SUPPLEMENTAL 3

Colorful_SquiggleB153.gif (558 bytes)

WAS JESUS LESS THAN elohiym!

Some Trinitarians argue Jesus was God while in the flesh. They reference a dozen texts in the Gospels to prove Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. (Jn 5.18; 8.58; 10.30; 14.9) Therefore, Jesus could never be spoken of as less than God, or lower than God, or inferior to divinity. I seems also true, that if Jesus were equal to God, then he could hardly "become better than angels." What does the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, say about this matter of whether Jesus was equal to God or less than God?

Paul quotes Psalm 8.5 at Hebrews 2.6-9 and applies it to Jesus: "(Yahweh) made (the Son of man) a little lower than the angels." It would be hard to understand how Jesus could be God and yet be "lower than the angels." Paul quotes from the Jewish Greek Septuagint.

Was Jesus less than elohim? The Hebrew edition of Psalm 8.5 reads: "For You have made him lack a little from God." (IB) "God" here is from the Hebrew םיהלא. ( elohiym Strongs #430 "gods" plural of 433) The word is variously rendered: KJV: angels; AMP: little lower than God; NAS: a little lower than God; NIV: a little lower than the heavenly beings; NJB: little less than a god; NRSV: a little lower than God; JPS: made him little less than divine; BER: little less than heavenly beings; DeW: little less than Divine; NEB: little less than a god; HAR: In comparison with Deity You made him inferior.

No matter which version is used, Jesus (the Son of Man) could not possibly be deity, divine, or God in his human manifestation, for the Psalmist -- and Paul’s application of it -- make Jesus "less than a god," "lower than God," "less than Divine," or "inferior" than Deity. Or, if one prefers the Greek version, Jesus is less or lower than angels, let alone God or deity in the flesh.

DID JESUS BECOME BETTER THAN THE ANGELS?

It would be impossible to think God was less than the angels He created. And yet Hebrews 2.9 observes: "We behold Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels." (NWT) In Hebrews 1.4 it describes the Son after he "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high": "Being made so much better than the angels." (KJV) How could the Son, who is equal to God according to the Trinitarian view, become or be made "better than angels"?

This verse is variously rendered: RHM: by so much becoming superior to the messengers; BER: he became as much mightier than the angels; CON: being made so much greater than the Angels; NEB: raised as far above the angels; UPS: having become so much better than the angels.

If Jesus the Son was "equal to God" (Jn 5.18) as the Jews charged -- and Trinitarians hold -- how could God "become better than the angels"? On the other hand if the celestial being who was the Logos, the only-begotten Son of God, emptied himself of his "equality with God" (Ph 2.6, 7) and became an anthropoid (a human), it is easy to see how his God could exalt him above the angels.

 QUESTIONS FROM A TRINITARIAN:

 I have the following questions. How can they be answered by scripture?

1. Where did Jesus come from and when.

John 6:62 --- "What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?"

John 17:5 --- "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."

Philippians 2:5-8 --- "Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men. More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a [cross]."

_______________________

2. If all things were created through Jesus, how could he himself have been created?

The only-begotten Son was created "first" before all others.

Proverbs 8:22-31 --- "Jehovah himself [created LXX] me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, when as yet [Jehovah] had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. When [Jehovah] prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one [Jehovah] was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men."

Colossians 1:15-16 --- "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him."

Revelation 3:14 --- "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."

Micah 5:2 --- "And you, O Beth'le·hem Eph'ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me [Yahweh] the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."

__________________________

3. In the OT, it says over and over there is no other God but the article considers Jesus a god. Isn't that two gods? If God had meant there to be two gods wouldn't he have said 'There are two gods, I am the Almighty God and My son who is the other God'.

May one speak in an absolute sense as well as a limited sense? For example, it is obvious God is the Absolute Savior, but the judges of Israel and King David were also spoken of as "saviors."

Regarding "two gods" ---

Psalm 45:6-7 --- [Quoted Heb 1.8, 9] "[Your throne, O (#1) God], is to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness. You have loved righteousness and you hate wickedness. That is why (#2) God, your God, has anointed you."

John 1:1 --- "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with (#1) God, and the Word was (#2) God."

John 1:18 --- "No man has seen (#1) God at any time; the only-begotten (#2) god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him."

Psalm 110:1 --- The utterance of the (#1) LORD to my (#2) Lord is: "Sit at my right hand."

___________________________

4. Jesus is worshipped many times throughout the NT. He never rejects it. But God say to only worship him. Wouldn't that make J a sinner because he accepts worship due to "God "? But we know he is without sin.

If you will research the Greek word proskuneo (Strongs # 4352 [before + kiss] to prostrate oneself) you will see it used of God (Mt 4.10), of Jesus (Mt 9.18), of men (Mt 18.26; Rev 3.9) as meaning "obeisance" or deep respect demonstrated by bowing and kissing the fringe of a garment. It is still practiced in parts of the Middle East and Arabia. Again, here is a word which may used in an absolute sense as well as a limited sense.

________________________

5. God and J share many of the same names. For example God is called King of Kings and so is Jesus. This is just one example.

a) If King David is called "king" does this make him God? If David is called "lord" does that make him God? If David is called "savior" does this make him God?

b) There are names and titles used of Jesus which are not used of God: Servant, Anointed, Logos, Angel. These are just a few examples.

____________________________

6. Who does Jesus claim to be?

Matthew 16:13-17 --- Jesus went asking his disciples: "Who are men saying the Son of man is?" They said: "Some say John the Baptist, others E·li'jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them: "YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?" In answer Simon Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." In response Jesus said to him: "Happy you are, Simon son of Jo'nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did."

John 10:36 --- "Do you [Jews] say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?"

____________________________

7. Where was Jesus before he was on earth and after he ascended into heaven?

(See Question #1)

Acts 7:56 --- "[Stephen] said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand."

Hebrews 1:3-4 --- "After [the Son] had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. So he has become better than the angels."

______________________________

MORE ANSWERS TO TRINITARIANS ---

TRINITARIAN WRITES: You said:

Response: Paul quotes Psalm 8.5 at Hebrews 2.6-9 and applies it to Jesus: "(Yahweh) made (the Son of man) a little lower than the angels." It would be hard to understand how Jesus could be God and yet be "lower than the angels." Paul quotes from the Jewish Greek Septuagint.

TRINITARIAN: This is weak argumentation. All are agreed that Jesus was made less than God in his earthly sojourn.

Response: Sorry, it was such a "weak argumentation." I must disagree that "all are agreed that Jesus was made less than God in his earthly sojourn." I have not found anyone who would agree that. Trinitarians keep providing arguments like John 8.58 to prove Jesus was the "I AM" of God Himself. What do all these arguments mean if they are not meant to prove Jesus was God? If Jesus were God of any sort he would still be greater or better than the angels.

____________________________

TRINITARIAN: The question, though, is what was his position before coming to Earth, and now after he has been raised from the dead.

Response:The position of Jesus before coming to earth was divine or godlike, the only-begotten god. (JN 1.1, 18) His position after was to become better than the angels (HEB 1.4) and highly exalted by God Himself. (PH 2.7-9)

_____________________________

TRINITARIAN: [Where did you get the information that Paul wrote Hebrews, BTW?]

Response: Scholars are divided on this question, but I like many others hold Paul as the author. Can we avoid the petty stuff and deal with the main issues?

_______________________________

TRINITARIAN: But in Philippians and many other places, we are told that Jesus place now is at the right hand of God. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2:10-11] These words are a quote from a passage in Isaiah which applies exclusively to Almighty God.

A) JESUS IS AT GOD’S RIGHT HAND

B) GOD ALSO HIGHLY EXALTED JESUS

C) GAVE JESUS THE NAME

D) TO THE GLORY OF THE FATHER

Response: It is true Isaiah 45.23 is speaking of Jehovah. Paul, however, shows this "glory" has God the Father as its object. The problems Philippians 2.5-11 presents for Trinitarians far out weigh this matter of Isaiah 45.23. John writes: "He that honors the Son honors the Father."

________________________________

TRINITARIAN: Was Jesus less than elohim? The Hebrew edition of Psalm 8.5 reads: "For You have made him lack a little from God." [snip] The point of all of this is that Jesus was made to be like a man, who of course is less than God.

Response: We agree: Jesus is less than angels as Heb 2.9 shows. We thought it interesting the Hebrew of Psalm 8.5 had the Son "less than God."

__________________________________

TRINITARIAN: But throughout the NT, Jesus does things that only God can do.

Response: For example?

__________________________________

TRINITARIAN: He says things that only God should say.

Response: For example?

_____________________________

TRINITARIAN: The NT applies statements to Jesus that can only be properly referred to God.

Response: For example?

______________________________

TRINITARIAN: The whole purpose of the NT is to exalt Jesus.

Response:

John 20:30-31 --- "To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name."

1 John 2:23 --- "Everyone that denies the Son does not have the Father either. He that confesses the Son has the Father also."

______________________________

TRINITARIAN: When people write to put him down, and to show he is not what the NT says he is, I can't help scratching my head, pulling out some of the few remaining hairs, and wonder if they read the same NT that I do.

Response: Sorry if you thought it was putting Jesus down when the text says God "made (Jesus) less than God?" (PS 8.5; HE 2.9)

_______________________________

TRINITARIAN: How could anyone quote Hebrews to prove that Jesus is not divine? Hebrews 1 is so clear on how much greater Jesus is than all others. It shows how he is seated at the right hand of God. This place is not fitting for any but God the Son.

Response: Your last phrase -- God the Son -- is alien to the Bible. Can you produce a text which has this designation, "God the Son"? Regarding "Jesus is not divine" is exactly what Hebrews 1.1-4 and 2.8, 9 say.

__________________________________

TRINITARIAN: How can the angels properly worship one who is not God? Don't the Scriptures say that only God deserves our worship?

Response: The English word "worship" is rooted in "worthy" or "honor." Thus the address to the English lord, "Your worship." The Greek word is PROSKUNEO (bow + kiss) and means "pay homage" whether to God, Jesus, or men. Please research the word in a Greek lexicon.

_____________________________

REGARDING REFERENCE QUOTES ---

Trinitarians often complain about quotations from scholarly references and encyclopedias, charging they are out of context an misleading. Though it is true works which could be called Trinitarian are expected to make adamant statements about the Bible teaching a Trinity, it is entirely fair to note admissions in these works. On the other hand, works not particularly prejudiced in favor of the Trinity may present a more balanced view; while Unitarian references will clearly be biased to a non-Trinitarian perspective. It is left to each researcher to read these references and draw whatever citations they wish to establish their point of view.

Harper’s Bible Dictionary, pages 1098-9 --- "The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the post-biblical period. ... Attempts to trace the origins still earlier (to the OT literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological development. ... The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT."

Encyclopedia of Catholicism, page 1270 --- "The doctrine of the Trinity as such is not revealed in either the OT or the NT. ... Trinitarian doctrine as such emerged in the fourth century, due largely to the efforts of Athanasius."

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol 12, page 458 --- "The Old Testament could hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity. .... It is exegesis of a mischievous, if pious sort, that would discover the doctrines in the plural form, ‘Elohim,’ of the Deity’s names, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham. ... In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology."

The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol 15, page 54 --- "Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts on the Trinity to cite texts like Genesis 1.26 ... as proof of plurality in God. .... It would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later Trinitarian doctrine. ... Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

BACK TO DE 6.4 --- דחא הוהי וניהלא הוהי לארשי עמש

Those who believe and worship a God-in-Three are confronted with power of the Shema and the Jewish and Christian tradition of "one" alone ruling out two others. We do not have to debate what echadh means when we have the agreement of the Nazarene with a First Century Jewish rabbi:

Mark 12.29, 32 ---

απεκριθη ο ιησουςκυριος εις εστιν.

καλως διδασκαλε επ αληθειας ειπες οτι εις εστιν και ουκ εστιν αλλος πλην αυτου

Is echadh or heis a plural meaning many? Or, does it mean: "HE IS ONE, AND BESIDES HIM THERE IS NO OTHER." (RSV)

One may accept the inspired interpretation of the Nazarene and the Jewish scribe or accept those "mischievous" manipulations of pious Trinitarians who must clutch in desperation to obscure exegesis which goes "beyond the intention and spirit of the OT."

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol 12, page 458 --- "The Old Testament could hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity. .... It is exegesis of a mischievous, if pious sort, that would discover the doctrines in the plural form, ‘Elohim,’ of the Deity’s names, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham. ... In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology."

The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol 15, page 54 --- "Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts on the Trinity to cite texts like Genesis 1.26 ... as proof of plurality in God. .... It would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later Trinitarian doctrine. ... Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

For Scriptural answers to Trinitarian claims see the following links:

More on the Trinity on this site

http://www.thegrid.net/reason/

REGARDING proskuneo as obeisance ---

The criticism as been made of the New World Translation because it uses obeisance for one rendering of proskuneo suggesting "obeisance is not even correct English." The Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol 2, page 875 gives several meanings to this word: "worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself, do reverence to. ... The basic meaning of proskyneo, in the opinion of most scholars, is to kiss." Thus this scholarly work agrees that proskyneo may be rendered by the proper English word "obeisance."

Do other translations render proskyneo as "obeisance"? Compare Mt 8.2, RIEU: obeisance. Is it fair to really accuse, "this is an obvious, deliberate, mistranslation of the Bible"?

Regarding the English word "WORSHIP" what are the meanings of this word proskyneo which is said "to be equivalent of the word in English WORSHIP"? Is there a linguist who will state the root of the English "worship"?

1 Samuel 25.23 reads in the (Catholic) New Jerusalem Bible: "As soon as Abigail saw David, she quickly dismounted from the donkey and, falling on her face in front of David, prostrated herself on the ground. She fell at his feet." In Hebrew the phrase "prostrated herself" is SHaCHaH and means according to Strongs (#7812) "prostrate .... do obeisance." The Amplified version renders this "did obeisance." The New Catholic Edition renders the word, "adored upon the ground." The Greek word used in the Jewish Septuagint is PROSEKUNSEN.

In the context of a bride toward her husband, Psalm 45.11 reads in the King James Version: "So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy lord; and worship thou him." The word "worship" here is again the Hebrew SHaCHaH and the Greek PROSKUNESOUSIN. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible renders the phrase: "he is your lord, bow down before him." The New Catholic Edition reads: "for he is your lord, and you must worship him" --- with a footnote, "Worship him: pay him homage and be submissive to him."

These two verses using proskuneo prove men, including husbands, were "worshipped" or bowed before in obeisance by women and wives. Both the Hebrew and Greek meaning "obeisance" or "homage" have limited meanings when applied to that respect shown men.

 "THE FAMOUS SHEMA, DEUT. 6:4, PROVES TO BE THE GOD-HEAD ---" writes a Trinitarian.

May we politely ask what you mean by "God-head"? May we assume you mean, "God-is-Three"? How does De 6.4 prove "God is three"? Though Trinitarians "mischievously" manipulate the Hebrew echadh, how do they arrive at "three"?

REGARDING 1 JOHN 5.7 ---

A Trinitarian writes: "It is my firm belief that 1 John 5:7 is genuine and authentic verse of the Holy Scripture."

Assuming this writer does not believe he is absolute authority, can he site reputable scholars who will affirm his assertion? How many modern versions include 1 John 5.7 in agreement with this assertion?

Assuming 1 John 5.7 were "genuine and authentic" as the (quote) "one of the most explicit declarations of the Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible" was does it prove regarding the Trinity?

The verse reads in Greek --- οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν.

The Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit are one? Does heis here mean "one of others"? This has been the argument based on De 6.4 and echadh, "a unity which involves plurality if you will." If this be the case then 1 John 5.7 means these three are one involving a plurality of others --- more than the three. Or does it merely mean "unity" as it seems in the following phrase, "the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one (thing)." KJV: these three agree in one; WEY: the three have the same purpose; MOF: the three are in accord.

If 1 John 5.7 "constitute one of the most explicit declarations of the Trinity doctrine in the Bible" does it fall far short of the Trinitarian creeds? Where is the co-existence? Where is the co-eternal? Where is the same substance? Where is the co-equality?

ZECHARIAH 14.9

HEBREW: דחא ומשו דחא הוהי היהי אוהה םויב

GREEK: εν τη ημερα εκεινη εσται κυριος εις και το ονομα αυτου εν

Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh (ftn): "the LORD alone"; NIV: "his name the only name"; NAS: "the only one, and His name the only one"; NJB: "the one and only"

RE BACK TO DE 6.4 AGAIN ---

Trinitarians use "mischievous" exegesis to conclude echadh at De 6.4 is "explicit of the doctrine of the Trinity." They argue the Hebrew echadh (and, the Greek heis or mia) mean "a unity which involves plurality" thus proving to them three are meant and no one alone.

A list of the occurrence of echadh is used to demonstrate this allusion to a Trinity. Some of these verses here follow:

Genesis 1:5 --- "And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day." In Hebrew "a first day" is literally "day one" --- דחא םוי or LXX: ημερα μια

It is argued this first day, or day one, is not "an absolute one" but one in two separate parts. If we assume this "mischievous" exegesis is correct what does the Trinitarian argument prove? Is it fair to say that here "one" is "two" and not "three"?

Genesis 2:24 --- "That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one [דחא] flesh." [ σαρκα μιαν ] Again the Trinitarian argues: "proof that ‘one’ means a unified one, referring, as it does in this case to two separate persons." Is it fair to observe that if this be true, that is exactly what it proves, two, not three.

Genesis 11:6 ---"Look! They are one [ דחא ] people and there is one [ דחא ] language for them all." The Hebrew is echadh but the Greek is not heis. Does "one" people here mean more than "one"? Does "one language" mean more than one language?

Genesis 41:1, 5, 25 --- "And it came about at the end of two full years that Phar'aoh was dreaming and here he was standing by the river Nile. ... However, he went back to sleep and dreamed a second time. And here there were seven ears of grain coming up on one [ דחא ] stalk, fat and good. .... The dream of Phar'aoh is but one. [ דחא ]" We leave it to others to judge whether this pious but "mischievous" exegesis proves three may be one. Is it fair to state that two, seven, and one occur but no where "three"?

1 Kings 22:13 --- "Look, now! The words of the prophets are unanimously [ of one ( דחא ) mouth] of good to the king. Let your word, please, become like the word of one [ דחא ] of them, and you must speak good." Does this use of echadh indicate three? No for verse 6 indicates 400 prophets were involved.

John 17:22 --- "Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one [ εν ] just as we are one [ εν ]." It may be noted heis is not used here as it is in LXX of De 6.4. However, the "one" here includes how many? Twelve.

Acts 4:32 --- "Moreover, the multitude of those who had believed had one [ μια ] heart and soul." Here again the Greek heis of De 6.4 is not used. However, this "one" may mean eight thousands.

1 Corinthians 3:8 --- "Now he that plants and he that waters are one [ εν ]." Again, this is not the heis of De 6.4 (LXX). However, how many are one here? Two: Paul and Apollos.

Ephesians 2:14 --- "For he is our peace, he who made the two parties one [ εν ]." Nor, is this one here the heis of De 6.4 and clearly involves two and not three.

1 John 5:7 --- "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one [ εν ]." Lastly, we come to the spurious text absent in most modern versions. Even here the heis of De 6.4 is not used. Of all the texts this one might suggest three, unless the context is read, for there are two others included in this oneness: blood and water. This would make, not three, but five.

Thus, even if we were to accept this "mischievous" exegesis that the echadh or heis of De 6.4 means more than one in unity, echadh would not indicate how many more. Judging from the Trinitarian texts cited the echadh of De 6.4 could infer: 2, 400, 7, 12, or 8,000 -- but never "three," unless one goes against modern scholarship and accept 1 John 5.7. Do you find it interesting that in this whole Trinitarian argument about "one" there is only one verse cited where "three" might be involved is a spurious text added by a Trinitarian centuries ago?

We agree that this kind of exegesis is "mischievous" --- Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol 12, page 458 --- "The Old Testament could hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity. ... It is exegesis of a mischievous, if pious sort, that would discover the doctrines in the plural form, ‘Elohim,’ of the Deity’s names, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham. ... In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology."

_____________________________________________ 

A TRINITARIAN WRITES:

"I am confused with your response to me. One minute you are saying that Jesus is God & then in the next passage you are saying that He is angelic. Which one is He ??

Response: Jesus is both: God and Angel. Note Isaiah 9.6 in the Hebrew and Greek texts: HEB: "Mighty God"; GRK: "Angel of Great Counsel" (LXX: megales boules angelos) The later phrase was quoted often by the early church fathers.

_________________________

TRINITARIAN: Bible states that He is God - Even in Human Form He was God.

Response: What text do you offer to prove Jesus in "human form was God"? Psalm 8.6 proves the opposite: "(Yahweh) made (Jesus) little less than God [elohim]." Compare Hebrews 2.6-9.

___________________________

TRINITARIAN: Only God can forgive Sins.

Response: This was the erroneous conclusion of the Pharisees. Those authorized by God, like Jesus and his disciples, can forgive sins. (Mk 2.7; Mt 9.1-8; Jn 20.22, 23)

_____________________________

TRINITARIAN: Raise dead from death etc & no angel can do this. Otherwise Jesus did not provide atonement for our sins.

Response: Prophets of God, like Elijah and Elisha, as well as Peter and Paul, raised the dead. (Heb 11.35; 1 Ki 17.17-24; 2 Ki 4.18-37; Ac 9.36-42; 20.7-12)

_____________________________

TRINITARIAN: If Jesus wasn't God we are doomed dear brother. No other can provide us with the redemption but God Himself.

Response: What is your text that only God can die as the redemption?

Colorful_SquiggleB153.gif (558 bytes)

Nazarene Saints Publishing © Copyright. 1997. All Rights Reserved.

c/o Shawn Mark Miller
177 Riverside Ave
Newport Beach, California 92663 USA
email:

Back to the Friends of the Nazarene - Trinity Page

Colorful_SquiggleB153.gif (558 bytes)