It was suggested that I post my Shema Yisrael topic here at this site.

** Warning this topic is not for everyone. If it makes you uncomfortable please stop reading! **

It is my intent to share the knowledge given to me, and I have no desire for anyone to change their beliefs. You can read it, debate it, or toss it, as it’s only information. However, I see it as the truth, other wise why go through the trouble of sharing.

It would sadden our savior to see hate talk, and labeling. Jesus rebuked but never hated!

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

We will know each other by our fruits.

Even if you disagree and many do, at least you will be exposed to new material and possibly even strengthened in your own belief even if it differs, so please remain civil to others who may not share in your beliefs.

The information you are about to read comes from about 2 years of research.. It all started with Greg Deuble and his book They never told me this in Church! A call to read the Bible with new eyes. Juan Baixeras many papers from his web site. Books by Bart Ehrman; The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, and Misquoting Jesus. Encountering The Manuscripts An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism by Philip Comfort. Another major source is e-sword's Ante-Nicene Fathers (9 Volumes). There are a host of others that I have read from multiple web sites over the past year and a half that have helped me formulate what I am posting but the majority here is from Greg Deuble and Juan Baixera. I have had contact with both Gentlemen and received permission to share their work.


Paul

Shema Yisrael! Hear, O Israel!

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

This is one of the very first Bible verse that most Jewish boys and girls learn. It binds the Jewish life and community together. Every devout Jew recited it daily and even utter the Shema when dying. This is the one belief that distinguished Israel from all the surrounding nations that had multiple gods. "The Lord is one Lord" is thus Israel's classic statement of monotheism, Judaism's highest confession of Faith. It speaks of Yahweh's uniqueness and exclusiveness, that he is one single integral person, not divisible.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that there are two valid ways of interpreting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. It is possible to translate, "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh"- in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh can not be divided into several Yahweh manifestations (poly-Yahwism), like the Baals of different sanctuaries [or we might add the Trinity of later Nicene Christianity]. Or we may translate: "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone"-in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh is the only and the unique God [we will soon see that Jesus affirmed this creed and John 17:3].
Both of these nuances are given in other Old Testament passages. The person of God is indivisible and he has no other in His class for He is alone and unique. He is a single divine individual.

Deu 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.

Deu 32:39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Agency

The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through "Hebrew eyes;" however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge.

H. N. Snaith in his book, "The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament," writes "Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato." (p161) "Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been both a widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith." (p187.). Snaith also makes this remark that if his "thesis" is correct: "then neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a denomination of Christian theology by Greek thought We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their differences from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated Christian thought." (p188.).

With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition.According to Mr. Deuble a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding "The Principle of Agency."

A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the "law") of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion.
Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.

Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, "who" is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that "'God' called to him from the midst of the bush and 'said', 'Moses, Moses!'" (v4). Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, "'I am' the 'God' of your father, 'the God' of Abraham, 'the God' of Isaac, and 'the God' of Jacob.' Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at 'God'." Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that "'the angel of the LORD' appeared" to Moses from the midst of the brush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel.

This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament's commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.

Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man "filled with the Holy Spirit." Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was "an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush" (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, "there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, 'Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).

Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, "I am God." The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.

Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, "behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter's side and roused him, saying, 'Get up quickly.' And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, 'Gird yourself and put on your sandals and follow me'" (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which "opened for them by itself," Peter "did not know what was being 'done by the "angel"' was real, but thought he was seeing a vision"(v.9). Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? "He described to them how 'the LORD' had led him out of prison" (v.17).

So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.

There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, "'The angel' of God 'said' to me in a dream'I am the God' of Bethel." Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: "I am the God of Bethel." Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.

In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with "a man" until dawn, but he says he had "seen God face to face" (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.

Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, "As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with "the angel" and overcame him. So the one who is called both "a man" and "God" in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.

There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him "God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet" (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in "My hand", and it shall be turned to blood" (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, "Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt that they may become blood" (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron's hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are "God" (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!

Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for "God"(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or "a god" or "gods" or even "angels" or human "judges." This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6

The KJV reads "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;"
The NIV reads "then his master must take him before the judges."
But
The NASB reads "then his master shall bring him to God"
So too the RSV "then his master shall bring him to God"

Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called "God," elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.

Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. "The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat". As 'the angel of the LORD appeared to him,' he greeted Gideon with the words, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior." We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, "Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?" Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: "And the LORD looked at him and said, 'Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?" At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. "But the LORD said to him, 'Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.'" Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him." Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as "the angel of the LORD vanished from his site," he exclaimed, "I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face." (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: "a person's agent is regarded as the person himself."

There is one last very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3).

Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, "the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."

Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion's servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).

However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents "some Jewish elders." These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)

So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.

Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.

The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (v 1-2). So, the Son of God "did not speak" in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in "portions," whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared "in these last days" that we have heard God speak "in his Son." This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:

Act 7:38 "This is the one (Moses) who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.

Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

Just note, Jesus who came to fulfill the Law, was not the one in the O.T. who gave the law, as seen by these three verses!

Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).

In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.

Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).

[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (ρημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Jesus had every right to claim to be God because God was in Him doing His works.

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through (dia) him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Paul

Philosophy

I would like to take a look at how Greek philosophy has entered into our Biblical worldview. It is well known that many of our early Church fathers were deeply embedded in the study of Hellenistic philosophy. Robert Hatch, author of Possession and Persuasion: The Rhetoric of Christian Faith, states"The story of how Greek philosophy, with its synthesis of rationalism and mysticism, rhetorically [i.e persuasively] penetrated and permeated the Christian tradition, forever altering Christian faith, is virtually an open secret insofar as it oozes out the pores of the literature of the Church history and theology. The open secret continues to be kept, no doubt, due to his its staggering implications." Author Harold Ellens in his book The Ancient Library of Alexandria in early Christian Theological Development states, "The average Christian today is so unaware of this staggering fact that Christianity as we have today is a form of Greco-Roman mythology."

N.H. Snaith in his book The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament explains, "The confusing of Greek ideas with the Hebrew heritage of the apostle in the Church began very early, as early as Clement of Alexandria [AD 150-215] and Origen [AD 185-254] and it rose from the fact that these scholars were Hellenists first and Christian second. It was furthered by the fact that all men until Jerome [AD 347-420] tended to read the Greek Bible as a Greek book, and with Hellenistic eyes the result of this has been that from the very early stage, Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato."

It is well known that the very early in the Church history there was no "Central Church." Every region and local congregation could hold a variety of theologies and doctrines. There was no established "orthodoxy" that is, no basic theological system acknowledged by the majority. There were many competing voices. In some regions, what was to be termed "heresy" by others was in fact the original and only form of Christianity they had. The sense of a unified group advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere did not exist in the second and third centuries.

The evolving Christian Church did not develop in a vacuum. As always, "the world" seeped into the church. During the first few centuries, the whole Roman Empire was increasingly knit around the worship of Caesar. In the book Constantine versus Christ written by Alistair Kee, senior lecturer in religious studies at the University of Glasgow, Kee establishes quite convincingly that Jesus in effect played no part what ever in the religion of Constantine. If he ignored Jesus, Constantine certainly acknowledged the principle of Messiahship. In fact, he did more than acknowledge it; he took on the role of the anointed one upon himself. It seems probable, for instance, that Constantine converted to Christianity (in the early 4th century) for the very purpose of shoring up the support of Christians and of bringing stability to the crumbling empire he had inherited. As scholar Leonard Verduin points out:

[align=center]When Constantine came into to the Church he did not check his imperial equipment at the door. No indeed, he came in with all the accounterments
that pertained in the secular regimen. He was not just a Roman who had learned to bow to the Christ; he had been pontifex maximus hitherto, the High
Priest of the Roman State Religion, and he entered the Church with the understanding that he would be pontifex maximus there to. And just as his
sword had flashed in defense of the old religion so would it now flash in defense of the new.[/align]

During the next few centuries, as an orthodox theology came to be crystallized, it was as much a product of imperial politics as it was a theological debate or Biblical exegesis.

The conclusions, reached by the authors of The Messianic Legacy, is that when the Church compromised with Constantine, the historical Jesus was officially destroyed, denied, and lost.
These conclusions are confirmed by the work of archaeologists. In the book Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts the authors, Crossan and Reed, indicate that the further the strata are removed from the first-century world of Jesus, the tendency is to decrease his Jewish identity. The other tendency is to increase his social status. In short, later archaeological layers commemorating Jesus' life tend to efface signs of his Jewishnessand replace them with features from Rome or Byzantium. On the other hand, the farther removed Jesus is from his first-century Galilean context, the more elite and regal he becomes. Art work depicted from as early as the 1100's shows scenes from the lives of the apostles. The apostles look European and not Semitic. Their accessories appear medieval not ancient, and their cloths are regal not peasant.

It should not be surprising that the majority of church leaders were well educated from the finest schools that were deeply embedded in the study of Hellenistic philosophy. One of the most revered of all "saints" who gave this new direction substance was Augustine of Hippo. Augustine's influence on modern Christianity is almost without parallel. With the rise to political power in the Roman church, it was Augustine who supplied the theological justification for compulsory measures taken by the state against Christian minorities. Anyone who disagreed with the Church party line was thought to be a heretic and labeled mad or insane. Churches that housed these free spirits were closed with a vengeance and thus the paganization of the Christian church was complete.

One "orthodox" doctrine championed by Augustine was the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet he "confesses" that he was driven to seek God's truth after reading "those books of the [Neo]Platonist." (Confess VII.20). It was these books which convinced him of the literal deity of Jesus! (Confess VII.9;VIII.2). Prior to this time, his view of Christ had been similar to that of the Photinus of Sirmium. (Confess VII.19). That is to say, Augustine believed in Jesus' complete and uncompromised humanity before being persuaded by Neo- Platonic philosophy that Jesus had preexisted as God Himself.

Augustine did not get his belief in the Trinity from the Scriptures, but he honestly admits it was from the Greeks. "The Neo-Platonist philosophers who thought and writings play the most influential part in Augustine's story were Plotinus and his disciple Porphyry." (The Confessions of St. Augustine p.16). In this connection, it is instructive to note that Origen's teacher was Ammonius Saccas, who was Plotinus' master.

Is not difficult to observe the early influence of the Greek philosophers on the Church fathers. Clement of Alexandria was so steep in pagan philosophy that he explained, "Greek philosophy purges the soul, and prepares it beforehand for the reception of faith, on which the truth builds up the edifice of Gnosis." (Clement of Alexandria, xia iii). Clement, who is honored as a saint by the Roman Church, wrote volumes on the "Gnostic" whom he called the "true Christian." He stated, in Stromata 7:1, The Gnostic alone is truly pious...The true Christian is a Gnostic!"

He also explained "Thus philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness, until the coming of the Lord. And now it assists towards true religion is a kind of preparatory training for those who arrive at faith by way of demonstration. For 'Thy foot shall not stumble' if thou attribute to Providence all good, whether it belong to the Greeks or to us. For God is the source of all good things; of some primarily, as of the old and New Testament; of others by consequence, as of philosophy. But it may be, indeed, that philosophy was given to the Greeks immediately and primarily, until the Lord should call the Greeks. For philosophy was a 'schoolmaster' to bring the Greek mind to Christ, as the law brought the Hebrews. Thus philosophy was a preparation, paving the way towards perfection in Christ." Clement of Alexandria (c.200), Stromateis, I.v.28

Tertullian writes, "Wretched Aristotle! Who taught them dialectic, that art of building up and demolishing, so protean in statement, so far-fetched in conjecture, so unyielding in controversy, so productive of disputes; self-stultifying, since it is ever handling questions but never settling anything what is there in common between Athens and Jerusalem? What between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?... away with all the projects for a 'Stoic,' a Platonic' or a 'dialectic' Christianity! After Christ Jesus we desire no subtle theories, no acute inquiries after the gospel" (Tertullian (c.160-240) De praescriptione haereticorum (c.200) ,vii).

That this new triumph in Church was a departure from the church which the Lord founded is provided by the centuries of violent persecution that followed. This doctrine produced not "the fruit of the spirit" but the "works of the flesh." (Gal. 5:19-23)

Why is all this important? Jesus tell us in Mark that it is possible to nullify God's Word in our lives because we refuse to give up human tradition Mar 7:13 "thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." We need to stop looking at Scriptures through the eyes of the Greek philosopher, and start looking anew with Hebrew eyes. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their book The Jesus Mysteries go on to explain that a divine Trinity is not found in Judaism, but it is prefigured by paganism. Aristotle writes of the Pythagorean doctrine that "the whole and everything in it is comprehended by the number three, for end, middle and beginning have the number of the whole, that is the Trinity." Hundreds of years earlier, an ancient Egyptian text has God proclaimed: "being One I became Three." Another reads, "Three are all the gods, Amon, Ra, Ptah: there are none like them. Hidden in his name Amon, he is Ra, his body is Ptah. He is manifested in Amon, with Ra and Ptah, the three united."

It was against the threat of Gnosticism that the Apostles battled continuously as they sought to preserve the Jewish Messianic framework in which biblical Christianity is set. The first target of the Gnostics was the resurrection of the dead, which for the apostles meant the calling to life of the faithful dead to gain immortality. The struggle to preserve the pure NT doctrine of the resurrection was unfortunately lost in the centuries following the death of the Apostles. Though certainly the church claimed that it was winning the battle, what actually happened was a partial surrender to the Gnostics. What survived as "Christian" teaching about life after death owes as much to Gnosticism as it does to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. According to the New Testament the dead are at present "asleep" (1 Cor.15:18, 20; 1 Thess.5:10) in the grave waiting to be called in to life again when Jesus returns.

It is interesting to note the warning sounded by Justin Martyr about 150A.D:
"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christian, but who do not admit the truth of the resurrection and venture to blasphemy the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who say that there is no resurrection of the dead but that their souls when they die are taken into heaven: Do not imagine that they are Christians" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.80).

For, as William Tyndale argued with the Roman Catholic Church, what point is there in a future resurrection of the dead if in fact they have already achieved their glory in heaven? Thus, it is established that the later Christian doctrine of the One God in Trinity is paralleled in a number of pre-Christian belief systems along with doctrine of the resurrection.



Paul

A brief history of the Church after Nicaea

Juan Baixeras writes a 55 page Patristic study of the Kingdom of God and the development of the Trinity on his web site. Here is a small section of this writings You must realize that in the early days Greek philosophy was the major thought pattern of the civilized world. Anyone who was anyone was educated in Greek philosophy. Another reason why these philosophies were so quick to influence early Christianity is that in the beginning of the church, the leaders were for the most part Jewish, with the Jewish concept of God.

"The Jews conceive God as an absolutely simple unity (inferring absolutely no constituent divisions)." (Jewish Thought 6/12/96)

When Christianity started spreading, the leaders of the churches were now Gentiles who had converted to Christianity. These people, for the most part, had been educated in Greek philosophies in their schools and universities. As educated persons, they of course wanted to find a place for their new religious beliefs within the philosophical framework they had already acquired. So when they read Hebrew Scriptures, they could not help injecting Greek philosophical meanings into them.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says concerning Christian Platonist:

"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence."

There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans.

What is needed today is to remove all the Greek influence from what is called modern day Christianity, and return to the Christianity that was preached by Jesus and his Apostles.

The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., made "Jesus of the same substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity. One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, was not an established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly developing idea that took over three hundred years to formalize.


325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. (History of Arian Controversy)

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come.



Paul

Just what does the Old Testament teach us about who and what God is?

Psalms 110:1 is an important O.T. verse that Has God telling us His relationship to His Son.

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psa 110:1) A Psalm of David.

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It's importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus. Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is "the oracle of Yahweh" (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse. He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, in Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord[here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni]."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states "The form Adoni ('my lord'), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai ('Lord') used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = 'my lords.'" Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States "lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative."

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's "lord" (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.


Paul

I frequently hear people tell me that the Trinity exist in the O.T. because of the word Elohim. They happily tell me it's a plural word, and thus contains the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all in one word. My studies however, have proven different.


Elohim

Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron.

Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: "Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.

The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.

The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification: Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.

Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.

Peace,
Paul

"Christ" God or title?

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word 'Christ' become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title 'Messiah' was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated."

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: "One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word 'Christ,' which simply means 'Messiah', as though it was a 'divine' title." Who was Jesus? p.57.

According to its OT usage, the term Messiah, the Anointed One, indicates a call to office. Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus' Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. "Christianity ignored the 'Messiah' and theologically worked the 'Christ' up into the 'God-Man.' Jesus as the 'Messiah' is a human being; Jesus as the 'Christ' is something entirely different."

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22;1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father. The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for "God-Man" (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning 'of equal substance,' "did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems." Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel. The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea." Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel.



Paul

Jewish "Ideal" Preexistence

In the English language, and certainly the way young people speak, we often speak about something that happened in the past as though it is happening in the present. For instance, a witness to a bank robbery might say, "And here I am standing in line minding my own business, when bursting through the door comes as a hooded bank robber. He tells us all to get on the floor. He waves his gun around and threatens us. Then he goes up to the teller and yells, 'Give me the money!'" We understand the events described occurred in the past, even though the narrative is in the present. Speaking of past events in the present is a peculiarity of the English language.

Most languages have peculiarities. The Hebrew mind and language has a peculiarity that English speakers are not accustomed to. They do the opposite of what I have just described. They often use the past tense or the present tense to speak of events yet future. The reason is that the Jews believed that whatever was determined in the mind of God existed before it came to be in history. God is the God who calls the things which do not exist as (already) existing (Rom. 4:17). God promised Abraham that He would give him the promised land and that he would be the father of many descendents. So sure is the fulfillment that sometimes the predictive language is in the past tense, as though it were already accomplished: "To your descendents I "have given" this land" (Gen 15:18). It came to be a common feature of Hebrew thinking that whatever God had decreed already preexisted (in plan and purpose) before it materialized on earth. "When the Jews wished to designate something as predestined, he spoke of it as already existing in heaven.

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ "was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times" for our sakes who believe in God's word (1Pet. 1:20). This does not mean that Jesus personally preexisted his appearance on earth, because in the same chapter we find that Christians have also been in the "foreknowledge of God the Father" (1Pet. 1:2). The words "foreknowledge" and "foreknown," noun and verb, are exactly alike. Peter uses precisely the same idea to refer to both Christians and Jesus. Christians do not preexisted heaven before our birth on earth nor did Jesus.

Similarly, the Bible speaks of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was crucified before the world began (Rev.13:8). Every Bible reader of course knows that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Palestine in the first century. But God ordained his crucifixion to happen before he even created the universe. Therefore, in God's mind, and in the Hebrew understanding, that which came to be had already been. The prophetic future was spoken of in the past tense. What God has decreed, He says is as good as done.

In John 17, Jesus prays just before his arrest in the garden, "I glorify You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given me to do. And now, glorify me together with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (v.4-5) If ever there was a statement that proved the personal preexistence of Jesus with the Father in heaven before he came to earth, surely this is it. Once again, we must caution against haste, for "In Biblical ways of speaking and thinking one may 'have' something which is promised in God's plan before one actually has its." We have already seen this principle in operation, where God's plan of promises are spoken in the "prophetic past tense." God promised Abraham, "I have given you this land." God says to Christians, "You are seated with Christ in the heavenlies; you are already glorified (Eph. 2:6; Rom.8:30). We have these things already in the plan and purpose of God -- even though we do not (yet) have them! Scripture tells us that we have eternal life as a present possession, even though clearly we await the day of our entrance into the life of the Age to come, whether by resurrection for those already dead, or the rapture of the living, when Christ returns. God calls the things that are not as though they already exist (Rom. 4:17). Clearly, in Hebrew thinking, the glory which Jesus had "with" God before the world was, it is the glory that it was present in God's mind and purpose from the beginning.

When we examine the rest of Jesus's prayer, it becomes quite clear that the glory Jesus claimed to have had "with the father before the world was" is a glory in prospect. Jesus is using the peculiar Hebrew way of thinking and speaking by which the past tense is employed to speak of the future. To confirm this all we need to do is follow Jesus' prayer through. Jesus speaks as though he has already accomplished his work: he says I have "accomplished a work which you have gave me to do" (v.4). Quite obviously he has not actually finish the work because his crucifixion has not yet happened, and his cry from the cross, "It is finished," has not yet been uttered. Next, Jesus speaks as though the disciples have already fully glorified him (through their preaching ministry) even though the resurrection has not yet happened: he prays, "I have been glorified in them" (v.10). Jesus also says "I am no more in the world" (v.11) even though he clearly is still in the world. In his own mind, he is already, by faith in the father's promise, sitting in heaven having been resurrected. Jesus says he has already sent the disciples into the world to preach: he prays, "I have sent them into the world" (v.18), even though this did not fully happen until after the resurrection. Jesus prays for his disciples, and "for those also who[will] believed in me through their word" (v.20). That is, he prays for subsequent generations of Christians who will come to faith in Christ down the track. He prays that "the glory which You have given me I have given to them (v.22). He prays that all these believers "which you have given me" (the whole future community of faith) may behold my glory, which You have given me; for You did love [choose] me before the foundation of the world (v.24).

One day the Lord Jesus at his second coming will say to his own people, "Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt 25:34). In Paul's language this hope is "laid up for you in heaven" which means it is in God's promise and plan and is certain of fulfillment (Col. 1:5). This hope is so certain that Paul can even speak of Christians as already glorified (Romans 8:29–30, noting the past tense). Indeed, this plan hatched in God's mind "according to His own purpose in grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9). Dunn, in his book, Christology in the Making p238 adds: "The gift was purposed 'ages ago,' unless we are to take it that the actual giving and receiving, 'us' and 'Christ Jesus' were all alike preexistent." This hope of Christians entering into the age to come was "promised long ages ago" (Tit 1:2). Dunn continues p238. "Here it is even clearer that what is thought of as happening "ages ago" is God's promise; and it is that promise of eternal life which has been manifested. Indeed, the text says it is his word that he has manifested - that is, not Christ the Logos, but the word of promise, fulfilled in Christ and offered now back in the kerygma [ message]. In other words, we are back where we started – Christ as the content of the word of preaching, the embodiment of the predetermined plan of salvation, the fulfillment of the divine purpose."

Hebrew understanding of the Spirit.

One of the biggest problem for those holding that Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead is the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is the foundation of our Bibles, the first 75% of the book. And an incontrovertible fact is that the Hebrew Bible does not support the idea that the Spirit of God is a distinct member of the Godhead at all. Even committed Trinitarians like George Ladd admit in his book, A Theology of the New Testament "The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of the Lord) in the Old Testament is not a separate, distinct entity; it is God's power-the personal activity in God's will achieving a moral and religious objective. God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life. The Spirit of God is the active principle that proceeds from God and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7). It is also the source of religious concerns, raising up charismatic leaders, whether judges, prophets, or kings. The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of God) is a term for the historic creative action of the one God which, though it defies logical analysis, is always God's action.

Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making adds, "The continuity of thought between Hebraic and Christian understanding of the Spirit is generally recognized. There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism "spirit" (ruach) denoted power - the awful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach) in particular, "Spirit of God" denotes effective divine power In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men."

It makes a big difference to our Western minds at least - right at the start of the Bible, whether we translate "this Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). The first possibility conveys to our modern minds the impression that the Spirit is an individual in "his" own right. Many Trinitarians read it that way. The second possibility suggest that God's energetic and creative presence was active.

Psalms 139 expresses this Hebrew parallelism beautifully: "where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?" (v.7). Thus, the Spirit of God is a synonym for God's personal presence with us. N.H. Snaith in his book The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament explains, "The ruach-adonai [Spirit of the Lord] is the manifestation in human experience of the life-giving, energy-creating power of God. And, The Spirit of the Lord is the medium through which God exerts his controlling power." A brief look at a few more Old Testament verses will show this Hebrew parallelism, where the Spirit of God (Heb. ruach) can mean the breath, life, Spirit, presence, and most particularly - a word of Yahweh: (Job 26:4) (Job 27:3-4) (Job 32-8) (2Sam.23:2) (Prov.1:23) and, Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

It is vital not to rush over this. Many other Old Testament examples could be cited to show that spirit and breath are interchangeable. The fact that the 'spirit' and 'breath' are translations of the same Hebrew and Greek words points to the root meaning of spirit as God's creative power, the energy behind his utterance.

Another world-renowned known Anglican, J.I. Packer in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit (also a committed believer in the Trinity) acknowledges that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's "distinct personhood is not expressed by the Old Testament writers." So then, by what reason then do these learned commentators come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead? They admit that they stepped outside the boundaries of the Old Testament. They would have us believe that it is a doctrine newly revealed only in the New Testament. The New Testament does not alter the Hebrew concept of "spirit" as we will now see. The distinguished Bible scholar N. H. Snaith states that: "The New Testament pneuma (spirit) is used in all the ways in which the Hebrew ruach ( breath, wind, spirit) is used. It is used of the wind (John 3:8), of human breath, both ordinarily (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and of the breath which means life (Rev. 11:11). It is used of the vital principle in man (Luke 8:55, etc.), as opposed to 'flesh.'"

Luke writes concerning the Ministry of John the Baptist that: "It is he who will go as a forerunner before him and the Spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for Lord" (Luke 1:17). The Virgin Mary is told that "[the] Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadowed you" (Luke 1:35). And concerning the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit the risen Jesus predicts that the disciples are to wait in Jerusalem where they "shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). In these three Lukan passages we observe the interplay of the concepts of "power" and "spirit" precisely as found in the Old Testament.

This Hebrew concept is further seen in the famous passage where the apostle Paul burst out in praise to God. He does this by quoting from Elijah 40:13: "Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and unfathomable His ways! [Now his Old Testament quotation] For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor?" (Rom.11:33-34) But when we compare his source in Isaiah we note that Paul has changed it slightly. Isaiah actually wrote, "Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed him?"

What we see here is a typical Hebrew understanding: To have the mind of the Lord is to be directed by the Spirit. There are many New Testament examples of this interplay between "mind" and "spirit." In Philippians 2, Paul wants the Christian to be "of the same mind," which is to be "united in spirit, intent on one purpose"(v.2). On a personal level, how may I know that I am filled with the Holy Spirit? The answer is when I have the mind of God, the attitude that He has, the values that his word and espouses and above all the truth which it teaches!

Another passage of interest in this vein is 1 Corinthians 2:10-12.
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who [Greek neuter "which"] is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. Here "the spirit of the man which is in him" is paralleled with "the Spirit of God" which is from God. It is quite clear that a person's spirit is not a separate person from himself, but is rather his/her own mind and inner thoughts. Just so, "the Spirit of God" refers to God's inner and personal centre, His mind and word, even His self-consciousness.

Spirit = Power = Mind = Presence = Breath = Wind = Word

It is quite evident that in the apostle's mind to be filled with the spirit is precisely the same thing as letting the word (teaching, message) of Christ direct our lives. This is simply to say that in John chapters 14 to 16, "the Spirit" that will come to help the apostles will be the post-resurrection revelation of Christ's message directed by the risen Christ to the world through the apostles.

The acid test as to whether I have "Jesus in my heart" is whether I have his words informing and empowering my life. If his Gospel-word is the motivating principle in my life, then I have the Spirit of God dwelling in me. Indeed, I have the Father and the Son. Hence Paul's vigorous warning that if anyone fails to demonstrate the presence of the words of Christ in his life, he is devoid of understanding (1 Tim 6:3). I am firmly convinced that the Scriptures are harmonious concerning the Spirit of God as being a power and word and mind of God in action. The Trinitarian assertion that the Holy Spirit is God himself is surely impossible to maintain when we note that nowhere in the Scripture is the Holy Spirit prayed to or worshiped. At the end of the last book of the Bible when the redeemed saints are in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ in glory it is not a strange omission that the third member of the Godhead has no seat of authority on the final throne?

When reading in Exodus awhile back, I came upon the phrase "the finger of God." I was aware that the same phrase was used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. I decided to do a phrase study using e-Sword. The following information is from my latest research.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.


Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.


Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.
Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.


Paul

Spirit or Flesh?

Many prophecies indicated that the Coming One would arise from the "seed," the stock of humanity, in a particular from Abrahamic and Davidic stock. The Messiah would be from the biological chain within the human family, specifically of Jewish pedigree: "The Lord your God will rise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own countrymen [literally, brothers]; you shall listen to him" (Deut.18:15). In this passage, Moses predicts that the coming Messiah would be a person "like me," raised up from "among" the people of Israel, and that God would not speak to the people directly, because they were afraid that if God spoke without a mediator they would die (V16). The coming "prophet" would be a man of whom it is said that God would "put his word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall come about whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him" (v. 18-19). To say that the Messiah is God Himself is to contradict the whole point of this prophecy. For it announces that the ultimate spokesman for God is expressly not God but a human being. The New Testament says that Jesus is the one who fulfilled this prophecy (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Understandably, no Jew who believe theses Scriptures ever imagined that the baby born in Bethlehem was going to be Jehovah himself come as a human baby.
In addition, Jehovah God says clearly that he is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Job 9:32). The converse is therefore true: if a person is a man, then he can not be God.

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on us as we sit and church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that we could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

INCARNA'TION, n. The act of clothing with flesh.

1. The act of assuming flesh, or of taking a human body and the nature of man; as the incarnation of the Son of God.

Can God take on the nature of man? What did Paul say?
Romans 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

However, we know that Jesus was begotten. Yet, not eternally begotten! Which is un-scriptural! This is truth!

BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get. Procreated; generated.

Now let's look at John 1:10 regarding, the world was made through Him (Jesus).

Joh 1:10 In the world He was, and the world came into being through(dia) Him, and the world knew Him not." 11 To His own He came, and those who are His own accepted Him not."

To be a Christian means you know that our Lord Jesus is the diameter, the purpose of the universe. His kingdom is coming! This is God's purpose and it will not be frustrated. Another verse saying the same thing is Hebrews 1:2. It says God has "appointed" His son to be the "heir of all things" and that it was "through him that he made the world'(s). Here our translations are not quite accurate, what the author wrote was not that through Jesus God made the world(s) but ages. God planned to complete His purpose for all creation through the agency of his son Jesus. The preposition that is used in relation to Jesus and the world, or the ages, is "through" (Greek dia from which you will see comes our English word diameter).

Dia is the "preposition of attendant circumstances" and signifies instrumental agency. Put simply, this means that dia denotes the means by which an action is accomplished. And Scripture tells us that God the originator is bringing His purpose, His logos to fulfillment through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Agent, the Mediator of God's master plan. Jesus is always seen as secondary, or subordinate to the Father. There are occasional exceptions to this general use of the preposition dia. Sometimes blessings are said to come to us through God (e.g. 1 Cor 1:9; Heb.2: 10). But usually there is a clear distinction made between God's initiating activity and the means through which God brings that activity to pass. The prepositions used of God's action are hypo and ek which point to primary causation or origin. Let's cement this idea in our minds by looking at one or two verses that highlight the difference: "yet for us there is but one God, the father, from [ek,'out from' ] whom are all things, and we exist for [ eis, 'to' ] Him; and one lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] him" (1Cor.8:6). Prepositions are the signposts that point out the direction of a passage. Ek indicates Something coming out from its source or origin, and indicates motion from the interior. In other words, all things came out from the loving heart of God, or God's interior", so to speak.

This agrees with Genesis 1:1 which says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Both verses say that the source of "all things" is the one true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contradistinction to this "one God and Father" out of Whom all things originate, the "one Lord, Jesus Messiah" is giving the preposition dia which means "through." In other words, Jesus is God's agent through whom God accomplishes His plan for our lives. This is a consistent pattern all the way through the N.T. God the Father is the source, the origin of all blessings, and Jesus His Son brings those blessings of salvation to us:

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (2 Cor.5:18).

"God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has blessed us in Christ. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself" (Eph.1:3-5).

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess.5:9).

"God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Rom. 2:16).

"For God has saved us, and called us... according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9).

"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has caused us to be born-again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).

"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Paul tell us in 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through (dia) whom we exist.


Always God the Father is the source and origin of all works, deeds and salvation which come to us through the mediatorship of his son. From Him comes all to us through our Lord Jesus Christ so that to God the Father made all the praise be directed. The Father is the sole origin and Creator of "all things." In contrast, Jesus is the Father's commissioned Lord Messiah through whom God's plan for the world is coming to completion. The whole Bible from cover to cover categorically states that God created the universe and all the ages with Jesus Christ at the center of his eternal purpose. Jesus is the diameter running all the way through.

"The world was made through him," i.e. with Christ in mind.

In the light of this background, it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, and a reason by which he brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who He is.

CLV(John 1:1) In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being."


Paul

Christ the First-born of all the creation

The word "first-born" comes to the New Testament with a rich heritage. The Hebrews had a custom of conferring special birthright privileges on their oldest sons. The eldest son of a father would receive the double portion of the family's inheritance. The well-known story of Jacob tricking his father Isaac into conferring on him - rather than on the first-born-Esau all the family blessing is typical of this culture (Gen 27:32). There is a deeper nuance to the meaning of this word "first-born." The Greek word for "first" can mean either a first in time or first in status, regardless of birth position. The "first-born" may designate one who is given the honor of chief rank, that is, the first place. This usage can also be found in the Hebrew Bible, as when Jacob summons his son to bequeath his patriarchal blessing on them, he designates Reuben as "my first-born" preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. (Gen 40 9:3)

Although Reubin is "first-born" in time, the prominent idea is his status in dignity. This is clearly the meaning in Jeremiah 31:9 where God calls Ephraim his "first-born" even though Ephraim's brother, Manasseh, was the elder of the two. Or when God calls Israel his first-born son in Exodus 4:22 and commands Pharaoh to "let my son go that he may worship me." (v.23) The concept has to do with Israel's precedence in importance over Egypt as far as God's plans were concerned. The classic instance of this idea of pre-eminence of rank is in the Messianic Psalms 89 where God, in glowing words, speaks of the coming promise Davidic king, the Lord Messiah:

Psa 89:26 He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.' 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. 29 I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens.

In the spirit of prophecy, God announces that this king's superior position is a matter of appointment, not the time of birth. Furthermore, God makes his appointed king "the highest [in status and rank] of the kings of the earth." Thus, when the apostle applies the term "first-born" to the son of God in Colossians 1, he is using a well-known OT Messianic description. In fact, the expression is repeated a few verses later, where Paul writes, "He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead" (v.18). The different qualifier here is noteworthy. Whereas in verse 15 the Son is the "first-born" of all creation," here the Son is the "first-born from the dead." If we take into account the Hebrew literary style of parallelism, where the same idea is repeated but in slightly modified form, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the qualifiers "of all creation" and "from the dead" means the same thing.

The thought is clearly that Jesus the son of God is the first man of God's new creation, because he is the first man ever to be raised to immortality. Christ return is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection. His resurrection is the promise and the guarantee that God's new order of reality has begun. The church is that new community in prospect. This confirms that the subject matter under discussion is not the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather the creation of the church, the body of believers who constitute God's new humanity, the New Man(kind). For this reason, he is the beginning (arche which has an ambivalence, and can mean either the ruler or chief, or origin or beginning, v. 18) Either way, Jesus as the first-raised from the dead is the origin of God's new creation, and he is in consequence of this priority and resurrection also the highest in rank "so that he himself might come to have first place in everything" (v.18). However, whether we take the term firstborn to mean first in relation to time or first in relation to rank, this much is at least clear, that taken in its natural sense, the expression and firstborn excludes the notion of an uncreated, eternal being.

To be born requires a beginning. In order to verify our findings so far, we must look at the second part of the phrase that the son is "the first-born of all creation."

Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.


Paul

Christ the Head of the New Creation

The various popular English translation are at odds as to whether the Son is "the first-born over all creation" (as in the NIV and NK JV), thus first in rank, or whether he is "the firstborn of all creation" (which reflects a literal translation of the genitive case, as in the KJV, RV and NASB), meaning first in time, which would refer to Christ being the first-created being of creation.

We evidently need the wider context to determine which nuance fits best. It is clear that Paul continues his line of thought in the next verse, as he uses the conjunction "for": "For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things have been created through him and for him" (v.16). Jesus never claimed credit for the original Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth. He was in no doubt that the universe was God's handiwork.

Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Remember Jesus has a God"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, (1Co 8:6)

Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.

Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not "the heavens and the earth" as per Genesis 1:1, but rather "all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.

This is the thought as we soon shall see in Hebrews 1 where the Angels are told to worship the Son. It is also the thought that Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3:21-22 where, after "the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who he is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him, " it is the new Messianic order that God has brought in through Christ the Son that is under discussion. Just before his ascension into heaven at the father's right hand of power, Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt.28:18). His resurrection has Jesus a new status, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21).

All of this is to reiterate that this hymn of praise concerns the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son. An eschatological shift of the ages has begun with Christ's exaltation to the Father's right hand. God has "put all things in subjection under his [the resurrected Christ's] feet" (Eph. 1-22). Paul repeats this thought in the next chapter of Colossians: "and he is the head over [or of] all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). In the words we looked at in Philippians 2, God has rewarded Jesus' obedient death on the cross by highly exalting him, and bestowing on him "the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-10).
It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.

If Jesus was God in the flesh then it is impossible to be a man. He would have been something entirely else. Not a man. This is why Jesus has to learn wisdom, Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. God is all knowing. He does not need to learn anything. Paul tells us Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and something else.

Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments

NASB Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

There is no God in the flesh hybrid (Theos aner) in these verses.

If Jesus is already God in the flesh then He can not have a God because it would be two Gods not one. Yet, scripture clearly tell us he does have a God, both before and after His resurrection. Philippians 4:20; Ephesians 4:6; John 20:17; Matthew 27:46; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:2.

One issue is God can not die. So if Jesus was God then he would have had to pretend to die and thus there would not be any forgiveness of sin because he really didn't die.

Let's see who can forgive sins.

Mat 9:2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."

Mat 9:6 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home."

Mar 2:7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them,"Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

Jesus never forgave sins before He was anointed with God's Spirit. And now the Apostles have the ability to forgive sins, once again only after Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit. The Apostles are now Agents of Jesus the Christ and "have authority on earth to forgive sins". How? Because as the Father has sent Me, I also send you


Paul

US?

When God says "let us make man in our image" are we being taught that the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are together creating human beings? How is it that when some read this statement their minds immediately think of "let us three"? The verse says nothing about God speaking to the Son or to the Holy Spirit. It simply says that God addressed someone else or some others than Himself. The "us" could refer to just one other, or to many others. But who is this someone or who are these others to whom God speaks here?

The Hebrews understood that God addressed His heavenly court, the angelic host and that He allowed them to watch his master-work in creating mankind unfold. This is quite reasonable, for there are other times when God involves the angels in His work. In Isaiah 6, God is seen in His Heavenly temple with the cherubs and all the heavenly court. There God asks, "Whom shall I send, and whom will go for us?" (v.8). It is certainly the case in 1 Kings 22:19-20 where the Lord is seen "sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left" and he asked the heavenly court '"who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?' And one said this while the other said that."

Let's return to Genesis 1:26. It is reasonable to suggest then that God in some way took the angels into confidence with Himself when he created Adam? This is collaborated in Job 38:4, 7 where God says that when He laid the foundations of the earth "all the sons of God shouted for joy." The sons of God are of course the angels as Job 1:6 and 2:1 confirm. God's own testimony is that the work of creation, "the heavens," "the earth" and "all things" were His work alone. This fact is established right away at the very outset of Genesis 1 where we are first introduced to God (elohim) the Creator. It is also clear that when he came to create Adam and Eve he told the angels to watch in awe. In this way the heavenly hosts participated as spectators of the miracle of man's creation.

Now if you're still not convinced that the God of creation is one God and not three in one, here is our Lord Jesus own commentary on Genesis 1:26. He will settle this issue for us.
In Matthew 19:4 and Mark 13:19 Jesus tells us

Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (the Father) created until now, and never will be.

According to Jesus himself the creator God was not "We who made them from the beginning" but a single person He! Jesus does not include himself in the Genesis 1 creation of Adam, and He is also telling us that God (Father) Created all from the beginning.


Paul

There has been quite a bit of discussion on John 8:58. What happened to this verse as to confuse so many? Let's start in Exodus.

KJV Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Now we shall read the same verse from the Greek Septuagint

Septuagint Exo 3:14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην [εγω ειμι ο ων] και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ [ο ων] απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Note the two separate Greek words used for 'am'

Concordant Literal Version Exo 3:14 Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And He said: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.
Now when translated literally you get a whole different look. What happened to the other I am's?

The Hebrew Bible uses the word (hâyâh H1961) in the place of "Am" which is a verb meaning to exist, to be.
Check the Strongs' number.

Clearly Jesus did not say (εγω ειμι ο ων) nor did he state (ο ων), in John 8:58. Jesus spoke the words (εγω ειμι) just like other people in the bible who are not God. So just what was Jesus saying?

I Am

But what about the great "I Am him" statement of Jesus? Especially that classic one in John 8:58 where Jesus says, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born I am"? Surely here Jesus makes the same claim for himself that Jehovah God made back in Exodus 3 where the LORD says to Moses at the burning Bush "I Am Who I Am." Surely Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament as Trinitarian belief asserts?

This expression from Jesus' lips "I am" (Greek ego eimi) occurs throughout the Gospel of John and in no other text in John can it mean I AM, the God of the Old Testament.

Go back to John 4:25-26 for instance. The woman at the well said to Jesus, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us." And Jesus said to her, "I who speak with you am he." You will notice that in most Bibles that word he is in italics. This means that the translators have correctly supplied a word in English that is not in the Greek but that nevertheless makes the intended sense quite clear. Here Jesus says to the woman - in the context of her question about the Messiah - that he is the Messiah, the Christ. "I who speak to you am he." In the Greek it reads ego eimi. Jesus simply says I am he, the Messiah. Definitely not "I am is the one speaking to you!"

In John 9 Jesus heals the blind man. Is this really the beggar who used to sit groping in the dark? Some people said, "Yes, it's him all right." Other said, "No, he just looks like him." But the beggar says, " ego eimi!" And the translators have no problem writing, "I am the one." So why aren't the translators consistent? Why not capitalize what this man says as I AM? Because it is clear that he is not claiming to be the God of the Old Testament. Saying "I am" (ego eimi) does not make somebody God in the Bible!

What Jesus is saying is simply "Before Abraham was born, I am he," that is, "I am the Messiah."

Notice the context in John 8:56 where Jesus says, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day." By faith Abraham looked forward and saw the coming Messiah before he came in history. He believed the promise that God would send the Promised One. On the other hand these Jews did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. They were claiming to be Abraham's descendents. Jesus said that this was impossible for they did not recognize him as their Messiah. But Jesus asserts that even before Abraham was born, he is the One who was always in God's plan. This Abraham believe and saw. The Messiah preexisted in God's plan and therefore in Abraham's believing mind, because he trusted the promise of God. Jesus positively did not say, before Abraham was, I was." Also, Jesus did not say, "Before Abraham was, I AM WHAT I AM."

The conclusion is inevitable. Jesus' claim "Before Abraham was born, I am he" is the straightforward claim that he is the long promised one, the Messiah, the One in question. Jesus is the Savior in God's promise even before Abraham was born.

The Jewish leaders were very well aware of what Jesus was saying about himself! Jesus Was not claiming to be God but the Son of God as Shown in John 19:6. They give the very reason they wanted Him dead!

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.


Paul

I am the Way, the Truth and the Life

At this point, it is appropriate to mention another of the "I am" statements of Jesus often used to support the notion that Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). The first thing to note is that this statement is not the whole statement. The rest of what Jesus says is that because of this unique mediatorial status as the Son, "no one comes to the Father, but through(Dia) me." Jesus is simply announcing that he is God's mediator, Gods only authorized agent of approach. Elsewhere in the Scripture clearly teaches this: "There is one God, and one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).

By definition, a mediator has to be a separate person from the other two parties who are seeking terms (Gal 3:20).

It says nothing about Jesus being God. It says that he is God's mediator for all who would come to the Father through his gospel announcement. The second thing to note in these "I am" statements is that the whole context of the Gospel of John tells us how and why Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life," namely because his authority has been given to him by the Father. The Father "has given all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22). The father "gave to the son to have life in himself" (John 5:26). Jesus' own confession is quite clear: "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57). Jesus said, "I can do nothing of my own initiative" (John 5:30). It is on "the Son of Man" that "the Father, even God, has set His seal" (John 6:27). We could multiply these sayings of Jesus many times over. His testimony is that he is subordinate to the Father. By definition, the Father of Jesus possesses all things and can be given nothing. It is intolerable that Jesus should be made to say, 'I am God, the supreme God of the OT, and being God I do as I am told.' It would be equally intolerable that Jesus should be made to say, "I am God, and I am here because someone sent me." Perhaps it would be wise to not say that these "I am he" statements of Jesus mean that he is claiming to be God.


Paul

John 1:1

I have another train of thought for you to think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, "the Word" (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning "the word" that "he" was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning "the word" that "it" was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use "he" to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make "the word" a "he" here?

The English translations of the Greek text before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now "It").

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), "question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an "it."

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an "it" not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh. There is even strong evidence suggest the John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a "who" he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". It is not as some would have you believe Jesus' middle name. Jesus is not called Jesus Logos of Nazareth. This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God."

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (NAB & VED).

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"

"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:

"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.

You decide which definition is correct, Greek philosophy's or John's Jewish definition.

It was the 1611 Kings James bible that began to change the way we read John 1. Tradition is a hard thing to overcome, at least it was for me!

Paul

Worship

If we may let our Lord and King have the final word. Jesus plainly states, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Who does Jesus declare are the "true worshipers"? He insists, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father" If we would be amongst the true worshipers we must be with Jesus worshiping this Father. Evidently, those who worship "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God," Are not said by Jesus to be the true worshippers. Those who worship the Father as the "only true God" are. The worshipper of the One God, the Father, as Jesus' own affirmation that he is the true worshipper.

This is the biblical pattern throughout. The so-called Lord's prayer, the model prayer, teaches us to "pray in this way: our Father who art in heaven"(Matt. 6:9). This pattern of prayer and worship prescribed by our Lord Jesus is followed and sanctioned by every example given in Scripture. See the following:

"Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom.15:5-6).

" For this reason I bow my knees before the Father," (Eph 3:14)

" giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, " (Eph 5:20)

" We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, " ( Col 1:3 )

"giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light." (Col 1:12)

"And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father "through" him." (Col 3:17)

This list is by no means exhaustive. But it is sufficient to show that we are, with our Lord Jesus, to worship and pray to the Father. This is the usual pattern of prayer and worship in the New Testament. They prayed to the one God through the name or authority of Jesus Christ. They evidently were not aware that the Holy Spirit was God (a third person), for wherein all the pages of the Bible to the Saints pray to the Holy Spirit? And where in all the pages of Scripture do the worshipers of God sing to the Holy Spirit as is the general custom within Christendom today? What about those passages where the Lord Jesus is worship? Or where the Lord Jesus is pray to?

Surely this is proof positive that Jesus is God because only God is to be worshiped? (The words of Jesus are often used to substantiate this belief: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4:10), as though Jesus meant: "I am the Lord your God, worship only me." But this meaning is totally incongruous and has no parallel in the New Testament record.) Then, of course, there is God the Father's own directive to the Angels concerning Jesus the son of God: "and let all the Angels of God worship him" (Heb. 1:6). The fact that Jesus is worship by Thomas as he falls at his feet and honors him with the confession, "My Lord and my God!" Too many presents the final proof that Jesus is God (John 20:28).

To all of this there is a very simple solution. Once again it comes back to a failure to understand biblical culture; a failure to read the Bible through Hebrew eyes. In the Old Testament in main Hebrew word for worship is shachah. It occurs about 170 times but the surprising thing is that only about half of this number relate to the worship of God as God. This fact is hidden in our English translations. The translators prefer to say "bow down to" or "revere" when shachah refers to homage paid to noble persons, whether Angels or men, but say "worship" when God is the object. This is a false distinction the original texts does not support. Here are just a view examples:

Lot "worshiped" the two strangers who looked like normal travelers as they entered
Sodom (Gen. 19:1).

Abraham "worshipped" the Gentile leaders of the land where he lived (Gen. 23:7).

Jacob "worshipped" his older brother Esau (Gen. 33:3).

Joseph's brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 43:26).

Ruth "worshipped" Boaz (Ruth 2:10).

David "worshipped" Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41).

David "worshipped" King Saul (1 Sam. 24:8).

Mephibosheth fell on his face and "worshipped" David (2 Sam. 9:6).

Abigail "worshipped" David the outlaw (1 Sam 25:23, 41).

The whole congregation "worshipped" the King (1 Chron. 9:20).

These are just a few instances of the many that could be cited to show the reluctance of the translators to consistently translate shachah as "worship" when worship of important persons was obviously a common feature of Hebrew culture. In Scripture worship is offered to God and to men. There is no special word in the Old Testament for "worship" reserved exclusively for God. But there is a reluctance to translate this one-word consistently. If you looked up your English translations of the above verses you will find that you do not use the "w" word. They prefer to say "bowed down" or "revered" or "pay homage to" instead of "worshiped." This inconsistency of translation has created the false impression that only God can be worshiped.

So then, how do we explain this in light of the clear command that we are to worship God the Father alone as both the first commandment and Jesus himself command? Is this a contradiction after all? No way. The answer is that whenever men "worshiped" other men it was a relative worship. In most of the examples above it is clear that the ones worshiped were God's representatives. Once again we are back to the principle of Jewish agency. The Israelites had no difficulty in offering this proportional or relative worship to the ones who came in Gods Name, with God's message. It is obvious that the first commandment "You must not bow yourself down [shachah] to them nor serve them" is not a prohibition against a relative worship of those worthy of it. If this was the case then obviously all these Old Testament godly men and women sinned greatly. God even promises a coming day when He will make our enemies "to come and worship at your feet, and to know that I have loved you" (Rev. 3:9). Such worship of the Saints at God's degree is clearly a relative and proportional worship. It is perfectly legitimate to give honor to whom honor is due. This is why many Jews felt no impropriety in "worshiping" Jesus in the Gospels because they recognized him as a prophet of God, or the Messiah sent from God. But it is preposterous to think these good people believe Jesus was Jehovah God just because they worshiped him. When they saw and heard the mighty works of Jesus they glorified God through him (Matt. 9:8; 11:27; 28:18; Luke 7:16; 9:11; 10:22). This fits the whole will of the New Testament teaching that it is God the Father who is to receive glory through His son Jesus (Eph. 1:3, 6, 12; 1 Pet. 1:3; Heb. 13:15, etc.). Christ's exaltation is the means to a higher end. For through him all worship is ultimately directed to God and Father.

To worship him (Jesus) as Lord Messiah is thus a divinely pleasing but subordinate or relative worship. It is instructive to read that in the coming Kingdom the Lord Jesus will orchestrate the worship of his brethren in the ultimate praise of his Father. He will "proclaim" the Name of God to his "brothers" and he will "in the mist of the congregation singing your praise" (Heb. 2:12). There, in that glorious Kingdom, Jesus Christ will continue to be a joyful worshiper of God his absolutely. All other divinely appointed worship is homage to persons who are not God himself. Jesus is among those worthy of such worship for he is worshiped as the one Messiah, God's supreme son and agent.

Jesus knew the prophecy: "Worship the Lord with reverence, and do homage to the Son" (Ps. 2: 11-12). Jesus knew God his Father had decreed "Let all the Angels of God worship him" (Psalms 97:7). Jesus knew that the angelic messengers of Jehovah had in the past received relative worship from God-pleasing men and women. Jesus knew that of the one true God could be addressed as though they were God. And Jesus knew he was the Son and ultimately agent of God, so how much greater his destiny! As the "only begotten Son" whom the father had "sealed" and commissioned he knew that whoever honored him honored the Father also. This was his Father's decree (Psalms 2:11-12; 97:7).

Psalms 2:11-12 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Psalms 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!

2Co 4:4 the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Now back to Thomas' worship of the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God"

This is why Jesus did not rebuke Thomas when he fell at his feet and worshiped the risen Lord. Not because Jesus knew himself to be Jehovah God and this fact had finally dawned on Thomas. Rather, it was homage it proffered to Jesus as God's ordained Messiah. Jesus can be worshiped as the Lord Messiah. In fact, this is clearly what the writer John means by reporting this incident, for the very next two verses say that these things "have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). To say that Thomas was worshiping Jesus as Almighty God is to directly contradict John's own stated purpose for writing his whole Gospel. When Thomas fell at Jesus' feet and worshiped him, Thomas was at last recognizing that the resurrected Jesus was the long promised Lord Messiah. Thomas' language it was steeped in Old Testament concepts.

Remember when David stepped out of the cave and call to King Saul, "My Lord and my King" (1 Sam. 24:9)? In the same way King Messiah is to be worshiped and adored by his bride: "Then the King will desire your beauty; because he is your Lord, bow down to him" (Ps.45:11). Thomas' language is in the same Hebrew tradition. He means the same thing. Thomas is addressing the rightful king of Israel, the now risen and victorious Lord. We just have to think like first century Jews steeped in their Old Testament prophets! "A Savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord" (Luke 2:11). The wise men believe the infant Jesus was the King of Israel they brought their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to worship him: "Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We saw his star in the East and have come to worship him They bowed down and worshiped him" (Matt. 2:2, 11). "God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). Worship is offered to Jesus because he is the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of Israel. We have already seen that in Jewish understanding, the word "God" can refer to one who represents the Almighty God (Exodus 7:1, etc.). The King of Israel could be called "god" because he represented God to the people. Thomas knew the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah was to be called "god" for he was to represent Jehovah perfectly. Thomas' worship was that of a Jew deeply grounded in the Old Testament faith that God is one Jehovah and that the Messiah is also called "god" in a relative and royal rather than an absolute sense. Psalm 45:7 says of the Messiah, "You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows."

Evidently this anointed one has a God above him: Jehovah is he is God. Come to think of it, isn't this what Jesus himself said just a few verses before he received Thomas' worship? "Stop clinging to me: for I have not yet ascended to the father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God'" (John 20:17).

Exalted in heaven right now Jesus still calls the Lord God Almighty "my God" and "my Father" (Rev. 3:2, 5, 12). The Lord God is still called "his Godand Father" (Rev. 1:6). In the Revelation there is always "our God" and "His Christ" (Rev. 12:10; 20:6) or "the Lord God, the Almighty, and the lamb" (Rev. 6:16; 21:22; 21:1, 3). Yes, in good Hebrew understanding, Thomas' worship preserves this Biblical distinction:

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king= Lord and god

Jesus' creed is that his Father is "the only true God" and that he himself is the Messiah whom that one God has commissioned. He defines this knowledge as "eternal life." (John 17:3). In all matters because on that great and unique day in the age to come, "Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11). The worship we give to our glorious Lord Jesus Christ is worship that is ultimately given to his God and our God, to his Father and our Father.


Peace,
Paul

Philippians 2 is another area that I have encountered that well meaning people attempt to use to show that Jesus pre-existed.

Emptied Himself

Now to the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes a difficulty. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others' interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess. The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.


Paul

The Colossians Hymn

In so far as it is used by the "traditionalists" to justify belief in a personally preexistent Christ, the passage in Colossians 1:15-19 ranks right up there with John 1 and Philippians 2. It is easy to see how this conclusion is reached, when the passages is read in the gridlock of "orthodoxy."

Paul wrote:
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

We must carefully examine both the overall context and the particular phrases before rushing to the conclusion that the apostle is teaching that Jesus the son of God created the heavens and the earth, and that he is therefore coequal with God the Father, the second member of the Trinity. Everything we have looked at so far would indicate that Paul has not suddenly done a back flip from his clearly stated belief that there is "one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus the Messiah" (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5-6, etc.).

The overall context must be clearly borne in mind. The apostle he is "giving thanks to the Father" because He "has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light," which is to say that God the Father has "delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved son" (v. 12-13). Paul is thus speaking of the new creation that God has effected through His Son Jesus. He is speaking of things that relate to "redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (v.14) and "the church" (v.18) and how through the Son of the Father God has "reconciled all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross" (v.20).

Kuschel in his book "Born Before All Time? p.331. Says, "the direct context of the Colossians hymn is itself of an eschatological kind and represents the 'shift of the ages.'" G.E. Ladd in his book A Theology of the New Testament, p.323. states. "In other words, 'the New Testament does not merely picture the resurrection of Jesus as the resurrection of a corpse, but as the emergence within time and space of a new order of life.'"

When the Father raised Jesus to life again it was not only an isolated historical event. It was more importantly the injection into history of the beginning of "the eschatological resurrection." Eternal life-the life of the ages to come-is guaranteed in Christ who is "the first fruits" of all who will follow. (1Cor.15:23). Jesus is the first of a whole crop of new-life first to come! A new order of things now exist. A new age in prospect has already begun. If "anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things [have] passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor. 5:17).
To be baptized into Christ is to already in prospect be "in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6:5). We are already "seated with Christ in the heavenlies" (Eph. 2:6). Because Christ has been raised to the glory of the Father, we are already in promise "glorified" (Rom. 8:30). We have been transferred into "the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col. 1:13).

It is this tectonic shift in the ages that is the context of this hymn of praise. We are looking at a whole new order of things. The waves of this continental shift from the resurrection of Christ are rolling towards the distant shoreline of the coming Kingdom of God with tsunami-like power. Old authorities and structures have been rattled, for Christ is now the head of God's of new creation. A new dynasty in God universe has been inaugurated. This is the cosmological contexts of the individual phrases we will now examine.


Paul

Is God the only Savior?

I imagine by now you may be arguing with me and saying something like this: Well, if Jesus is not God in human flesh what you do say to the Scriptures that say only God can save? After all, God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides me" (Isaiah 40 3:11). If Jesus is not God and there are two saviors! And this is something the Bible here clearly excludes.

We have already seen a strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not one single O.T. prophecy that supports it. Not one verse foretells that God himself was going to become a man in order to save us. The opposite is the case. The prophets predicted a human being who would under God's anointing Spirit rescue us.

Wherein lies the solution? Ah, let's now read this through a Hebrew understanding and see what a difference it makes. Remember that dictum the Jews had about the law of agency where "the agent is as the principal himself"? It applies right here.

Let's go back to Exodus 23. Remember that I used this chapter earlier to illustrate the Hebrew law of agency. We saw that the angel of the Lord acted in God's stead. What the angel did and said was really what God himself did and said, for "My name is in him" (v. 21). In verse 23 Jehovah explained, "For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivities and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them." The angel was the instrument through whom God destroyed the enemies.

Now let's proceed on in the chapter. God says to the Israelites, "I will send my terror ahead of you I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivities, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you" (v. 27-28).

To our understanding this sounds as if the LORD himself is going to do the work. But when we come to verse 31: "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you." So God expects the Israelites to drive their enemies out. Is there a contradiction here? Will God Himself drive out their enemies or will the Israelites do it? We note the principle again and again. Got says He will act when in fact He is going to empower his angels and his people to do the work.

This kind of talk has a thorough Hebrew feel about it. Actions that are directly ascribed to God are in fact carried out by his commissioned agents. Take another instance: "in the LORD he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" (2 Kings 14:27).
Once again we observe the clear distinction between God who is the ultimate Author of deliverance and his appointed agent who in this case was King Jeroboam. Or take this verse: "therefore you did deliver them into the hands of the oppressors who oppressed them. But when they cry to You in the time of their distress, You did hear from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You did give them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their it oppressors" (Nehemiah 9:27).

Graeser, the author of One God and One Lord, p.363. Writes:

God, Christ and others are referred to as "saviors," but that clearly does not make them identical. The term "Savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the terms seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scriptures can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.

Is often been argued that the very name Jesus, which means "Yahweh saves," prove Jesus is Jehovah because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). But the logic is not consistently applied because the O.T. name Joshua means "Yahweh saves." I have never yet heard someone who believes in the deity of Christ argue that Joshua was God in the flesh. We know that the O.T. Joshua was God appointed man to deliver Israel. As Joshua and Israel went forth in obedience to his word God save them. Just so, in the matter of our salvation, God sent forth his son into battle. Through Jesus God has saved us. This is why both God and Jesus are called Savior. But the Bible never loses sight of the fact that God the Father is the ultimate Author of our salvation through (dia) his son.

This same line of reasoning applies to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2. This is one of the most commonly appealed to Scriptures that allegedly proves that Jesus must be God, because "only God can forgive sins" (v.7). When Jesus pronounced the man forgiven/healed, the Pharisees say that Jesus is "blaspheming" because he is claiming to be God. But a little careful attention to detail will show that Jesus is not claiming deity. He is rather claiming "authority." He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (v.10). The parallel account in Matthew's report is that once the people saw Jesus healed a paralytic, "they were filled with awe, and glorified God,who had given such authority to men" ( Matt 9:8). We note that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son of Man," that is, the human Messiah, with a God given right to pronounce forgiveness. Not too much later Jesus invested other men-his apostles-with the same authority to forgive sins: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; he to retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). If only God can forgive sins, then God and Jesus and the apostles are all God! Besides, there is no teaching anywhere in the Bible that says only God can forgive. Even Christians are commanded to forgive each other sin (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). The fact that the Pharisees say that only God can forgive sins does not make this an established Biblical doctrine. The Pharisees often had wrong doctrine and were often corrected by our Lord Jesus. This was one such occasion.

Those who believe that Jesus can only be our Savior if he is God sometimes appeal to the prophecy from Jeremiah 23: (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'" (Jer. 23:6).
Does this not say that the coming Savior will be "The LORD our righteousness," that is, God himself? This is easily answered when we note that a few chapters later we have this prophecy in Jeremiah 33: "in those days Judah shall be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the LORD is our righteousness' (v.16). Here the city of Jerusalem is given the very same title as the coming redeemer earlier. I have never yet heard anyone argue that the city of Jerusalem must also be God himself because it bears the same title as Jehovah. Hebrew understanding is needed to avoid the confusion.

This is why it is fallacious to reason that because Jesus is called the "king of kings and the Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16) he must necessarily be Almighty God Himself. The fact that Artaxerxes is called "king of kings" and that God himself calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" does not put these men in the same league as Messiah Jesus, nor mean they have the same nature as him. The designation "king of kings" is obviously a very Hebrew way of speaking that has nothing to do with the equivalency of nature. The Hebrews could also speak of a "servant of servants," which simply means to the lowest of the low (Gen 9:25). In the book of Daniel God addresses Nebuchadnezzar: "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory" (Dan. 2:37).

In the same Hebrew fashion, when Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as "the king of kings, and the Lord of Lords" the message conveyed is that God has also given him the Kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory of the Age to Come. Equality of being with the God who gives the Kingdom does not come into the equation, for either Nebuchadnezzar or Jesus. If, as already noted, to share the same nomenclature as God does not prove literal identity with God himself, the same holds true for the sharing of the same titles. Whilst Jesus may share the title "king of kings and Lord of Lords" with God his Father, there is one title reserved uniquely for the Father God. No other individual, including the Lord Jesus, is ever called by the title "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17). This title, as well as "the Lord God" (Rev. 1:8), is always reserved for the one true God, who is the Father.

Hebrews Chapter One

Another New Testament passage is readily appealed to in order to prove that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. It is Hebrews 1. In this chapter, when isolated from its context, individual phrases seem to justify this Trinitarian interpretation. These phrases are: "through whom also He made the world" (v.20); "And let all the Angels of God worship him" (v.6); "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever'" (v.8); "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish, but you will remainYou are the same, and your years will not come to an end" (v.10,12). Read in isolation-out of contexts-these verses seem to say that Jesus is (Jehovah) God. Is this interpretation justified? Many expositors think not. Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356. Is adamant that we do not have to "interpret the Christology of Hebrews in such an extremely ontological terms (in the light of Nicea!) (Ontology is the study of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.) Kuschel comments that "the majority of exegetes" do not now assume "an extremely developed Hellenistic-syncretistic Christ-myth as a background to Hebrews, nor are dilemmas foisted on the text. Material from the Hellenistic Jewish tradition is thought enough to explaine the Christology of Hebrews." In other words, we are cautioned not to read back into the text what later traditions have taught us.

Although debate has centered around who the actual author of Hebrews is, we note that the his whole literary skill and theological argumentation is indebted to the world of Old Testament ideas. The reason why the book of Hebrews was first written was to encourage believers who were undergoing fierce persecution to remain loyal to Christ. These believers were Jewish converts to Christ and they must be encouraged to see the superiority of Christ over the old Jewish system of things. Christ is superior to the angels (who had mediated the old covenant); he is superior to Abraham, Moses, and Joshua. Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood and Temple rituals and sacrifices.
This superiority rests in the fact that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, not that he is Almighty God. If Jesus is the Almighty in human form, then the author could have saved himself a lot of the ink and papyrus. All he needed to do was write that Jesus is superior to all because he is God. End of argument.

But the opening verses of Hebrews allows no such interpretation. They run like this: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages)" (v.1-3).

Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making believes Hebrews 1:1-3 is parallel to Colossians 1: 15-17, which as we have just seen is written with eschatology in mind, not protology. This contention is justified because it is explicitly stated that the end-time has already dawned; it is "these last days" that are in view. We are again looking at the eschatological shift of the ages with the appearance of Christ. Under the old covenant God spoke in various portions in various ways to the fathers in the prophets. In contrast, he now speaks through a Son. One of the ways God spoke in those days was also through the mediation of angels (see Heb. 2:2). This means, amongst other things, that God's message to Israel was not through a preexistent Son who was an angel, as Jehovah witnesses believe (they teach that Jesus was Michael the archangel). Nor can it mean-as many Trinitarians think-that Jesus was the "the angel of the LORD" who appeared on numerous OT occasions. Nor indeed can it mean, according to later Nicene "orthodoxy," that God spoke to the fathers in Old Testament days through a preexistent Son.

For the opening verse of Hebrews testifies that before the birth of Jesus there was no Son of God as God's messenger to men. It is axiomatic that in the Old Testament God did not speak through the Son. Bluntly then: What emerges from the first two verses of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus was not God's agent to Israel in Old Testament times.

The Son-through whom God has in these end-times spoken-has been "appointed heir of all things" (v.2). This language of the delegation of all authority to Jesus as Son reminds us of the many times Jesus said that his authority was given to him (John 5:22, 26-27). And just when was this authority, this appointment given to him? It was given to him after his resurrection as the reward for his obedience (see Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11; Rom. 1:4; Acts 17:31).

Then comes the statement that through his appointed heir of all things God "made the world" (v.2). The old KJV translation has "through whom He made the worlds." Again, the way this is translated predisposes are tradition-bound minds to run along a well-worn rut. We tend to immediately think of the Genesis creation at the beginning of the universe. But the word used for "worlds" here is the word for "ages" (it is the word from which we get our English word eon/s). The writer is not speaking of the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth. He is speaking about time periods, epochs. In Jewish thinking there were classically two great ages. The first is the present and evil age. The next will be the Messianic age to come. And Hebrews 1:2 is speaking of the world-or more precisely-the Messianic age to come. He goes on to tell us that through Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross a new way has been opened up for us to enter the new earth and the new heavens of the future Messianic Kingdom when it dawns.

This "appointed heir of all things" is the agent, the mediator through (dia) whom God has-in prospect-brought about the new Messianic age. The eschatological Son "is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (v.3).

Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356
The eschatological contexts in the present participles used in these statements (literally: he, being reflection and stamp) make it clear that here there can be no question of any protological statement about preexistence or a statement about the earthly life of the Son, but a statement about the significance of the son for the community in the present.

Again Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making, p.208 writes:
Christ is the Son who is the eschatological climax ("in these last days") to all God's earlier and more fragmentary revelation (v.1-2a); that climatic revelation focuses on his sacrifice for sins, and exaltation to God's right hand (v.3d-e).

In other words, there is not any intimation here in this end-time contexts that Christ is seen as the preexistent God the son, second member of the Trinity. True, this Son now "upholds all things by the word of his power" (v.3b). But it is the new creation-the Messianic age-that is held together by his (authorized and delegated) power. And in that new age even the Angels will worship the Son, for he has "become as much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they" (v.4). This is what the Father had decreed through the prophets long ago (v.5). If there's any doubt that Christ the Son will be worshiped in that glorious new age the author dispels such a question by promising that "when He [God] again brings the first-born into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship him'" (v.6). At the Second Coming the Father's decree will become history. Every knee, whether in heaven or on earth, will pay home which to the Son. Jesus will then "sit on the throne of his glory" (Matt. 25:31).

This worship of Jesus the Son does not make him Almighty God: later in Hebrews 2 Jesus is seen leading his "brethren"-the redeemed church-in the (ultimate) worship of God the Father (Heb. 2: 12-13). This act of (relative) worship of Jesus by the angels will honor the Father, for it is his will they do this (Phil. 2:9-11). Then the ultimate act of Jesus' own worship of God the Father will be "when he delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor 15:24). When all things are subjected to Christ, including the angelic host, "then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). "As representing the divine majesty of the father, the Messianic title 'god' will be applied to Jesus, as it once was to the judges of Israel who foreshadowed the supreme judge of Israel, the Messiah (Ps.82:6).



Peace
Paul

Isaiah 9:6
By Juan Baixeras

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

There, you see, the Messiah is supposed to be God. Wrong! If we take a closer look at this verse you will see that it does not mean that at all. The phrase in question is Mighty God, and the proper understanding of Everlasting Fatheris a must. First, Mighty God.

Not all Bibles use the translation of Mighty for the Hebrew word gibbor. The Jewish translators of the Septaugint render it in the following manner, "The angel of great council." Angel meaning mesenger. But we will address the ones that do just for arguments sake. First of all, we will take a close look at the Hebrew word that is translated as Mighty. Translators have used Mighty for theological reasons, (so they can tie it in to other verses that God is referred to as mighty, and thus claim that the Messiah is supposed to be God). Let’s see what a Hebrew dictionary and a Hebrew lexicon tells us about this word.

The Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary defines this word as:
Gibbor – by impl. warrior, tyrant:- champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), valiant man. Mighty is the eighth definition of this word.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon says of this word gibbor as it is used in Isaiah 9: 5:

Isaiah 9:5 - ref. Messiah, attribute of God especially as fighting for his people. This explanation doesn’t even mention Mighty.

According to these sources, gibbor as it is used in Isaiah 9:5 along with God means, a warrior king with the attributes of God. This is exactly who the Messiah is supposed to be. This definition agrees with the rest of the chapter in which Isaiah talks about how the Messiah will reign on David’s throne, and how he will rule with justice and righteousness forever because of the zeal of the LORD Almighty. Isaiah does not believe that the Messiah is supposed to be God, he distinguishes between them. He says how the Messiah will accomplish everything because of the zeal of the LORD Almighty. We can also compare this chapter to Isaiah 11 in which he is again speaking of the Messiah. In Isaiah 11: 1-3 he says how the Messiah will be from the root of Jesse, how the Spirit of the LORD will rest on him, and how he will delight in the fear of the LORD. Now, are we supposed to believe that the LORD will delight in the fear of Himself? Definitely not. Isaiah prophesying about the Messiah says:

Isaiah 49:5: "And I am made glorious in the sight of the LORD, and MY GOD is my strength."

From Isaiah 49:5 and 11:1-3 we can see that Isaiah understands the future Messiah to be a man on whom God's spirit will rest (which is the meaning of the word "Christ") who will delight in the fear of his God, the LORD. Isaiah does not consider the Messiah to be God in Isaiah 11:1-3 nor in Isaiah 49:5, and neither does he believe that in Isaiah 9: 5.

The definition of the Messiah as a warrior king with the attributes of God, is seen in Revelation 19: 11 where it reads:

"Then I saw heaven standing open and there was before me a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war."

Now we will look at some other translations to see how they have interpreted this verse.

The New English Bible says, "In battle God-like."

The New American Bible (which is a Catholic Bible, they invented the trinity) says, "God- Hero." It translates this verse in the following manner and has a note on this verse which is very interesting and enlightening. First the translation. It states: "They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace."
Footnote:
"Wonder- Counselor: remarkable for his wisdom and prudence.
God-Hero: a warrior and defender of his people, like God himself.
Father-forever: ever devoted to his people.
Prince of peace: his reign will be characterized by peace."

This exegesis is in complete agreement with the definitions and Bible passage that we have just examined. Remember, this is the Catholic Church’s interpretation, I am sure that they would love to be able to say that according to this passage the Messiah is supposed to be God, but even they don’t.

For a better understanding of the term Father-Forever or Everlasting Father, (depending on your translation) one must understand that kings were considered to be fathers of their people. The Messiah is the King of Israel. I agree with the New American Bible’s explanation of Father- Forever in this verse.

We can also substantiate this definition by looking at another verse of the same writer in Isaiah 22: 20- 21:

"In that day I will summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah."

Isaiah obviously does not mean that Eliakim is God the Father. In Isaiah 9:5 he means that the Messiah as king of the new Israel (the kingdom of God) will be like a father to his people forever.

This matches what I found using e-sword's net Bible...

Like I said earlier, we need to look at the scripture in question. What is the Book or Chapter about? What are the verses before and after saying?

You can buy the expanded e-sword edition of the Net Bible. Please do so as it’s loaded with extra data and variant readings. Just a note. The net people believe in the trinity yet look how they handle this verse. Note the red numbers for reference to the comments. They did a good job of trying to be non-bias here.


Net Bible Isa 9:6 For a child has been15 born to us, son has been given to us. He shoulders Responsibility and is called:16 Extraordinary Strategist,17 Mighty God,18 Everlasting Father,19 Prince of Peace.20


17 Since Isa_11:2 points out that this king will receive the spirit of the Lord, which will enable him to counsel, it is possible to argue that the king's counsel is "extraordinary" because it finds its source in the divine spirit. (Anointed) Thus this title does not necessarily suggest that the ruler is deity

18 tn âÌÄáÌåÉø (gibbor) is probably an attributive adjective ("mighty God"), though one might translate "God is a warrior" or "God is mighty." Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Psa_45:6 addresses the Davidic king as "God" because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth.

19 tn This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the "Son" is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the "Father.") Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of "father" see Isa_22:21 and Job_29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of "father" is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 B.C.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: "To some I was a father, to others I was a mother." In another inscription (ca. 800 B.C.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him "a father and a mother" to his people. (See ANET 499-500.) The use of "everlasting" might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king's long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1Ki_1:31; Psa_21:4-6; Psa_61:6-7; Psa_72:5; Psa_72:17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title "Mighty God") is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

20 tn This title pictures the king as one who establishes a safe socio-economic environment for his people. It hardly depicts him as a meek individual, for he establishes peace through military strength (as the preceding context and the first two royal titles indicate). His people experience safety and prosperity because their invincible king destroys their enemies. See Psalms 72 and 144 for parallels to these theme.


Also important to note are the words in the verse. You will note most of the translations read… “will be called” or “shall be called” This is more of a concept of agency than actually being. There is a big difference between being call something, as in(agency) and actually being. No translations ever read “He Is. ”

This verse is actually a great example of how a western mind can read a verse literally and come away with a completely wrong impression. The Hebraic back ground is needed to fully understand this verse as it was intended to be understood!

Paul

What is eternal life?

John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Joh 17:3
Αυτη δε εστιν η αιωνιος ζωη ινα γινωσκωσιν σε τον
SAME YET IS THE eonian LIFE THAT THEY-MAY-BE-KNOWING YOU THE

μονον αληθινον θεον και ον απεστειλας ιησουν χριστον
ONLY TRUE God AND WHOM YOU-commission JESUS ANOINTED


It is and was important to Jesus that we understand and know the only true God. That is what this search is all about. To seek and know the only true God, The Father! The Father tells us the only way we can know him is through his Son, Jesus!

Jesus who is our god (Lord) through Agency as He sits at the right Hand of the Father. Jesus is not the source of his Deity. The source is the Father. Jesus is the mediator between the one God the Father and Man, there is no other!

Paul

Christ the Image of God

Speaking of "His beloved Son" who has brought us "redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:13-14), the apostle tells us that "he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (v.15). An image, as we know, is a visual representation or copy of an original. This word "image" intimates that there is a difference in identity between the copy and the original. When we look in the mirror, we understand that we do not see our "real" selves, only an image of ourselves. I know that I am not the person behind a glass, but really the person in front of the glass. This word "image" is a very strong pointer to the fact that Christ the Son is not God. For the image can not be the original, who in this case is God the Father. The first phrase, "he [the Son] is the image of the invisible God" reminds us of Jesus' own word that "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Jesus is the face and the voice of God, so to speak (1 Cor. 4:6). As Kuschel in his book Born Before All Time?, (p.333). rightly points out, "the expression 'image' does not relate to 'the essence of a thing' but to 'Christ revelatory function'… talk of the 'image' is a statement about revelation."

As the image of God, Christ reveals the father to us. But what exactly is revealed? Kuschel explains it well here. In the light of the eschatological resurrection of the Son, God and his image Christ must be thought of as belonging inseparably together. From now on: one can now (after the eschatological shift) no longer speak of God without having to speak of Jesus Christ and vice versa. Anyone who speaks of Christ at the same time speaks of God himself. In relation to creation, this means that one can not really know the new creation as a work of the Creator except in Christ. So there are two sides: God makes himself known in the image of Christ, and
the creation cannot be known as the work of this creator without Christ.


Paul