maybe they are better for the NT. I actually like very much the KJV, but have known Christians to complain of this version for the NT.
In reply to Starwind, I have read a number of the interesting studies of Daniel and how the coming of the Messiah is worked from these prophecies. Because I do not at this time know that I trust this book at even the level I do the chumash (first 5 books) I do not have a response to this.
"Any human word or description of any member of the Godhead, or of the Godhead itself, is going to an approximation. No finite, human word, even a divinely inspired word, is going to be able to exactly describe divinity."
This is part of my problem with the trinity doctrine. Of course, the oneness of God is unlike anything on this earth that is "one". This is clear in the Hebrew and Arabic when God speaks of Himself singular to plural, first person to third, within a single statement or sentence. It seems as if the true understanding of God is lessened or lost, even divine truth perverted, in trying through the trinity doctrine to impose a more detailed definition on the God.
One of my online sources for information of alternate (non-Trinitarian) interpretations of the NT is a website called Biblical Unitarians. There is a section of common verses in the NT that are used to support the doctrine of the trinity,
The Biblical Unitarian website is run by Christian Educational Services, which is connected to The Way, International, which is widely recognized as a cult. I would take anything on their site with a grain of salt and would take nothing they say at face values without checking out all of their references for yourself. As far as the site itself goes, I looked at their explanation of a few passages, and was unimpressed, but just the sheer number of passages that they have to "refute" should tell you something.
If you like, you can Google "The Way, International" to get some idea of what they teach, and the experiences of some of those fortunate enought to get away from them. In the mean time, if there is any specific thing on their web site that you have questions about, I would be happy to take a shot at it.
This page has a list of links dealing with trinitarianism. I haven't checked them all out, but the pages include treatments by some of the giants of the orthodox faith, Warfield, Calvin, Athanasius, and the like.
What English translation of the NT is judged to be the closest, most literal, to the Greek?
The NASB and NRSV (New Revised Standard Versin) are both good. The NIV uses a "dynamic equivelance" standard that sometimes loses information, my favorite is the NRSV. I find it odd that you like the KJV, it is better in the NT than the Old, in places in the OT it is genuinely strange, with unicorns and dragons and the like. The KJV is not a very good OT translation, it was the first English translation that used the Hebrew text of the OT and Hebrew scholarship (among English speaking Christians at any rate) wasn't very far advanced.
It seems as if the true understanding of God is lessened or lost, even divine truth perverted, in trying through the trinity doctrine to impose a more detailed definition on the God.
I don't really see how. Trinitarians do not deny the oneness of God, the Shema remains one of the foundations of the Christian faith. The Trinity is simply a concise formulation of the truth that Christians have found in the Bible. As you said the divine "oneness" is somewhat different from human conceptions of oneness, but this is precisely what trinitarian doctrine claims. If we are trying to "impose" a more detailed definition of God, it is simply what we have found in God's self-revelation in Jesus and in His word.
Just checking in...
browser & firewall compatibility checked out...
I'll begin to post later
Blockquotes not allowed...bummer
paragraph tags not allowed... bummer
break tags not allowed... bummer
alrightythen, I'll just work with it.
"The Biblical Unitarian website is run by Christian Educational Services, which is connected to The Way, International, which is widely recognized as a cult."
I chose the website as a representative reference example because it reflects my own conclusions. Of course anything apart from "orthodox" Christianity you are going to label as a cult or heretics, but to me that has little meaning because my view of the NT and its varied interpretations is not organised in that way. Are Quakers (I'm thinking some of the William Penn writings) a cult as well?
I give the KJV a bit of room for being such archaic English, but I like a translation very literal and unbiased. I will check out the NRSV; I am wondering if it is different from the RSV Catholic edition that I have?
I will look through the links you suggested. I may have time for another post today, but then will be several days offline and hope to resume upon my return.
I'm printing out this one to look over much more: http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/trinity.htm
I'm also thinking about Numbers 6:24-27 and Isaiah 6:3 as part of a possible trinitarian pattern (or special relevance to '3' over other number associations such as in Jewish mysticism) that has no relation to the pre-Christian pagan trinitarianism/tritheism (Hindu etc) with which I've always associated the NT.
The remainder of this entry I'm taking off the Biblical Unitarians website, but concerns my questions specifically of Matthew 28:19
1. Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
2. If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the “name of Jesus Christ,” i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively “baptized.” “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38). “They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.
and,
5. It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one “name,” so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to “confound the persons” (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one “name,” especially since no such “name” is ever given in Scripture (“God” is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three “persons,” then it should use the word “names.” There is a much better explanation for why “name” is used in the singular.
A study of the culture and language shows that the word “name” stood for “authority.” Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the “name” (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.
k, Larry;
I very much appreciate the opportunity for a more indepth exchange.
k, you have asked good questions (not surprisingly) and it will take a while to compose a substantive answer, so given you'll be offline for a few days, I think I'll use that time to compose the most in-depth answer I can.
I will endeavor to base my answers on Hebrew Scripture as much as possible, and show the confirmation or extension in New Testament passages.
I suspect Larry will be far better equipped than I to offer defenses of OT/NT manuscript reliability. I'll comment when able, but I'll tend to focus more on the theological issues.
k, a brief question to help my answers.
Analogies often can be helpful and insightful, but only if they are applicable. I like to use analogies when possible. To that end, I understand you are a woman and married (scripture is filled with "marriage/husband/wife" analogies) but do you have any children of your own, or perhaps you work with or teach small, young children?
No answer is needed if you'd rather not, and I apologize if I have inadvertently been too intrusive.
chose the website as a representative reference example because it reflects my own conclusions. Of course anything apart from "orthodox" Christianity you are going to label as a cult or heretics, but to me that has little meaning because my view of the NT and its varied interpretations is not organised in that way. Are Quakers (I'm thinking some of the William Penn writings) a cult as well?
The Way, International is little bit more than just unorthodox, they venture into the "abusive" category. Quakers, by and large, believe in the Trinity. Some branches don't formally adopt the dogma of the trinity; they accept the Godhead of the Father, Son and Spirit, but refuse to get into what the relationship between them is, insisting that since the Bible doesn't say they shouldn't either. I think they are wrong in their reading of the Bible, but this certainly doesn't remove them from Christianity. I think you will find William Penn in this latter group, though it is difficult to categorize individual Quakers because of their belief in the "inner light".
I give the KJV a bit of room for being such archaic English, but I like a translation very literal and unbiased. I will check out the NRSV; I am wondering if it is different from the RSV Catholic edition that I have?
Will, I wouldn't exactly call the KJV literal, no doubt that the was the translater's aim, but they missed. I'm not saying its horrible, but there is a reason that the skeptics always choose the KJV when they want to ridicule the Bible.
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
Eusebius was at Nicea, but as a leader of the Arian faction, which may have had something to do with him using a non-Trinitarian form of Matthew 28:19. In my Greek NT, there are no variant readings for this verse, and certainly, if an ante-Nicene manuscript had a "in my name" rather than the Nicene formula, it would have been noted. They are also singling out Eusebius, why are they ignoring much earlier quotations, from Justin Martyr, Tertullian and the Didache for example, which use the three-part formula. Tertullian even has the communicants being dipped three times, once for the Father, once for the Son, once for the Spirit. Also contrary to your post Eusebius almost certainly didn't compose the referenced works while he was at Nicea, and in any event was almost certainly quoting from memory.
If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula.
Actually, there is not a single recorded instance of them baptizing anybody. There are places recorded where they made reference to baptism, like Acts chapter 2, but no recordings of the actual baptismal formula they used. The instruction "Be baptized into the name of Jesus" isn't the same thing as "I baptize you in the name of the Jesus". The first usage is still pretty common in sermons and the like, even today.
It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one “name,” so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to “confound the persons” (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one “name,” especially since no such “name” is ever given in Scripture (“God” is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three “persons,” then it should use the word “names.” There is a much better explanation for why “name” is used in the singular.
A simpler explanation is that by using the singular "name" that Matthew is emphasising the unity of the three. Contrary to their assertion, God is given a name in scripture, YHWH. Taking "name" to mean "under authority of", which it certainly means, does not rob the verse of its trinitarian implications because it still means under the authority of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit. Nor would using a plural "names" in any way change the meaning, it would still have the connotation of placing someone under the authority of the ones "named".
It's stunning how quickly God will change one's mind, increasing and perfecting the understanding, if one remains open to the guidance. Thank you for your replies.
k:
ok, a full html formatted answer is at http://star.wind.mystarband.net/bib/trinity_and_jesus_in_ot.htm
I'll now work on a "blogger adjusted" version to post here.
below:
===> means blockquote indent
<=== means blockquote outdent
** italicized text **
k:
Generally high-quality websites for your consideration:
-- http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html (research on canon, translations and manuscripts)
-- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ (Christian apologetics)
-- http://www.tektonics.org/ (Christian apologetics)
-- http://www.reasons.org/ (reconciliation of modern science with scripture)
-- http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/index.htm (analysis of e-BHS and e-KJV text)
-- http://www.rzim.org/ (Ravi Zacharias Intl. Ministries - mentioned before but still recommended)
I will attempt to both answer your recent specific questions and also weave those answers into the larger context of the Trinity and deity of Jesus Christ. I will be reiterating somewhat from previous posts for the sake of continuity.
The following, while not an exhaustive treatment, identifies significant Old Testament passages that establish first a 'plurality within unity', secondly that the plurality is threefold, and lastly that the Logos, "the Word" of John 1:1 (Jesus Christ) is the same "word of the LORD" (YHWH) of the Old Testament. Objections are variously raised to the Trinitarian/Christian interpretation of these passages, which are dealt with more fully in the links I've listed below, but I wanted to outline the affirmative case without encumbering it with presumptions of what you might question. (all cites are NASB):
1) Firstly, some Old Testament passages which incontrovertibly reveal "Elohim" as a plurality within unity using the plural-singular grammatical construction unique to Hebrew, are:
===>
-- Gen 1:1 "God" (masculine noun "Elohim" H430) is plural but "[He] created" (verb "bara'" H1254) is singular 3rd person masculine.
-- Gen 1:26 "God" (masculine noun "Elohim" H430) is plural but "[He] said" (verb "'amar" H559) is singular 3rd person masculine and "Us (plural 1st person common) make" (verb "'asah" H6213) is plural 1st person common.
-- Gen 1:27 "God" (masculine noun "Elohim" H430) is plural but "[He] created" (verb "bara'" H1254) is again singular 3rd person masculine.
In these passages, "God" in English has been translated from the Hebrew word "Elohim" (Strong's H430) which is a plural form of the Hebrew noun "eloah" (Strong's H433). "gods" (plural) might be a more correct literal translation, however the Hebrew sage Ramban Nachmanides in "Commentary on the Torah" (Vol 1 Genesis p25, translated and annotated by Rabbi D. Charles B. Chavel) explains:
===>
The word Elokim means "the Master of all forces," for the root of the word is **e-il** meaning force, and the word Elokim is a composite consisting of the words **e-il heim**, as if the word **e-il** is in a construct state, and **heim**, [literally] "they," alludes to all other forces. Thus **Elokim **means "the Force of all forces."
<===
Elohim is a Force (singular) of all forces (plural) - a single overall Force (one nature) of all forces (in multiple persons). Keep in mind Nachmanides is describing Elohim Himself, not His sovereignty over other forces or gods. To borrow a concept from quantum physics, the term "Elohim" is **like** the grand unified theory of quantum physics in which all forces are (sought to be) explained and derived from a single unifying force. In Nachmanides' terms, depending on how Elohim is relating to His creation different forces are perceived but all resolve into the one Force.
By contrast, Amos 4:13 uses the plural noun "Elohim" still referring to YHWH but with plural verbs this time (including "bara'" H1254) because in Amos 4:13 the verb tense (what YHWH is "doing") is **continuously ongoing** whereas in Genesis it was **past** tense.
===>
Amo 4:13 For behold, He who forms mountains and creates the wind And declares to man what are His thoughts, He who makes dawn into darkness And treads on the high places of the earth, The LORD God of hosts is His name.
<===
In Amos 4:13 "He" who "forms" (verb "yatsar"
H3335) is plural, "creates" (verb "bara'" H1254) this time is plural, "makes" (verb "'asah" H6213) is plural, etc., and "God" (masculine noun "Elohim" H430) is still plural. The verbs in Amos 4:13 are plural because the tense is "participle active" (8813) unbroken continuity (i.e., God continues to form, declare, make, tread, and create wind. Whereas the tense of the verbs are, in Gen 1:1 "perfect" (8816) to describe a completed past event, and in 1:27 both "imperfect" (8811) to describe a single completed past process (creation of man) and "perfect" (8816) to describe a completed past event (created them male and female, as opposed to the 'process' of creating man).
The point being, the plural noun "Elohim" (the "Force of all forces") referring some 2,326 times in the Old Testament to a singular G-d or YHWH is deliberate and correct.
But Hebrew sages and rabbis also knew "elohim" (still a plural noun) when paired with a plural verb refers to the plural "gods", "rulers" or "judges". This is the case some 220 times in the Old Testament. Examples of this usage are Exo 4:16 and Exo 7:1 wherein God tells Moses that Moses will be God's representative "as god [elohim]" to Pharaoh and Aaron.
There are several instances in the Old Testament where the singular "eloah" (Strong's H433) is translated "god" in reference to a foreign "god". But there are also instances where it is used of God, most them (41) found in Job, including God referring to Himself by "eloah" I don't know of a satisfying explanation for these 41+ uses of "eloah" for God versus the 2,326 uses of "Elohim".
Regardless, the **plural noun-singular verb grammatical construct** to refer to the monotheistic God of the Jews is unique to Judaism. No other culture or religion uses such a grammatical construct. The point being, it was not an artifice copied by the Old Testament writers, but a divinely inspired description of YHWH's plural person singular nature.
Further, in several instances contextual analysis demonstrates God revealing Himself in multiple persons:
-- Gen 1:26 Elohim says 'let us make man in our image'
-- Gen 16:7-11 the Angel of the LORD (Strong's H3068) Himself (YHWH) will multiply Hagar's descendants and yet speaks of the LORD (YHWH) in the 3rd person as having heard of Hagar's affliction.
-- Isa 6:8 the Lord (Strong's H136 Adonai) asks whom He will send, who will go for us
-- Psa 110:1 The LORD (YHWH) says to my Lord (Adonai): "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
If one insists on a unitarian God, then one is further confronted by a schizophrenic unitarian god.
<===
2) That plurality is expressed:
===>
2a) as twofold when referencing the Spirit of the LORD (YHWH):
===>
Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
Num 11:17 "Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of the Spirit who is upon you, and will put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you will not bear it all alone.
Num 27:18 So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him;
1Sa 10:6 "Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you mightily, and you shall prophesy with them and be changed into another man.
Isa 40:13 Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him?
Zec 4:6 Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.
<===
2b) And then threefold when including the Redeemer, Servant, Messiah, or Word of the LORD (YHWH) or Lord (Adonai):
===>
Isa 42:1 "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.
===>
Here God (1st person) draws attention to His Servant (2nd Person) upon whom God's Spirit (3rd person) has been put.
<===
Isa 48:12-17 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. (13) ... And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." (17) Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go.
===>
Lord your God, the first and last (1st person) sent "Me" your Redeemer, Holy One of Israel (2nd person) and His Spirit (3rd person).
<===
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;
===>
Lord God's (1st person) Spirit (3rd person) is upon the anointed (2nd person)
<===
Isa 63:8-10 For He said, "Surely, they are My people, Sons who will not deal falsely." So He became their Savior. (9) In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. (10) But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them.
===>
He [God of Israel, who of old, lifted and carried the chosen people] (1st person) became Savior who redeemed (2nd person) and whose Holy Spirit (3rd person) was grieved.
<===
<===
<===
3) Lastly, among that threefold plurality, Jesus Christ is the "word (memra) of the Lord":
===>
===>
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
<===
The name "Word" or "Logos" was not chosen by John anew. The "Logos" or "Memra" in Aramaic (either translated as "Word" into English) was drawn from Jewish commentaries (Targums) on the Tanach. John continued its prior usage referring to a personage of Elohim (plurality within unity) to now specifically refer to Jesus Christ, God's Messiah and Son who had come. The following points are not offered as authoritaive scripture, but rather to illustrate the theological understanding of the Jewish Rabbis (and John) as to the consistent identity of the "Logos" or "Memra" with the "Word of the LORD".
The Targums contain numerous references to the "Memra" as the agent of YHWH, Adonai or Elohim in various contexts. These teachings from Jewish rabbis/priests were in use following the Babylonian exile. Precise dating of the Targums is problematic. Targums Onkelos and Jonathan have been dated in the range 70-135 AD, while fragments of a Targum to Job and Leviticus have been found at Qumran indicating an earlier date. Orally, the Targums are Aramaic which rose in Jewish use from the Babylonian exile through until Aramaic was supplanted by Greek in the 2nd or 1st century BC.
===>
Neh 8:8 They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.
<===
Scholars are divided on what precisely Nehemiah meant by "translated", but there is general consensus that the Israelites (as a consequence of the Babylonian captivity) had lost fluency in their native Hebrew as well as familiarity with their Holy Scriptures, and so the Levites gave oral explanations in Aramaic (Chaldee) and later at some point these "explanations" began to be recorded (in Aramaic or Chaldee) as what became The Targums.
From Etheridge's translation of the Palestinian Targum, the following excerpts are typical and noteworthy:
===>
On Genesis 18-22: [JERUSALEM. And Abraham said, The Word of the Lord will prepare for me a lamb; and if not, then thou art the offering, my son! And they went both of them together with a contrite heart.]
===>
The "Word" (Logos) will prepare a substitutionary sacrifice for Issac.
<===
On Exodus 1-6: [JERUSALEM. And the Word of the Lord said to Mosheh, He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be. And he said, Thus shalt thou speak to the sons of Israel, EHEYEH hath sent me unto you.]
===>
The "Word" (Logos) was in the burning bush declaring to Moses that the "Word" himself spoke creation into being.
<===
On Exodus 18-22: [JERUSALEM. ... And Mosheh came and called the sages of Israel and set in order before them all these words which the Word of the Lord had commanded him. And all the people answered together in the fulness of their heart, and said, All that the Word of the Lord hath spoken, we will do. And Mosheh returned the words of the people in prayer before the Lord. And the Word of the Lord said to Mosheh, Behold, My Word will be revealed to thee in the thickness of the cloud, that the people may hear while I speak with thee, and may also believe for ever in the words of the prophecy of thee, My servant Mosheh. And Mosheh delivered the words of the people in prayer before the Lord.]
===>
The "Word" (Logos) gave the commandments and law to Moses
<===
<===
The point of the forgoing is simply that when John wrote "the **Logos** became flesh and dwelt among us" he was not making up new terminology, he was connecting the mediator of the old covenants with the new.
In the words of Marvin R. Vincent "**As Logos has the double meaning of thought and speech, so Christ is related to God as the word to the idea, the word being not merely a name for the idea, but the idea itself expressed.**" (Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 2 New York: Scribners, 1887, pp. 25-33.)
And in the words of the Word Himself (John 14:9) Jesus said ... **He who has seen Me has seen the Father**;
<===
Here are some website links with more detailed treatments of the above topics:
-- Christian Distinctives: The Trinity (I) and The Trinity (II) (both recommended reading)
-- Uniplurality in the Hebrew Scriptures
-- In the beginning was the λόγος ... (recommended reading)
I'll now address your specific questions within the above context:
===>
**Jesus (not having two human parents) came into being through the word of God in much the same way that Adam did; God said, "Believe", and he was given life. No more than this made Adam divine or a part of a triune godhead does this make Jesus. **
<===
Correct, Jesus did **not** have two biological parents, only Mary and the Holy Spirit. But no, there are significant differences between Jesus and Adam:
===>
Adam was created anew "from dust" (which **could** mean from elements in the atomic/molecular chemical sense); God formed Adam's DNA, molecules, cellular structure, organs, systems, etc., and then God breathed into Adam the "breath of life" at which point Adam became a living animated physical body, with a conscious self-aware soul and (unlike animals) a spirit because "man" was created in God's image, God is spirit, and the Holy Spirit communes with each person's spirit. It is the spirit that makes man different from animals (regardless of mental or physical similarities).
God may well have spoken something, but it seems unlikely that it would be a command such as "believe" which implies the "dust" was cognitive, responded and believed itself into being Adam. Possibly however, God may have said something like "let there be a man" (analogous to His having said "Let there be ...." as creative acts), but keep in mind the imperfect verb tense of bara' in Gen 1:27 for "God created man" implies a completed past **process** as opposed to a completed past act.
Regardless, Adam was not part of a triune godhead, nor was Adam a god in any deistic sense. Adam had a triune nature (1 Thes 5:23) yes, but his spirit (Job 32:8, Ecc 12:7, Psa 32:2) was not the Holy Spirit and Adam was not the begotten Son of God, Adam was a creature, a lower creation.
But because Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' humanity was in fact "begotten" (Dan 9: 25 Messiah the Prince, prince is a begotten son of a king, John 1:14, etc.) rather than created from elements.
Adam was created and not part of the Triune Godhead; God the Son (the "word", the "logos" ) was triune with God the Father and God the Spirit always, and the incarnated human Jesus was miraculously, biologically begotten.
===>
Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
<===
**if Jesus was the word of God made flesh, what was the voice from Heaven, from God, that spoke at his baptism? **
<===
The voice was God the Father, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus, and God the Father announced that Jesus (the person John had just baptized) was God's Son. Jesus didn't become God the Son at that moment (He was from eternity God the Son) but His incarnated deity was heralded. He was now Immanuel - God among us:
===>
**So now, because I do not really trust in the New Testament, is there any way that you can explain to me the Christian belief of this (in what way Christianity means that Jesus is himself the word of God) that doesn't scare me away by just repeating what John or Paul (who give me the willies more than any others) said in the NT?**
<===
Ok, set aside what the New Testament plainly states and ponder your question in the converse: Is there any way to explain how the Jewish Old Testament prophecies of a Redeemer, the Word (Logos) of YHWH (a triune God), Messiah Prince as exactingly set forth in Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 11:1, Isaiah 52 & 53, Psalm 22, Psalm 16:10, Zechariah 9:9 & 11:11-13, Micah 5:1,2 and Daniel 9:25-26... **did not come true**?
Could all Hebrew Scripture foretelling of God's Redeemer and Messiah, exact to the year of baptism and details of the crucifixion, been wrong? Why is it that Rabbi's struggle to "interpret" or "understand" Isaiah 52 & 53? Why is Daniel excluded from any Messianic discussion? What are they pretending not to know?
Not only are you faced with the intellectual choice of Jesus (an Islamic Prophet as well) being either madman or Messiah, you are also confronted with the intellectual choice of Hebrew Scripture being mostly mistaken (and why presume credence in any of it?) or else it came true.
I don't pose the converse of your question as a glib attempt to deflect you. I'm quite serious. Setting aside NT passages de-facto sets aside an affirmative answer. But an affirmative answer based on OT passages is still possible, except it is both impractical and repetitious. Consider all the proof passages already posted here, on previous threads, in books and other answers you've already considered. Indeed all the passages (beyond those listed above) could be listed yet again, but how would that make for a more compelling argument this time and not simply be obscured again in book-length explanations?
Rather this time, prove to yourself that all of Hebrew scripture has been (or will be) fulfilled, but do it **without** Jesus Christ. Show all of Holy Scripture (Old Testament) to be true, but demonstrate the prophesied Messiah must be someone else.
Jeremiah prophesied:
===>
23:5-6 "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. (6) "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness.'
<===
and Zechariah also prophesied:
===>
12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Israel a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look to Me, the One they have pierced, and mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a firstborn Son."
<===
Were Jeremiah and Zechariah both mistaken? Why might the Jews yet believe Jeremiah but reject Zechariah? On what rational basis does one treat Holy Scripture as a buffet of options?
k wrote:
"I have read a number of the interesting studies of Daniel and how the coming of the Messiah is worked from these prophecies. Because I do not at this time know that I trust this book at even the level I do the chumash (first 5 books) I do not have a response to this."
I have updated the proof of Daniel's 69 weeks
I added a navigation bar to make it easier to find the various supporting proof pages, condensed the introduction, and added some explanations of why other calendar-based conversions of Daniel's 69 weeks are erroneous.
Even if you are hesitant to express an opinion, please feel free to comment on what kind of proof you'd like to see or what areas need clarification. I am trying to make it more complelling and understandable. Your constructive criticism or even questions would be very helpful feedback.
Larry,
Are you living in the Kingdom of God?
I ask because of your exchange with EP at Vox’s yesterday.
“The Kingdom of God is a present reality, the Kingdom was inaugurated by Jesus nearly 2000 years ago and confirmed by His resurrection.”
EP initially felt that the Kingdom had not yet come, but, upon reflection, agreed that Jesus had said so.
I may be misapprehending what EP was thinking, but I suspect he thought of the Kingdom of God as being heaven.
~~~
Forgive my ignorance, but I have heard it said that there are two kinds of death, and two kinds of life: that of the flesh, and that of the spirit.
Are you suggesting that the current Kingdom of God is some sort of heaven on earth, for people who have achieved some sort of spiritual purity, yet they are still living in the flesh?
I have also heard it said that there is to be a millennial Kingdom of God on earth, which would include resurrected saints (which I assume is a term for those that lived in the Kingdom of God in the flesh).
Do you have any idea of God’s purpose for having such a Kingdom on earth? Why not just whisk the saints off to heaven?
Perhaps He wants to provide the life that His loyal subjects deserved, but could not enjoy?
~~~
As a follow up, what of those that survive the cataclysm that preceeds this millenial kingdom - the remnant of imperfect, living flesh and damaged spirit?
-Luke
Larry,
Are you living in the Kingdom of God?
I ask because of your exchange with EP at Vox’s yesterday.
“The Kingdom of God is a present reality, the Kingdom was inaugurated by Jesus nearly 2000 years ago and confirmed by His resurrection.”
EP initially felt that the Kingdom had not yet come, but, upon reflection, agreed that Jesus had said so.
I may be misapprehending what EP was thinking, but I suspect he thought of the Kingdom of God as being heaven.
That was me that deleted my comment because I messed up.
What I was trying to say and got very long winded was that I agree with Larry, that the Kingdom (God and his mercy) Came to Earth. But he Kingdom has not been fullfiled as of yet, there fore it is not here in it's completeness.
Me and Larry were talking about the same thing in different ways. Jesus, the Kingdom came to earth but told us to pray for it to come whilw he was here. The Kingdom will come to earth and we should pray that it does and his will be done here on earth.
That was the difference, and I didn't want to argue over trivial missunderstandings. Larry is a good Christian believer, and my brother in Christ. I have no intention of gatting in a fight with him when we are really saying the same thing in different ways.
So I let his way stand.
I did not mean to imply that there was a debate...
I was just struck by the point. It's very odd to think that there is a Kingdom of God in the world today. Where is the evidence? I see another ruler in this world.
I think therefore, that this Kingdom must be in the minds and spirits of the believers.
But I'm still puzzled about this promise of a Kingdom of God on earth, instead of just having a paradise...
I was just struck by the point. It's very odd to think that there is a Kingdom of God in the world today.
There is in his believers and those who follow his laws. There are many wolves out there but Larry and I are not one of them, we belong to Christ. My sheep here my voice the Lord says, therefore we are part of the Kingdom of God.
But I'm still puzzled about this promise of a Kingdom of God on earth, instead of just having a paradise...
Why worry yourself over sematics? I don't get it. A name is just a name.
One is forever, one is limited. That begs the question about what happens after.
One is forever, one is limited. That begs the question about what happens after.
I don't know what exactly happens, but I do not need to know . My salvation is not dependent on knowing that which God has hidden, but is dependent on that which God has revealed.
It would actually be kinder to just tell me to buzz off.
See you around...
Gotta love that Tyler Hansbrough, eh?
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?232
Larry, this clarifies some of what I referred to in the differences between Anabaptists and those who classify themselves Protestants (consistently following the Reformers' tradition)
and this:
http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/The%20Differences%20between%20Evangelical%20Protestants%20and%20Anabaptists.htm
Post a Comment