Hebrews 1: 5 Commentary

Scott, excuse my ignorance but I don’t know where your ? is to Unitarians concerning Gen 2:7. I would gladly comment if relevant. I don’t espouse to being a Unitarian.
Sorry you find me a “broken record” but I continue to address these scriptures because you seem to ignore these very potent scriptures as bearing no weight concerning who the Son of God is. Do we just throw them away because they don’t fit one’s theology??? Or…is it true “the scriptures can not be broken”? “Know you not that you are gods too”?(Jn 10:34) How do you interprete that, Scott? I think there’s huge revelation here concerning the nature of Christ & our authority given by him. And I am quite curious in what to do w/ Yahshua’s prayer in John 17:21 when he prayed….” that they all may be one; as Thou, Father art in me & I in Thee, that they also may be one in us”. & vs 22 “THAT THEY MAY BE ONE EVEN AS WE ARE ONE” Are we God Almighty too???? By your logic “I & the Father are one” makes Yahshua God Himself then Yahshua’s prayer to His Father must make us God too?

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 08:27 am

Oops, sorry Scott. No it wasn’t Nicodemus I was referring to but Nostradamus! I got the names mixed up. Perhaps I’m reading too much Bible

Nostradamus, as I’m sure you know, was a 16th century apothecary who became famous for a book of prophecies written in the form of a poem. His followers claim that he correctly predicted World War II, 9/11, and many other events. His prophecies had little to do with religion but I made the comparison with the Bible because I feel they are equally vague and therefore allow their followers to interpret anything they want to believe.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 03:16 am

Charles,

You are correct in that I was referring to the prophecies of Revelation. But I was referring to them for the purpose of gaining a broader understanding of the nature of Jesus. Prophecy or history, the character of God/Christ is revealed in both.

Concerning the reliability of biblical prophecy, if it isn’t 100% accurate, then God and his word are no longer infallible. Personally, I find them amazingly accurate; however, they are only proven to be so AFTER they are fulfilled. Before that, the mystery and controversy can be nearly intolerable!

I’m not offended by what you said. I understand the sentiment. But after twenty years of studying biblical prophecy, I’ve come to learn that it’s generally man’s convoluted notions, preaching and publications that give prophecy a “bad name”. For more than twelve years I ran a printing press for a well-known Christian publishing house. I’ve seen/read every outlandish prophecy book from soup to nuts as they ran on my press. I printed The Late Great Planet Earth as well as the Left Behind series and everything in between. To say it bluntly; prophecy SELLS! It’s very sensational and easy to “package”. Accuracy is not something that’s really important. The real question is; is it relevant to the times we live in? And even if it isn’t, prophecy can easily be made to seem as if it is. Pedaling prophecy is extremely lucarative as an “industry”.

To me, it’s dispicable. But it doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact, it’s going to get worse; prophecy says so:-) But at the end of the day, I find that God is shouting through his prophetic word to anyone who truly has “ears to hear”.

BTW; you mention Nicodemus. How is he relevant concerning prophecy? Or are you speaking of a different person than the Nicodemus in the Bible?

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2010 02:08 am

Scott, in post 256 you wrote “Speaking of Revelation; just turn to that book and you will read of the mighty acts of Jesus that so diminish the miracles in the OT as to render them nearly insignificant by comparison.”

I believe you are talking about prophecies, not miracles. We haven’t seen any of those “mighty acts”. I apologize if what I am about to say may offend your beliefs, but this is how I really feel about this subject: I find the OT prophecies no more dependable than those of Nicodemus and I don’t expect the NT propehcies to be any better. What Nicodemus and the Bible have in common is that neither offers any specifics, dates or details but only vagueness that can be interpreted and/or justified in any number of ways.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 22:52 pm

Candace,

BTW; I left a question for Unitarians at Genesis 2:7. Perhaps you’d weigh in when you get a chance.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 22:20 pm

Candace,

You sound like a broken record as you continually repeat the mantra of your doctrine. It seems at times that you are only trying to convince yourself through much repetition. As I’ve said before, your Jesus is no man at all. Your doctrine creates a hybrid of PART man and PART God (just exactly what was it that fertilized Mary’s egg?). As such, I fail to see how he can represent either party as a mediator for he is neither God nor man. Your Jesus is more akin to something from Greek Mythology. He is a creation of another order entirely; and as such, is not qualified as an intercessor.

OTOH, the Trinitarian Jesus, as the creator of mankind, has it well within his power to become fully man himself. As such, he is no hybrid at all, he is fully God and fully man. He’s greater than all mankind so he is well qualified to interceed for everyone.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 22:16 pm

I wish I could take my last post back. It slipped from my fingers before I had a chance to proof read it. For that I deeply apololgize. Hopefully you can make heads or tails of this mess:(

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 21:39 pm

was the “ONLY BEGOTTEN” of God & The “Firstborn” of many brethren! God is not & never will be firstborn. Yahshua IS human, made like unto his brethren in EVERY WAY.(Hebrews 2:17)
There’s a glorious truth here if one is willing to drop the traditions of men & read the word of God for what it is REALLY saying.
Be Blessed, be full & may all truth be restored.

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 21:34 pm

Scott….eloquent you truly are but in understanding the profound simplicity scripture…you have failed.
The “Last” Adam is exactly that…Adam i.e “man”. It took a “man” to redeem us back to God & what we were to be in “Adam” before the fall. There is NO “God the Son”. There is ONE GOD & Him alone! His plan, His Christ, The perfect Son, the Passover Lamb, able to sin (free will) but did not because of his love for his Father & his love for all humankind. Yahshua knew God’s heart because he spent a lifetime in communion & prayer w/ Him/Yahweh preparing for the reason he was born…..to DIE as the perfect sacrifice for uas all. Yahshua enjoyed the ame “unbroken” fellowship w/ Yahweh,Adam did before his fall. Yahshua was given by Gos to restore that fellowship w/ ‘MANKIND” thru the MAN Christ Jesus! ” There is ONE “mediator” between God & men…THE MAN Christ Jesus”. (I Tim 2:5Yahshua never ceased being God! And if he had emptied himself of “being God” than he NEVER picked his “Godness” back up! HE’S STILL A MAN IN HEAVEN! Glorified, our high priest, our mediator our intercessor…if you make him God WE HAVE NO MEDIATOR. And worse than that…we have TWO Gods, one being inferiorwho has a God over him (Rev 2:12) Bad theology & bad interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. You seem to be aliegning w/ The Nicene & the Athenasian Creed over The Word of God. The the Catholic perversion of God’s Word & who His Son truly is.
Being “God” & “having the FULLNESS of God dwelling w/in”…are TWO different things. ( Col 1:19…God was pleased to have His fullness dwell in him/Christ”) THE WORD WAS WITH GOD! The Word has ALWAYS existed! The Word of God was MADE flesh in the FULLNESS OF time! (Gal 4:4 God/Yahweh GAVE the Son His/Yahweh’s glory, His name, His authority & His/Yahweh’s Kingdon which the Son wil give back to Him?Yahweh that God may be ALL & ALL! (I Cor 15:28Dearest Scott…you are not dimishing Yahshua or his sacridice when you give him back his humanity. On the contrary, you are giving him the exteem & honor due hi for the greatness of his sacrifice! If he was God than his sacrifice is meaningless & w/out the horrendous consequence that it truly was. As God, it is nothing for him. But as the Last Adam w/out our sin nature, the sentence of becoming the sin of all mankind, the disease, the eiquity etc to be seperated from the God & Father he loved, worshiped & adored is profound & a sacifice that should cause us to fall to our faces & wep for it’s greatness. If The father had not raised him, Yahshua would be inthe grave still. It’s because of his obedience unto death & the Father’s righteous judgement the He/God raised His son & seated him at His/Yahweh’s right hand of authority.(positional)as in Hebrew custom to pass the Blessing & Position down to a father’s son.

Hence “Heir” & we joint heirs with THE SONGod is not & never can be a man. He IS Spirit.
God can NOT die!
God is NOT the Son.
The Son IS The :ast Adam made to what the first Adam was but different in the fact Yahshua

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 21:26 pm

Jayant Christian,

The version that you give reference to is obviously a Trinitarian or Oneness interpolation in giving reference to Father Yahweh’s son as a “God”. A number of versions give reference to Yahshua as “God” simply for marketing to such who believe that Yahshua was a “God” or “The God”.

No one has ever seen God. God’s only Son, the one who is closest to the Father’s heart, has made him known (John 1:18 - GOD’S WORD® Translation ©1995).

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him] (John 1:18 - King James Bible).

No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18 - American King James Version).

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (John 1:18 - American Standard Version).

No man has seen God at any time; the only Son, who is on the breast of the Father, he has made clear what God is (John 1:18 - Bible in Basic English).

No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (John 1:18 - Douay-Rheims Bible).

Many other versions word this verse in the same manner in not giving reference to Father Yahweh’s son as a “God”.

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html

“Jesus IS God!”?
http://freewebs.com/frank4yahweh

By Franklin Eugene Rhoads (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 21:09 pm

“If he preexisted in any form he could not be from the line of David.”

Mark,

I don’t know how you determine that pre-existence in any form precludes Jesus from being of the line of David. You even suggest the scriptures say so. But on the contrary, Hebrews 10:5 declares; “a BODY you have prepared for me”. This is also affirmed in Hebrews 2:14. The seed (egg) of the woman was necessary for producing a body of flesh, blood and bone. This is what made Jesus a human being like all other men. And yes, Mary was Jesus’ real Mom. His humanity was not fabricated. As the Last Adam, he WAS just like the first Adam. Jesus’ body was made from the dust of the earth just like Adam’s was because he was fully human. You and I don’t have a disagreement regarding the literal humanity of Christ. Pre-existence and deity are the tripping points. You seem to say pre-existence essentially disqualifies Christ from becoming truly human. I don’t know how that can be supported biblically or even intellectually unless you happen to be omniscient.

You also say: “If Jesus sinned..,” and; “Jesus say he can do nothing without the father.”

First of all, Jesus had life WITHIN himself; he could’ve done EVERYTHING without the Father; but of course, this would mean he would not have accomplished it AS A MAN and so be the new representative of ALL men (the Last Adam). We, on the other hand, do NOT have life within ourselves. Our life is a gift. Jesus IS life. But, as I said before, he gave up his perogative to use this power but he never gave up who he IS. As God the Son in flesh, Jesus would not yeild to sin any more than God the Father would have. Could he have sinned? I don’t know. Can God sin? I only know that Jesus didn’t sin.

Regarding your point of 1 Tim 6:16, Jesus also said; “No man taketh it (my life) from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down , and I have power to take it again.” Also, John 5; “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”

That the Source of Life should dwell in any human being is truly an exceptional statement. But how could any mere human being contain the power of Life in himself unless he WAS life itself? “I am.., the Life!”

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 17:41 pm

Again Scott it sounds good but it doesn’t hold up to the scriptures. If he preexisted in any form he could not be from the line of David. Which the Israelites understood that he would come from the root of Jessie, as the father told Moses Deut 18:18 This could only happen if Mary contributed her egg. This is what the word begetting means to come into or fourth from. She was Jesus real mom not a surrogate. It is a much greater testamony for a created man who’s father is the one and only God to father a child than to make Jesus into a caterpillar and then a butterfly. The second Adam was just as created as the first. Why would he be called Adam if he wasn’t like Adam. When Abraham was asked to sacrifce his son are we to believe he was his son? If Jesus sinned would God then melted down because part of him was destroyed. The surpreme creator ruler of the universe is not going to seize to exist because of any human’s sin’s. The father is the single source of all power and he grants a bit of it to whom he chooses. Jesus say he can do nothing without the father and only the father can raise him, this is power only the father has which is proof that he alone has imortality I Tim 6:16

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 15:53 pm

“If he preexisted as part or as any kind of living matter then him recieving eternal life is meaningless because he already had it. So us humans then can’t realy related ever to this god man who can’t really then say he feels our pain.”

Mark,

This part of your comment is a little hard to understand. I’m not sure what you are saying. But if you are saying that if Jesus pre-existed, then he would’ve had eternal life so he really would not have been able to feel our pain; I again have to disagree with you. You see, this very point is the essence of the incarnation: if God became a man, did he REALLY and FULLY become a man? To me, I believe the scriptures resound in the affirmative. When it says that Jesus set aside his glory, it does not mean that he merely put it on the shelf so that he could take it back someday. It means he gave it up for good; even his eternal life. This was the only way he could be fully man. Jesus had no trick up his sleeve or ace in the hole or back door exit. He crossed over from heaven to earth on a one-way ticket. The only way he could hope to get back again was by either completing the mission of dying for our sins and relying on his Father to raise him up again; or by aborting the entire mission and calling for angels to transport him back to heaven thereby condemning the world to a Godless eternity.

And regarding the idea that Jesus was so privileged that he couldn’t “feel our pain”; all one needs to do is ponder the inhuman brutality he suffered for us and you quickly realize just how OVER-qualified Jesus is. Never did one man give up so much and receive so little in return. To the world, Jesus on the cross appeared to be a complete and miserable failure. But of course, it was this apparent failure that actually paid the full price of redemption for the souls of men.

If Jesus had not given up all of his glory and privilege, we would still be in our sins today.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 06:02 am

Scott, You sure took your time showing us your human side, very well spoken. I see your reasoning the problem with the Jews is he lets his pride tell him the messiah wasn’t what they expected and they didn’t want to give up there power block and humble themselves before christ. I feel the same way Jesus did about the other Jews, he didn’t find fault in there religion he found fault with there customs. Jesus didn’t have trouble with the law or the sabbath he had trouble with man made interpetations. Look at his defense of the Sabbath, he never said negative things about it he supported it. He reminded us that God rested on the seventh day and made it holy. He told us it was a gift. So Jesus religion and the Isreal’s religion were the same and it is today, its the interpetations that were and are in question. The Nature of God is seen in the son because he is the first of the new creation. I Cor 15:46 Is a piece of the understanding on how the father works first the physical then the spirtual follows and makes the statement that Jesus is the firstborn among many then makes sense. If he preexisted as part or as any kind of living matter then him recieving eternal life is meaningless because he already had it. So us humans then can’t realy related ever to this god man who can’t really then say he feels our pain.

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 01:57 am

Mark and Charles,

The observations in both of your posts is reasonable and essentially biblical. However, I personally feel you both go too far with your conclusions.

Charles, you say that the revelation of the Father in the OT depicts him as a God of war and power, but Jesus is depicted as humble and peaceful. But surely these differences are not necessarily mutually exclusive. How many Psalms depict the Father as compassionate, merciful and forgiving even to a “thousand generations”? You find this also in the pentateuch and most of the prophets as well. And Jesus certainly had no shortage of power; raising the dead, controlling the wind and the sea, walking on water; casting out demons, flattening a large group of soldiers and religious leaders with his word. How does this display not rival that of the OT revelation? Speaking of Revelation; just turn to that book and you will read of the mighty acts of Jesus that so diminish the miracles in the OT as to render them nearly insignificant by comparison. The same is true concerning “unapproachable and fearsome”. There were many displays of the fearsomeness of Christ: twice cleansing the temple; “no one dared ask him any more questions”; “no man speaks like this man”; the Gadarenes feared him so much they asked him to leave their region. But it’s also important to remember that this was one of the very reasons why Jesus came to earth.., the only way God could ever hope to be completely APPROACHABLE by fallen humanity was to become human like they were. How can the finite ever approach the Infinite unless the Infinite makes himself approachable? “Philip, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” In the OT, God was approachable, but not in a personal way. It could only happen through the priesthood until the time came that all the temple ordinances and sacrifices pointed to: Calvary.

Mark, most of your points are the very same ones that many orthodox Jews cling to as reasons not to believe the NT. But the seeming paradox of all these things is instantly cleared up if Jesus, as God the Son, truly DID lay aside his deity and glory so as to become fully man; that is, a man who could literally be tempted and die. Surely, an omnipotent God could do this if he wanted to couldn’t he? And regarding 1Cor. 15:46; this refers to the CREATED order of things. If Jesus pre-existed in heaven, surely the wonder of that existence transcends any and everything we know. Some people think there is no such thing as matter in heaven. I believe there IS. It is matter unlike anything we understand in our dimension but tell me how does any created thing exist on earth that did not first have a greater corresponding reality in heaven?.., including animal and human bodies?

I too acknowledge the “paradoxes” that you both point out; I just come to a different conclusion about them than you do.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/23/2010 00:28 am

Scott, what about the egg that Mary provides to bear this new creation and the promise that the christ would be from the line of David? Raised up like the human Moses. What about the traits that idenify the One Surpreme being known as Yahweh Jehovah LORD. 1 God does not change, Jesus Changed from physical to spiritual, not from spiritual to physical, scripture denies this premise I Cor 15:46 God can not be tempted.3 God can’t die, all of these scriptures prove that Jesus is not God and has no prior existance.

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/22/2010 16:23 pm

Scott, thanks for your post 252. I wanted to make sure we are talking the same language.

So we agree that Jesus was positonally inferior to God. Where we don’t agree is that he was also personally inferior. As I pointed out in post 245 God and Jesus had very different personalities. God was about war and power while Jesus was about peace and humility. God was unapproachable and fearsome, Jesus kind and forgiving. God wasted no time telling us how great he was but all that Jesus could muster was that we needed him in order to get to God. I have to conclude that Jesus was inferior to God in both person and demeanor.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/22/2010 15:27 pm

Charles,

“Scott, define “physically” and “personally”. In order to answer your question I need to make sure we are semantically on the same page.

I believe you mean “positionally” and “personally”.

“Positionally” has to do with what someone DOES. For instance, a Colonel in the Army is positionally superior to a Private. He has more authority and by extension he has more power; therefore he can DO a lot more. He also has greater responsibility.

“Personally” has to do with what someone IS. For instance, the same Colonel, apart from the military, is simply another human being; no different from the Private. Positionally, the Colonel and Private are in very dis-similar worlds; but personally, they are of identical essence.

My point is that, by laying aside his glory and taking on human flesh, as it says in Colossians, Jesus became like one of us: positionally inferior to God. But even though he took on human flesh, Jesus did not relinquish his personhood. He was still of the same essence as his Father. (The only way the Colonel could ever hope to identify with the Private is to become one himself. But to do so, he would have to relinquish his positon as a Colonel).

A man can give up or lose all of his riches, power and glory; even become sick, diseased and dis-figured and yet, he is still a human being.

I believe that when Jesus is saying; “I and the Father are One”, he is not only saying I and the Father are one “in purpose” (what We do); but I and the Father are one “in essence” (who We are). It is in this regard that Jesus is the “Son of God”. He is of the very same essence as God the Father.

But by taking on human flesh (humanity), Jesus also becomes one in essence with US. In this regard, Jesus is the “Son of Man”.

This is why Jesus is uniquely qualified to be the “mediator between God and men”.

The distinction between position and person is commonly seen in everyday life. “Pastor John” (Pastor is the position, John is the person). President Obama; Colonel Sanders. Even Christ Jesus.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/22/2010 06:56 am

Scott, define “physically” and “personally”. In order to answer your question I need to make sure we are semantically on the same page.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/22/2010 03:45 am

Charles,

You said; “..these examples lead me to believe that Jesus was not just positionally inferior to the Father but personally as well.”

How is it that you conclude because Jesus is positionally inferior, he is also personally inferior?

The old story of “The Prince and the Pauper” is a classic example illustrating how this is not necessarily so.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/22/2010 02:56 am

Charles the bible was translated by trinitarians go to lookhigher.org and there is 200 copies of translated bibles look at the non triniatarian version like 1534 william Tyndale go to John 1:1 the new testament is full of Unitarian consistancy it is the changing of meanings such as all things were created through or by christ, when you study you will find the proper translation is clearly unitarian. Go to godward.org and read thousands of pages on every verse you have questions about. Read The Trinity Christianity self inflicted wound by Anthony Buzzard it covers hundereds of text on this subject.

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 21:57 pm

Sorry…I have the worst time w/ these. Youtube, Tony Melendez singing “All Creation Worships You”. You won’t be dissappointed

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 20:52 pm

Dear Brethren…I have something I would dearly love to share with you. Please click on this link & sit back to listen to some of the most anointed worship I’ve heard in awhile. Tony Melendez was born without arms yet he plays beautiful guitar w/ his feet & sings praises to the Most High God w/ the voice the Father has given him. May you be thoroughly blessed Much Agape, Candace www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5GzOWkMiwl

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 20:50 pm

Jayant, re post 243, you are asking me the same question I have been asking myself since I attained the age of reason. I have tried to find the answer in the Bible. The OT defines God rather clearly (although I find inconsistencies even there), but the NT makes the identity of a “true God” very complicated.

I don’t know if the Bible can be reconciled. Has anybody ever tried?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 20:49 pm

It baffles me to read these post and still the core motto of Gods people is Mark 12:26-32 Hear oh Israel the Lord God is one. Jesus confirms this with the scribe.John 58:41 We have one father GOD. John 7:41-42 John 10:33-34 Lets stone christ, he quotes Ps 82:6 John 17:3 All of these scriptures give christ the ability to say he is God and he denies it every time. verse 32 of Mark 12 For there is one God and NO other but He singular pronoun right Jesus, just waiting for him to say no I’am to, but it doesn’t happen because it would be blasphamy…In order to be the all powerfull all knowing all wise all loving, strong, mightiest called a God in the true sense of language it can only be One, any altering or changing of this weakens the and limits the Ultimate God.

By Mark (wrote 124 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 19:37 pm

Scott, re post 238

You’re right in saying that we can’t always judge what’s figurative and what’s literal. The parables are figurative. The term “sitting at the right hand of the father” is figurative. But the words “I am in the Father and the Father is in me”… well, that could be literal. That’s why I said that both sides have the scriptures on their side.

And they do NOT make Jesus less than the Father. I am sorry I gave you that impression. Actually this particular passage makes him equal to the Father. What makes Jesus inferior are the examples I gave in the next paragraph (Jesus being the gatekeeper and mediator, etc). And, yes, to use your terms, these examples lead me to believe that Jesus was not just positionally inferior to the Father but personally as well. So, again, some passages favor one side, others favor the other.

Here is what I see in the Bible. In the OT I see a one-person God who is powerful and jealous, leads his people to wars, and performs miracles on a grandiose scale (e.g. the flood and the parting of the Red Sea) that are meant to punish bad people and enemies. There is never even a mention of anyone else being equal to him, let alone the same as him. In the NT I see a humble human being who is never referred to as God but makes himself equal and the same with the God of the OT. This human being is in many ways the very opposite of his counterpart in the OT. He clearly dislikes some of the teachings of the old God (the “eye for an eye” part, for example) and performs miracles that are smaller in scale but bigger on love and compassion. How the Church/Trinitarians can conclude that these two disparate figures with different levels of power can be one and the same is totally beyond my reasoning.

Charles

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 18:26 pm

I continue to ask:

If Jesus is the son of God just because he is created by God, like me and you, why even a dog,as the creation of God be not called His son?

But in the Bible the very terms “the Son of God” meant and was understood as God.( See my post no 5 on John 14:10)

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 18:18 pm

Chareles,

You have here flowery welcome, no bloody sward!

Any way, do you believe in one true God as revealed in the Bible? If yes, how do you understand that revelation? If not, do you at all belive in God?

Condance, why do you call God as Abba Father? why not as Mother? or why not simply as God? why even name him?

Any one reading these posts will certainly come to know that there are arguments on both sides. If the Bible is true, there must be reconcilating of seeming or otherwise contradictory views. Or if they are inreconcilalbe, then leave the Bible as not being true!Why bother?

For me the Bible is the Word of God and is true. I am fool so much so that had the Bible said there are even five persons or a myriads of them making one God, I would have beleived that!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 18:11 pm

Charles, re Post #238:

There is much to disagree with in your post; but I’ll focus only on the idea of “two unequal Gods” so as to not get bogged down.

I find it intriguing that you have put your finger on the essence of the differences and even go so far as to say, “I feel that both sides.., have good reason to believe that they are right.” But then you rely on faulty if/then reasoning to tip the scales against the deity of Christ.

I say this for two reasons:

1. Your comments seem to be saying, “If Jesus is POSITIONALLY inferior to the Father then he is also PERSONALLY inferior to the Father. This kind of reasoning has a logical appeal but it isn’t even true in human relationships.

2. Once you’ve concluded that Jesus is inferior to the Father, you then seem to be saying, “If Jesus is inferior to the Father, then his language (in John 10 and 14) must be figurative.” But this is extrememly poor exegesis because there is absolutely nothing in the context of Jesus’ exhortations to his disciples that remotely suggest he is using figurative language. Accordingly, what’s to stop us from interpreting any of all the other words of Christ as figurative in some way?

But even if John 10:30 and 14:10 ARE figurative, you have made an interpretation of figurative speech that isn’t even warranted. In other words; why do you conclude that the “figurative” language; “I am in the Father and the Father is is me” should be interpreted as making Jesus LESS than the Father? If this language IS figurative (and at best, it is only metaphoric) then what relevant texts do you use to prove your interpretation is correct?

I’m not suggesting that the trinitarians are using these texts to absolutelty prove the doctrine of the Trinity. But at least the trinitarians are consistent in their method of interpreting these texts. You may argue with their conclusion; but it’s hard to remain objective and still argue with their method.

All followers of Christ struggle with the enigma of his nature. But I, as a so-called trinitarian, do not believe in the Trinity becasue of some doctrine that has been promulgated for centuries, but rather because I read the same texts as you do and see the deity of Jesus in them. I can’t explain how God can become a man, but I believe the life and testimony of Jesus declares that He did. If someone wants to call me a trinitarian because of that.., so be it.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 17:00 pm

Scott…..I have explained this to you so many times now & all I get from you is more sarcasm. I don’t care to receive any more of that from you. If you “really” want to know how I interprete those words than go back & re-read what I have already tried so hard to convey to you.

By Candace S. (wrote 286 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/21/2010 08:07 am