THE TRINITY STUDY NOTES

THE TRINITY

Compiled study notes

Paul C. Woodward

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE - IS THE TRINITY PAGAN?

CHAPTER TWO - SCIENCE AND THE TRINITY

CHAPTER THREE - BEGOTTEN

CHAPTER FOUR - BEING IN THE FORM OF GOD

CHAPTER FIVE - JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER

CHAPTER SIX - ESSENCE

CHAPTER SEVEN - THE MIND OF CHRIST

CHAPTER EIGHT - THE GREEK GRAMMAR AND THE DEITY OF JESUS

CHAPTER NINE - JESUS IS LORD OF ALL, OR HE IS NOT LORD AT ALL

CHAPTER TEN - EXPRESSIONS OF THE SON OF GOD

CHAPTER ELEVEN - THE BOOK OF HEBREWS AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST

CHAPTER TWELVE - WHAT IS THE TRINITY

CHAPTER THIRTEEN - THE WORD PERSON

CHAPTER FOURTEEN - THE PLURAL PASSAGES

CHAPTER FIFTEEN - THE “I AM” STATEMENTS OF JESUS

CHAPTER SIXTEEN - THE ANTI-TRINITARIANS GROUPS

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN - PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN - WHAT’S IN A NAME?

CHAPTER NINETEEN - THE NUMBER THREE IN SCRIPTURES

CHAPTER TWENTY - THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE TRINITY

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE - ELOHIM

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO - Jesus' Miracles, what do they mean?

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE - WHAT WE BELIEVE TODAY

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR - THE WORD “PERSON”

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE - Christ is Lord of all or He is not Lord AT ALL

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX - FORUM DEBATES

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN - SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT - JESUS ONLY CULT DOESN’T TEACH THE TRINITY

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE - TRINITY LINKS ON THE WEB
CHAPTER THIRTY - IN THE ESSENCE OF GOD - UNITY AND DIVERSITY EXPRESSED

INTRODUCTION

The Trinity is a misunderstood matter by many, yet over many years I have gathered all that I could find on it and placed it in a file on my computer. What you will find in this book and its chapters are these notes and articles that I have gathered. Some of the sources are lost to me so I cannot give them recognition. There are some that come from “Let Us Reason ministries” P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683. A search on the web will give you there site and many more of the selected articles that I share here that they offer free. This is the reason I am offering this book free and welcome any additions you might find that is in agreement with the Trinitarian view.

What I have found has confirmed to me that God is as He has revealed Himself to be, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The opening chapter of this book deals with the question of “Is The Trinity Pagan?” I have a book that I am working on that will complement what this opening chapter introduces which I called “Myth, the Distortion of Truth.” It reveals how there once was a known truth that got distorted through time and how what the Bible reveals is a unraveling of that distortion; the Bible isn’t as some say, a plagiarizing of truth of which those in the pagan world had which included our subject matter of the Trinity. So join me in the revealing of the nature of God as He has revealed Himself to be.

Paul C. Woodward

August 18, 2010

CHAPTER ONE

IS THE TRINITY PAGAN?

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

Many have adopted this accusation as the main complaint of hindrance to believing in evangelical Christianity. There is no other concept of God attacked more than this subject. There are many things about God that are not understood immediately, I’ve heard the same for predestination. I’ve heard it said “people don’t join the Evangelical church because they can’t understand the teaching on the Trinity”. This is just one of many straw man arguments. People do not come to Christ because they don’t understand the numerous doctrines. They refuse to because they cannot admit they are sinful and are in need of help outside themselves. Turning over their control to God is an act of faith. Instead faith is substituted with the carnal mind wanting to understand something from strictly a human perspective. If I can’t fully understand it I will not believe, but this is only an excuse; as Jesus stated in Jn.3:19-21” Men love darkness rather than light, they don’t come to Christ because their deeds will be exposed”. Both Jews and Muslim’s emphatically deny that God has a Son, if one is going to find a doctrine offensive to them, I think this would be it. No one preaches the Trinity in salvation but what is preached is that Jesus is the Son of God, he is Lord. We learn about the nature of God and other basic doctrines as we grow in the faith, not before. The simple reason is we need the Holy Spirit to be our teacher in the deeper things of God.

Is the Trinity pagan? The pagan religions had what we call trinities however on closer examination they are not the same in concept or substance. In the same way we would not agree with all the other religions that have a strict monotheistic view of God to be embraced as the same God of the Bible. (Islam, Bahai) The pagan concept was encapsulated with a Father, Mother, giving birth to a Son. They were three major Gods with many minor god’s as well. Their trinity was comprised of three Gods not one. The Greek triad of Zeus, Athena, and Apollo, the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva the Egyptian triad of Isis, Horus, and Sub bear no resemblance to the Biblical Trinity. They were all separate not united as the one God and almost unanimously had a mother involved as in a heavenly family. This was really tri-theism, which has more in common with Mormonism than a triune God. Anti Trinitarians make usage of the statues with three heads and saying that is our pagan God. If one is going to discount the Trinity because of some similarities in name only and not in substance. Then maybe they should be looking at their own pagan similarities. One can still be in idolatry, if their one God is not the God of the Bible.

Where did the pagans get a concept of three ? Why not two or four ? Where did they get the idea of a God in heaven anyway? What about their belief in a virgin and a son, where did that originate from ? Rom.1:20-25 tells us that man from the beginning knew God.”... ‘and their foolish hearts were darkened” vs.25 “they exchanged the truth for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator.” When mankind fell into darkness of sin, they still retained some elements of the truth but distorted its meaning and it became lost.

As Walter Martin wrote “In order to find out if the doctrine of the Trinity is true, we do not look to see if it resembles paganism, but to the bible, to see if God teaches it in his word. Pagans also believe in the concept of God. Does this mean that God must not be true? Pagans sleep. Does that mean sleeping is wrong ? We must not dismiss an idea merely because it is held in common with those whom we may not approve.” (the New Cults p.49) Let’s not try to find all kinds of perversions from the outside that have nothing to do with the Biblical record, let’s go to the Scripture to prove our major points.

Alexander Hislop, in his book, “the two Babylon’s”, traces the history of the practices and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. He writes on pg. 18, “All these forms have existed from ancient times, while overcome with idolatry, the recognition of the Trinity was universal, proving how deep rooted in the human race was the doctrine on the subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis” Robert watts in New Apologetic says “The Pagan triads are “residuary fragments of their lost knowledge of God, not different stages in a process of evolution. But evidence of a moral and spiritual degradation” (Augustus H. Strongs systematic Theology p.352)

While there are Pagan Trinities which can be traced back to Babylon, instead of supporting anti Trinitarian views such as the Watchtower literature promotes, it is evidence for the tri-une God. Let’s not try to find all kinds of perversions from the outside that have nothing to do with the Biblical record, let’s go to the Scripture to prove our major points

Hislop writes that many pagan religions held to one infinite God the creator. Strict monotheism is found in Islam and a few other religions. Are we now to accept their view because God is called one (singular)?

If we are to reject the concept of the triune God, a unified one, because of the pagan distortions, then we must reject much more than this. The pagan cultures also had a virgin birth and some even had a resurrection, Tammuz died and raised 40 days later. The pagan religions had a priesthood and sacrifices, this too became distorted with human sacrifices for Gods blessings. Some Pagans believed that certain gods became men. They had Biblical symbology such as a dove, the lamb, altars, there are many religions that have distortions of the Bibles account of the flood. Are we now to reject Genesis because of their misrepresentations? They also practiced tongues- ecstatic babble. All of these are counterfeits and distortions of truth, yet we are told since they have a counterfeit Trinity, we are to reject the Biblical Trinity on the same grounds. If you are going to do that, then you must reject all of it on the basis of it being found in some form in ancient paganism. You then annihilate the doctrine of Christ as the God/man, virgin birth, his sacrifice etc. All these are the proof of what Paul explained of what happened in history in Romans one, that mankind had a true knowledge but refused to worship him and sank into idolatry.

The God of the Bible is unique. He is tri-une, which is neither polytheistic nor is it tri-theistic. God is one in nature and is composed of three distinct eternal persons. They are one in substance with a difference in position. What makes all three the one God is that they share the same nature. This is the simple description of the God of the Bible. There is one choice from the Bibles revelation, if one denies the tri-une God, they are either left with atheism or polytheism.

CHAPTER TWO

SCIENCE AND THE TRINITY

(My own thoughts along with things I heard off tapes by Dr. Henry Morris, Institute for Creation Reach)

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, (how?) being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. (an apologetic, or defense to say that this isn’t so).”

Great text that not only address this matter of dimensions, but also addresses what some reject, this matter of what is called the Trinity; I know that many have been turned off to this matter of the Trinity for various reasons, so I would ask that you give me at least a listening before allowing your present ideas to block anything I might share with you.

Before I go on further, I want to share something from the scientific world that relates to Dimensional Overlays and can be seen in the Romans 1:20 text. Read the following and then once again read the Romans text:

“Space is the invisible omnipresent back ground of all reality. Manifested everywhere through space and time in terms of phenomena of matter and energy and then interpreted and experienced through time.”

There is a lot to this quote which I believe I got off a tape coming from the Creation Institute which many of you have heard of. I believe it was Dr. Henry Morris who gave it. This touches matters of science yet it also touches what Paul the Apostle was sharing to the Romans. See if you can follow me on this one.

“An Intelligent, Personified Being, known to us as God, is the Invisible, omnipresent, creative, sustaining factor, background if you may, to all reality. The evidence and proof of this is manifested everywhere in His creation.

Note this; He is not His creation as some might say and think. In Chapter three I will introduce you to a piece from C.S. Lewis that deals with the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit that addressed the word “begotten.” This clearly reveals how God is not that which he makes or creates. Here is a brief comment to let you see what I mean through what C.S. Lewis wrote:

We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breath or think. It is not alive.
Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.

So, I shared this so there might not be a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I am not saying that God is a tree as some New Age thinkers are saying. They depersonalize God into just energy. With that established, let me continue now with something I picked up along my experience in this life which I have forgotten its source. It also touches this same piece I share from C.S. Lewis. Let me give another brief comment from C.S. Lewis, then share the other piece I picked up:

C.S. Lewis:

Space is like Him in its hugeness; not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God’s, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms. Matter is like God in having energy; though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is a live, and He is the “living God.” But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God; it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it. When we come on to the animals, we find other kinds of resemblance in addition to biological life. The intense activity and fertility of the insects, for example, is a first dim resemblance to the unceasing activity and creativeness of God. In the higher mammals we get the beginnings of instinctive affection. (Mere Christianity)

With that under your belt so to speak, let me now share this other piece that fits this puzzle:

There are three basic things in the universe – no more, no less. They are: space, matter, and time. This is a space universe. What is space? Simply three dimensions – no more, no less. They are: length, breadth, height. Anything that is built in space must have those three dimensions. We sometimes speak of a plane surface but such a thing in space is purely imaginary. Space cannot exist without length, breadth and height. Space is THREE IN ONE. Length, breadth and height are not three things which space does, but is.

Now I want to enter a few more comments from Dr. Henry Morris on this matter of 3 dimensions that will fit as well in this puzzle as it unfolds in the rest of this piece which will follow after Dr. Morris’ comments:

“We measure space in the first dimension, but you can’t see the first dimension. You can only see space in the second dimension (pictures, news papers, etc).” So it follows as this”

1. Referenced in the first dimension.

2. Seen in the second dimension.

3. Experienced in the third dimension.

Time is future, present and then the past. PAST<<<<<<<PRESENT<<<<<<<FUTURE

“The future is the unseen source of time becoming manifested moment by moment in the present, flowing into the realm of experienced time in the past. And everywhere in space, time, occur phenomena of matter and energy.

1. Described in the first dimension………..FATHER

2. Seen in the second dimension…………..SON

3. Experienced in the third dimension……SPIRIT

Ok, with that said, here is the remainder of this other piece from an unknown source:

So with the Biblical statements concerning the Godhead; Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three things which God does, but is. Each are referred to as God, and while Three, they are yet One, even as the sun is light, heat and power – yet one sun.

But what is MATTER? Well, it is that which is in space and gives to us the physical phenomena of the universe. But what is it? The scientist says it is the form which energy takes, so we can see it, feel it, hear it, etc. It gives outward reality to space. But what is it? It is energy, motion, phenomena – three – no more, no less. Behind everything, energy. Out of energy comes motion, motion produces physical phenomena – light, color, sound, heat, cold, hardness, softness, moisture, dryness. All are different rates of motion, which spring out of that unseen power house known as energy. Thus matter is an absolute, inevitable threeness, yet absolute oneness. Energy, motion, phenomena are three things which matter is. In the Trinity of the Godhead, we have the same thing. The Father is the Unseen Source. The Son comes forth from the Father as His Executive. The Spirit is the final Distributor of the activity of the Father through the Son.

Now take TIME: what is it? It is the essence of everything to us in this world. It is simply: past, present and future – no more, no less. Time doesn’t exist without all three. Past, present and future are not three things which time does, but is. It is an absolute trinity. Time comes out of the future into the present and flows into the past. Today was for a long time next year, then next month, next week, tomorrow then it becomes yesterday, last week, last month, etc. The future is the unseen and is unknown except as it makes itself visible in the present, then it becomes invisible again. Even so, the Father is the Unseen Source, making Himself visible only in the Son and becoming invisible again as the Son works through the Holy Spirit.

But let us come into the realm of intelligent beings. The psychologists tell us a human being is a nature, plus a primary self, plus personality – these three, not more, no less. Somehow a nature comes out of the unseen, operating through an individual, and the combination produces personality. No one of the three can be either of the others and there cannot be a human being with less than three.

If we speak of personality, we are told it involves intellect, affections and will. If we speak of the power house of the human body, it is the head brain, the spinal system and the abdominal brain – no more, no less- operating as one to make the body function.

The New Testament however goes beyond these statements, making man a tri-unity: spirit, soul and body. (I Thess. 5:23) Spirit is the highest part of our being, giving us the faculty of spiritual perception. Upon this part of our being the Holy Spirit must operate to control the life. Soul is the middle life involving the passions, emotions, imagination. The body is that through which spirit and soul find expression, involving sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch. Thus man himself, created in the image of the Triune Godhead, is a triune being, thereby entirely distinct from the animal kingdom.

Whether or not we are able to understand these tri-unities of the universe, we must accept them, and for them there must be a great Universal Cause. The universe very naturally would testify to the universal reflection of the Divine Original. The universe, like man, is made in the image of the Triune God.

The God of Israel who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Father, Messiah and Holy Spirit – the God of the New Testament Christian who has commissioned the Christian to make disciples and baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost – IS THE GOD OF THIS TRIUNE UNIVERSE.

Now, for the layman, I will attempt to put into lay terms all that has been said thus far.

But what is MATTER? Well, it is that which is in space and gives to us the physical phenomena of the universe.

If I asked you, “what is space?” I’m sure you could give me some idea of just what it was; things like sun, moon, stars and galaxies etc. You would be partly correct. If I removed all the objects of space including this planet, then asked you again to describe space you would find it hard to define. You could only say that it was a DARK VOID. Any sensation of direction, depth would elude you as you floated in this great unknown. This fits with scripture where it says, “No man has seen God.” Apart from God manifesting Himself He would be liken to the dark void of space with no object to give it definition. Hear this scripture verse in John 1:18 “No man has seen God at any time; the Only Begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the FATHER, He has declared Him. (God and His nature being Father, now revealed by the Son) Read in conjunction with this John 14:7-9 “If you had known Me, you should have known My Father also; and from henceforth you know Him, and have seen Him. Philip says unto Him, Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied. Jesus says unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me has seen the Father; and how can you say then show us the Father?” Now read John 10:30 “I and My Father are ONE.” (Remember what was said above about…. So with the Biblical statements concerning the Godhead; Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three things which God does, but is. Each are referred to as God, and while Three, they are yet One, even as the sun is light, heat and power – yet one sun.

Now remember what has been said by Dr. Morris:

1. Described in the first dimension………..FATHER (unseen)

2. Seen in the second dimension…………..SON (manifested the nature of Father and Son)

3. Experienced in the third dimension……SPIRIT (experienced by the Holy Spirit opening our spiritual eyes and ears to truth of God’s true nature, Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

1. Referenced in the first dimension.

2. Seen in the second dimension.

3. Experienced in the third dimension.

This can be seen with all the other debated Biblical texts clearly using dimensions as is done with these few verses.

CHAPTER THREE

BEGOTTEN

(The following comes from C. S. Lewis in his book, “Mere Christianity”)

One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God “begotten not created”; and it adds “begotten by His Father before all worlds.” Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin? We are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth. We are thinking about something that happen before Nature was created at all, before time began. “Before all worlds” Christ is begotten, not created. What does it mean?

We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breath or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.

A statue has the shape of a man but it is not alive. In the same way, man has (in a sense I am going to explain) the “shape” or likeness of God, but he has not got the kind of life God has. Let us take the first point (man’s resemblance of God) first. Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness; not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God’s, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms. Matter is like God in having energy; though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is a live, and He is the “living God.” But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God; it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it. When we come on to the animals, we find other kinds of resemblance in addition to biological life. The intense activity and fertility of the insects, for example, is a first dim resemblance to the unceasing activity and creativeness of God. In the higher mammals we get the beginnings of instinctive affection.

That is not the same thing as the love that exists in God: but it is like it- rather in the way that a picture drawn on a flat piece of paper can nevertheless be “like” a landscape. When we come to man, the highest of the animals, we get the complete resemblance to God which we know of. (There may be creatures in other worlds who are more like God than man is, but we do not know about them.) Man not only lives, but loves and reasons: biological life reaches its highest known level in him.

But what man, in his natural condition, has not got, is Spiritual life- the higher and different sort of life that exists in God. We use the same word life for both: but if you thought that both must therefore be the same sort of thing, that would be like thinking that the Agreatness@ of space and the “greatness” of God were the same sort of greatness. In reality, the difference between Biological life and spiritual life is so important that I am going to give them two distinct names. The Biological sort which comes to us through Nature, and which (like everything else in Nature) is always tending to run down and decay so that it can only be kept up by incessant subsidies from Nature in the form of air, water, food, etc., is Bios.

The Spiritual life which is in God from all eternity, and which made the whole natural universe, is Zoe. Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of resemblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.

And that is precisely what Christianity is about. This world is a great sculptor=s shop. We are the statues and there is a rumor going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come alive.

From...”Mere Christianity” by C.S.Lewis, pages 122-124

CHAPTER 4

BEING IN THE FORM OF GOD

I’d like to now share with you several pages from Kenneth Wuest Greek Word Studies from Philippians;

We will begin with Phil. 2:6 The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say:

“We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character....As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences: but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.

This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it as its nature and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being unfolds, as light from fire.”

Thus the Greek word for “form” refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: I went to a tennis match yesterday. The inning player’s form was excellent. We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.

Our Lord was in the form of God. The word “God” is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord’s outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word “form” speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God.

The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the Man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated “being” informs his Greek readers that our Lord’s possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming Man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippians’ epistle was being written. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word “form,” comes from one’s inmost nature.

This word alone is enough to refute the claim of Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man.

This expression of the essence of His Deity which our Lord gave in His pre-incarnate state, was given through a spiritual medium to spiritual intelligences, the angels. Human beings in their present state of being cannot receive such impressions, since they are not equipped with the spiritual sense of perception which the angels have. What Peter, James, and John saw on the Mount of Transfiguration was an outward expression of the essence of Deity, but given through a medium by which physical senses of the disciples could receive the expression given. But when believers receive their bodies of glory, they will be equipped to receive the expression of Deity which the angels receive, and through a like spiritual medium.

Now, at this time, in the eternity before the universe was created, Paul

says that our Lord “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The word translated “thought” refers to a judgment based upon facts. The word “God” is used again without the article. Had the article preceded it, the meaning would be “equal with God the Father.” The word “God” here refers to Deity, not seen in the three Persons of the Godhead, but to Deity seen in its essence. Equality with God does not refer here to the equality of the Lord Jesus with the other Persons of the Trinity. Nor does it refer to His equality with them in the possession of the divine essence. Possession of the divine essence is not spoken of here, but the expression of the divine essence is referred to, although possession is implied by the expression. Equality with God here refers to our Lord’s co-participation with the other members of the Trinity in the expression of the divine essence. This is a very important point, for when we come to consider the fact that our Lord laid aside something; we will see that it was not the possession but the expression of the divine essence.

We must now consider carefully the word “robbery.” The Greek word has two distinct meanings, “a thing unlawfully seized,” and “a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards.” When a Greek word has more than one meaning, the rule of interpretation is to take the one which agrees with the context in which it is found. The passage which we are studying is the illustration of the virtues mentioned in Phil. 2:2-4, namely, humility, and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. If our Lord did not consider it a thing to be unlawfully seized to be equal with God in the expression of the divine essence, then He would be asserting His rights to that expression. He would be declaring His rightful ownership of that prerogative. But to assert one’s right to a thing does not partake of an attitude of humility and self-abnegation. Therefore, the meaning of the word will not do here. If our Lord did not consider the expression of His divine essence such a treasure that it should be retained at all hazards, that would mean that He was willing to waive His rights to that expression if the necessity arose. This is the essence of humility and self-abnegation. Thus, our second meaning is the one to be used here. Translation:

Who has always been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which he gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of Deity, and who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, to be equal with Deity (in the expression of the divine essence); Phil 2:7

We now consider the words, “made himself of no reputation.” Instead of asserting His rights to the expression of the essence of Deity, our Lord waived His rights to that expression, being willing to relinquish them if necessary. He did not consider the exercise of that expression such a treasure that it would keep Him from setting that expression aside, and making Himself of no reputation. The words “made himself of no reputation” are the translation of two Greek words which literally translated mean, “emptied Himself.” Before we discuss the question as to what our Lord emptied Himself of, we must examine the words, “and took upon him the form of a servant.”

The word “form” is from the same Greek word that we studied in verse six. The word “servant’ is the translation of the Greek word Paul used in 1:1 to describe himself, a bondslave. The word “and” is not in the Greek text, but was supplied by the translators. The word “took” is an aorist participle. A rule of Greek grammar says that the action of an aorist participle precedes the action of the leading verb. The leading verb here is “emptied.” That means that the act of taking upon Himself the form of a servant preceded and was the cause of the emptying. The translation so far could read, “emptied Himself, having taken the form of a bondslave.” What do the words mean, “having taken the form of a bondslave?”

The word “form,” you remember, referred to the outward expression one gives of his inward being. The words “form of a bondslave” therefore means that our Lord gave outward expression to His inmost nature, the outward expression being that of a bondslave. The words “having taken” tell us that that expression was not true of Him before, although the desire to serve others was part of His nature as Deity. When expressing Himself as a bondslave come to serve, He necessarily exchanged one form of expression for another. In verse six He was in His pre-incarnate state expressing Himself as Deity. In verse seven He expresses Himself in incarnation as a bondslave. This is the direct opposite of what took place at the Transfiguration. There we have the same word “form” used, but with a prefixed preposition signifying change. We could translate “and the mode of His outward expression was changed before them, and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light.” (Matt. 17:2) Our Lord’s usual mode of expression while on earth previous to His resurrection was that of a servant. He said, “The son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mat 20:28)

But now, His outward expression as a servant ceased, and He gave outward expression of the glory of His Deity. In our Philippians passage, the change of expression is reversed. Instead of giving outward expression of His Deity to the angels in His pre-incarnate glory, He gave outward expression of His humility in becoming the servant of mankind. The one expression was set aside so that the other could become a fact.

Vincent says in this connection: “This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God, Christ laid aside in His incarnation.” Both expressions came from our Lord’s nature, His act of glorifying Himself and His act of humbling Himself. Both are constituent elements of the essence possessed by the Triune God.

But in exchanging one form of expression for another, He emptied Himself. The question arises, “Of what did He empty Himself?” He did not empty Himself of His Deity, since Paul says that expression of His Deity was a fact after His incarnation, that expression implying the possession of the essence of Deity. He set aside the outward expression of His Deity when expressing Himself as a bondslave. It was the outward expression of the essence of His Deity which our Lord emptied Himself of during the time He was giving outward expression of Himself as a bondslave. But the emptying Himself of the expression of Deity is more implied by the context than stated specifically by the verb “emptied.” When our Lord set aside the expression of Deity in order that He might express Himself as a bondslave, He was setting aside His legitimate and nature desires and prerogatives as Deity. The basic, natural desire and prerogative of Deity is that of being glorified. But when Deity sets these aside, it sets its desires aside, and setting its desires aside, it sets Self aside. The pronoun “Himself” is in the accusative case. The action of the verb terminates in the thing expressed by that case. The act of emptying terminated in the self life of the Son of God. Out Lord emptied Himself of self. This agrees perfectly with the context which is an example of humility and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. This setting of self by the Son of God was the example that Paul held before the saints at Philippi. If each one would set self aside, then unity would prevail.

CHAPTER FIVE

JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER

So how can he be God ?

(The following article reveals the distinct difference between the Father and the Son, yet how they are One in the essence of God. I do not know its author.)

The church and more importantly the Bible recognize the deity of the Son. Most cults strip him of this making the Son only a man, an angel or at best a secondary divine being created by the Father. They ignore the fact that the son is called God just as the Father is. If one says the Son or Spirit are not called God then they would have to be consistent and say the Father is not either. The reason the Father is explicitly called God by Jesus is because he is honoring another instead of himself. Each person in the godhead does this, yet we find I a hierarchal structure (a successive order not in time but of position).

Jesus is called the Son over 200 times throughout the N.T. The Father is referred to as distinct from the Son over 200 times. Over 50 times Jesus the Son and the Father are mentioned in the same verse. Yet we find Paul’s greeting as grace and peace from both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus identifies himself as the Son of God all throughout the Bible. He is always put on equal status with the Father being able to bestow grace to the believer. The only time he is not equal is by position, never in nature.

John 20:31 That Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” Jn.16:3 “And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor me.” Here he is distinguishing himself as another from the Father. Jesus separates himself from the Father in person but not in nature.

Jn.10:30: “ I and my father are one” this is not a numerical one, Jesus is not saying he is the father. They are not one person but in nature they are a united one. It actually reads we are one in Greek the first person plural on s . Examining his claim further “I and my Father are one.” The Jews pick up stones because they understood this as blasphemy in vs. 36 Jesus interprets what he meant by saying because I said, “I am the Son of God.” There is a very good reason for this on shi. Contrary to those who claim the Son of God means less than God it actually affirmed his deity.

In Jn.20:17 Jesus said “I am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your God.” Anti-Trinitarians claim since Jesus had a God over him he could not also be God. What we are not saying is that he is the Father or the Spirit. Coming in the servant role and as a man he was submissive to the Father as a Son. Notice he makes a distinction from “my Father and your Father” not saying our Father. The same is applied to “ my God and your God.” As a man he acknowledged the Father as “my God” .We are unable to say this in the same manner as he did. God is his Father from eternity past, he being the Son of eternal generation. Thomas bowed before Jesus saying, he is his God and his Lord, Jesus could not say the Father was his Lord in the way man does.

Jn.11:41-43 Jesus lifts his eyes toward heaven and prays, “ I thank you that you heard me, and I know that you always hear me.” We see consistently he is praying toward heaven just like all the saints in the O.T.. So why pray if your God. Because he is dependent on God in his lowered state and he is giving us the perfect example of our having a relationship with the Father. The Son was instructed by the Father as his God, since he decided not to use his position independently. Jesus never referred to his Father as “our Father” in prayer together with others. Father was a term for the Jews who were in covenant with God . Jesus who being God in nature was divine and equal in all respects to God could not call God his Father as we do, being adopted children. God was his Father in a different sense than ours, in that they were united together from eternity. So he makes a distinction of “my” and “our”. “ “When Christ prayed to the Father, you have the Son on earth the Father in heaven. This is not separation but divine disposition. Now we know that God is within the depth’s and exists everywhere, but in might and power, the Son being, indivisible from the Father is everywhere with him, yet in the economy, the Father willed that the Son should be found on the Earth, himself ( the Father ) in heaven.” (Tetullian.) What he is explaining is that the omni-presence of God is everywhere yet the location of his persons are in different areas. ( Jn.11:41-42,12:28, 17:1-26)

Mt. 26:39-42 In Gethsamane he prays three times to the Father in doing his will. Why does he ask for the Father to let this cup pass if he is God, Isn=t this like asking himself? Jesus’ ( 2^nd person of God ) was God communing with God the Father (1^st person of God ). Jesus is struggling over the soon and coming separation he will experience with the Father. He is asking if there be another way so he will not experience this. Otherwise he has his own human will that is not submitted to God and he is sinning. The concept the scriptures portray of the crucifixion is not that God died but that he was separated spiritually and died in the flesh . In Gethsamane it was the cup that Jesus asked to be removed. If he was praying that he would not have to experience physical death he would be rejecting the very reason he came. His obedience is shown as in Phil.2 says even to the death on the cross. He would not be praying for the very purpose of his coming to be removed.

This is why the cults deny the deity of Christ because they recognize that these are two different persons. It is because of their preconceived ideas and training that God is strictly singular. In their attempt to uphold Monotheism they cannot receive the teaching of his nature being triune, they then lose the Son of God as a distinct person.

CHAPTER SIX

ESSENCE

(I now take what we have seen thus far and expound on the Essence of God in my personal studies)

“Who being in the FORM of God, (referring to the pre-incarnation of Christ in a human bios body, know as Jesus)....thought it not ROBBERY (something to grasp, or cause this Christ to not consider coming in a body, or new form.).....to be equal with God, but EMPTIED OF HIMSELF

(set aside the independent use of his attribute of being Deity)....and became a servant, obedient even unto death.”

As great as this above expanded Greek text is, more must be sought out. The use of the word FORM carries the wrong idea. We think “shape”. It does not mean shape. The closest word in the English language is the word ESSENCE which is used above. Try seeing this word! What does it mean...”being in the essence of God?”

I’ve heard others using this word and attempting to have it relate to our experience here. You get done hearing them and still feel puzzled. So, I again, asked for an answer. Here is what I got:

“What is the experience of this word essence?”

Reply, “Look it up in a dictionary.”

So, I did. Here is the definition.

ESSENCE: The indispensable or “Intrinsic” properties that characterize or identify something...in our case God and the pre-incarnate Christ, known as Jesus to us which was His natural name given to Him. I was told to look up the word “indispensable”....here is its definition:

INDISPENSABLE: Incapable of being dispensed with, other words, what we have been told about God’s character, nature, properties, can not be thrown out. To do so you are throwing out the very essence of God..

Taking this further, this definition of essence, hear this: “The most important element, the inherent unchangeable nature, in our case, God.” I was puzzled because I have heard others saying God changes. I have heard it expressed as the changing face of God. I got this reply to my puzzlement: “What changes is the human mind. I am the total essence of all that is expressed in an unfolding manner. It will take forever to even fathom MY DEPTHS, let alone yourselves that I want you to experience. This one age you are living in now, is only one of many to be used to express this. As I expand, you expand, yet in REALITY, we already are complete and fully expressed.”

One more word to focus on is this word “INTRINSIC”. I had developed this in another piece I entitle “The Intrinsic Sons of God.” The basic idea of the word is “IN-BORN”. It isn’t something learned. It is in-born and the very nature of a being. The first Adam, had this intrinsic ability. For example, a complete mastery of the language he spoke. He didn’t have to learn as evolutionist suggest via the chatters, grunts and groans of apes over a long period of time. This first Adam had a photographic memory with instant recall. Imagine that!

The second Adam, Jesus, at the young age of 12, had complete mastery of Scriptures to the point he astounded the educated religious minds of his day. It was said, “that never had a man spake as this man, he spake with authority, not quoting others.” We hear it when he says to the religious minds of his day, “You have said, BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.”

Think of this. This same Christ is in us. It’s been expressed in this way...”Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus.” The only difference between Jesus and us is this sin element that constantly struggles with this mind of Christ in us. Jesus knew no sin and challenged those around him to accuse him of sin. Sin defined as “ACTING INDEPENDENT FROM THIS PURE INTRINSIC ETERNAL MIND; a mind that was and is in constant contact with God the Father. What a link-up!!

Of course we get constant distractions, distortion in our communication abilities. Thus we wrestle as it says with this carnal mind against this intrinsic mind given to us through God’s offer of grace through Christ’s accomplishment in a bios body like ours, yet sustained by the spiritual mind....remember he said, “The flesh is weak, but the spirit is strong.” That spirit, that mind set, was the needed strength he needed to endure the cross and self-resurrect from the dead. “No man takes my life, I lay it down, and I will raise it again on the third day.” Amazing mind, this intrinsic mind.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE MIND OF CHRIST

What I do in this follow article that I wrote is to bring together a lot that I have share thus far in this book. At the end of this article I repeat what I have shared in a few of the previous chapters. Read it again, repetition is good for us.

Phil. 2:6-8 (Wuest expanded Greek text translation…His notes of how this translation came about will be at the end of this post if you need to know)

“(This is the mind) which is also in Christ Jesus, who has always been and at present continues to subsist in the MODE of being in which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of absolute deity, which expression comes from and is truly representative of His inner being (that of absolute deity), and who did not after weighting the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, this being on an equality with deity (in the divine essence), but Himself He emptied, Himself made void, having taken the outward expression of a bondslave, which expression comes from and truly representative of His nature (as deity), entering into a new state of existence, that of mankind. And being found to be in outward obedient (to God the Father) to the extent of death, even such a death as that upon a cross.”

Further expansion of this text: “ but Himself He emptied, Himself made void, having taken the outward expression of a bondslave,

In other words, He sets aside the independent use of this eternal attribute of deity, by a willful decision before the foundations of the world, truly coming in the Mode we see Him in while in a body, that of man and thus, by choice, subservient to God the Father. He at no point empties of this fact of being deity, only its independent use. Thus He truly was Liken to us. Yet He always possessed this attribute of deity before, during and after His resurrection. Only during this Mode of being a bond slave did He set its independent use aside. If at any time He were to exercise this attribute of deity while in this mode of being a bond servant, His mission would ended and what He and the Father had established before the foundations of this would have failed. He had to be the God/man. It was mankind who had failed, thus it required a man to atone for this fall. Yet no human being could have appeased God. It took the pure Son of God incarnate into a body, becoming a man, yet still retaining deity, yet not using that attribute, to qualify as a true man yet God in flesh.

Link this to Heb. 12: 2 “Looking off and away to Jesus, the originator and perfector of this aforementioned faith, who instead of the JOY then present with Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

The phrase, “who for the joy present with Him” in the Greek text clearly describes this as a pre-incarnate JOY; a joy expressed between God the Father and God the Son, two persons of the Godhead. It was this joy to which He did not consider to be reason enough to stop His decision to come and do what we all know He did, to retriever those who were lost. Even when considering the cross and it humiliation and shame, it did not stop His decision to step down from His position being in the essence of God, thus deity along with the God the Father, stooping low becoming a bond slave (free will decision, not forced). So the phrase “despising the shame” is saying that it never even crossed His mind to not come if the need did arise. And we know that it did arise, thus in this pre-incarnate decision, Christ was slain before the foundations of this world. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit held this mystery between them until the day it was accomplished, so much so, the world didn’t know this was the plan before the foundation of the world; the angels, the prophets even the Son while in the mode of being a man, knew only as it unfolded and finally was declared “Finished” on the cross. It is written, “had they known, they would not have crucified the Son of God.” Paul after the fact now reveals “the mystery Hidden” now revealed. God beats the Devil once again!!

Here are the notes. Be forewarned, they are rather long and deep subject matter. Read it over and over as I had to do to begin to comprehend the depth of the Greek text and Kenneth Wuest devotion to Greek studies…enjoy.

BEING IN THE FORM OF GOD

I’d like to begin this study by giving you several pages from Kenneth Wuest Greek Word Studies from Philippians; we will begin with Phil. 2:6 The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say:

This word alone is enough to refute the claim of Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man.

Now, at this time, in the eternity before the universe was created, Paul says that our Lord “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The word translated “thought” refers to a judgment based upon facts. The word “God” is used again without the article. Had the article preceded it, the meaning would be “equal with God the Father.” The word “God” here refers to Deity, not seen in the three Persons of the Godhead, but to Deity seen in its essence. Equality with God does not refer here to the equality of the Lord Jesus with the other Persons of the Trinity. Nor does it refer to His equality with them in the possession of the divine essence. Possession of the divine essence is not spoken of here, but the expression of the divine essence is referred to, although possession is implied by the expression. Equality with God here refers to our Lord’s co-participation with the other members of the Trinity in the expression of the divine essence. This is a very important point, for when we come to consider the fact that our Lord laid aside something; we will see that it was not the possession but the expression of the divine essence.

We now consider the words, “made himself of no reputation.” Instead of asserting His rights to the expression of the essence of Deity, our Lord waived His rights to that expression, being willing to relinquish them if necessary. He did not consider the exercise of that expression such a treasure that it would keep Him from setting that expression aside, and making Himself of now reputation. The words “made himself of no reputation” are the translation of two Greek words which literally translated mean, “emptied Himself.” Before we discuss the question as to what our Lord emptied Himself of, we must examine the words, “and took upon him the form of a servant.”

What do the words mean, “having taken the form of a bondslave?”

The word “form,” you remember, referred to the outward expression one gives of his inward being. The words “form of a bondslave” therefore means that our Lord gave outward expression to His inmost nature, the outward expression being that of a bondslave. The words “having taken” tell us that that expression was not true of Him before, although the desire to serve others was part of His nature as Deity. When expressing Himself as a bondslave come to serve, He necessarily exchanged one form of expression for another. In verse six He was in His pre-incarnate state expressing Himself as Deity. In verse seven He expresses Himself in incarnation as a bondslave. This is the direct opposite of what took place at the Transfiguration. There we have the same word “form” used, but with a prefixed preposition signifying change. We could translate “and the mode of His outward expression was changed before them, and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light.” (Matt. 17:2) Our Lord usual mode of expression while on earth previous to His resurrection was that of a servant. He said, “The son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mat 20:28)

Vincent says in this connection: “This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This from of God, Christ laid aside in His incarnation.” Both expressions came from our Lord’s nature, His act of glorifying Himself and His act of humbling Himself. Both are constituent elements of the essence possessed by the Triune God.

CHAPTER 8

GREEK GRAMMAR AND THE

DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST

(This comes from Kenneth Wuest Expanded Greek notes on the Deity of Jesus Christ)

The New Testament in its English translation plainly teaches that Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Triune God, possessing the same essence as God the Father. It is

interesting to know that a rule of Greek grammar brings out the same truth.

The rule is as follows: When two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word and, and the first noun is preceded by the article he, and the second noun is not preceded by the article, the second noun refers, and is a farther description of it. For instance, the words pastors and teachers in Eph. 4:11 are in the same case and are connected by the word “and”. The word “pastors,” is preceded by the article “the,” whereas the word “teachers” is not. This construction requires us to understand that the words “pastors” and “teachers” is a farther description of the individual called a “pastor.” The expression therefore refers to pastors who are also teachers, “teachers-pastors.”

This rule also applies to the following passages where the names “God” and “Father” are in the same case and are connected by the Greek word “and,” while the word “God” is preceded by the article, and the word “Father” is not. The Greek word “and” can be translated by any of the following words, “and, even, also,” depending upon the context in which it is found. In the passages under discussion, it is translated by “and” or “even.” These passages are Romans 15:6; I Corinthians 15:24; II Corinthians 1:3, 11:31; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:20; I Thessalonians 1:3, 3:11,13, where God and the Father are not two persons but one and the same, and the word “Father” is a farther description of the Person called “God.”

In II Peter 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18, we have the phrase, “Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Here we find the same construction in the Greek text. The same rule of grammar applies. The Lord and the Saviour are the same person, the word “Saviour” being a farther description of the Person described as “Lord.” This speaks of the deity of Jesus Christ; because the Greek word translated “Lord” was used as a name of Deity. The translators of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (285-150 B.C.) used it to translate the August title of God, “Jehovah.” The word was used in the Roman Empire as a name for the ruling Caesar who was worshipped as a god. Christianity challenged the imperialism of the Caesars by announcing that there was born “in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). The word “Lord” was an accepted title of Deity in the terminology of Israel, the Roman Empire, and Christianity. Thus, a simple rule of Greek grammar teaches the deity of Jesus Christ.

But to make the case still stronger, we find in II Peter 1:1 the expression, “God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Where the same construction occurs, and the same rule of grammar applies. Solid ground for correct translation and interpretation is found in a careful application of the rules of Greek grammar. The inspired writers of the New Testament held to the grammar of the international Greek spoken throughout the Roman world. Only in that way could they expect to be correctly understood. Thus Greek grammar testifies that Jesus Christ is Lord, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and Deity, the God of the New Testament. The apostles uniformly testify that Jesus Christ is God, and this is just another example of their statements challenging the Imperial Cult of the Caesar. The translation should read, “through the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” The Roman emperor was recognized by his subjects as their god and their saviour. Peter tells us that Jesus Christ is the God and the Saviour of Christians.

In Titus 2:13 we have “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” We find the same construction in the Greek, and the same rule of grammar requires us to interpret the phrase as teaching that Jesus Christ is the great God. Since the Greek word for “and” should be translated by the word “even” where the context demands such a meaning, we are justified in rendering this phrase “the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ,” for the grammatical construction demands that the two expressions, “the great God,” and “Saviour Jesus Christ,” refer to one individual. The word “even” brings out this meaning. The translation could also read, “our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Thus the rules of Greek grammar teach the Deity of Jesus Christ. “Wuest Word Studies” from the Greek New Testament Vol. Three “Treasures” pages 31-33

CHAPTER NINE

Christ is Lord of all or He is not Lord AT ALL

(I lost the source of this article)

Today’s new spirituality and religion includes Jesus, but he is not the Jesus of Scripture. He is another Jesus who is appreciated by mystics, Gnostics and all the world’s religions. He is accepted as a prophet a great teacher, an even an enlightened spiritual master. By the liberals he is an ideal man who had some important things to say about God. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that He needs to be made into something everyone can accept and get along with. He needs to be lowered to be in reach of modern man.

Why all the various opinion of who Jesus is? Why is there confusion even among those who carry a bible?

Paul wrote to the Church in 2 Cor. 11:3 “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it. (you will have to endure it, or you wear it beautifully, and some do).

It is clear that Paul said Another Jesus is being preached, but what did Paul mean by “another Jesus?”

Some have a pragmatic approach to a pragmatic Jesus. Since he works, it doesn’t matter who he really is just as long as he is called Jesus. He can be an angel, a perfect man or some divine creature that we may all become. He can even be savior but not the Lord (almighty).

Paul’s phrase of another Jesus was to warn the church not to be deceived. The name is the same, it is the name Jesus from the Bible, but it is not the authentic Jesus of the Bible. He is different, having some similarities but not the same in his nature. Through this Jesus you can be promised things that the real one never promised. You can think more highly of yourself, you can have power and abilities far beyond mortal men.

With this other Jesus comes a different Spirit and it affects the gospel as it becomes another Gospel. Alterations of the Christian message have always been with us from the beginning of the church, but they have never enjoyed the immense popularity that it does today. Iglesia ni Christo Jehovah’s Witnesses , Mormons numerous others come along and say they have the truth and the real Jesus, but they make him out to be something than the Scriptures say He is not. If you miss Jesus being God you have missed it all. Because you can be self deceived into thinking you know the real Jesus and this is what Paul is concerned about.

There are people that can go to Church almost their whole life and have not hear the gospel nor heard who Jesus really is. They can carry a bible and be convinced they are doing is what Jesus asked them to do. In John 6:28 the Pharisees asked, “What shall we do that we may work the work of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” This is more than heed his words but here Jesus is asking them to have faith in him as they would the Father. Jesus further explains this authority that he has. In Jn.8:42 “I proceeded forth and came from God, nor have I come of myself but He sent me.” The words “sent forth” imply that the Son already existed in heaven before He was sent. This means He preexisted, that He came from God, not Mary as His source of being. His humanness came from Mary in time, but not his deity. If one looks at how the word “sent “ is applied to Christ, it involves two different persons. The one sending and the one sent. Isaiah 9:6 “A child is born, and the Son is given” The child is his humanity which came the way all men do through a mother. The Son is given because He always existed. He did not become the Son of God by birth, He did became the son of man through the virgin conception.

Jn.6:33: “For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Jesus refers himself to the manna that sustained Israel through the wilderness, in contrast Jesus is the bread of life who will give life to everyone. John 6:38 Jesus states, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of HIM WHO SENT ME.” As the Son, He came from heaven, the Son, not the Father nor the spirit.

Jesus further states in Jn.7:29 “I am from Him and He has sent Me.” This explains Jn.1:18 that no man has seen the Father , where at a certain point in time Christ left his habitation with the Father and became flesh. Jn.8:23 “You are from beneath, I am from above, you are of this world, I am not of this world.” Jesus is and has made it perfectly clear that his origin is not from earth. But he also gives a more specific location of where he came from. Jn.8:42: “I proceeded forth and came from God.”

Jn.3:31: “He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth.

Jesus has already established He is from heaven and came to earth, He also says God has sent Him. Since he is not a man or angel coming from heaven who is He?

Paul writes in 1 Cor.15:47: “the first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second man is the Lord from heaven.” Here again shows the origin of the Son and His coming from above.

1 Jn.4:14: “That the Father sent the Son as the Savior of the world.” Angels are not Saviors, nor can an ordinary man save mankind from our sins. The Scripture is emphatic on this point: God alone is Savior, that he is Lord of the universe. Yet the scripture makes it plain it is the Son who is savior (Titus 2:13).

David who was moved by the Spirit of God said in Ps.110:1 “the Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” Jesus quotes this Scripture in Lk.20:42 and asks the Pharisees “therefore how does David in the Spirit call him Lord. If David then calls him Lord how is he then his son?” The Pharisees knew this to be a messianic psalm so they did not answer. Neither do anti-Trinitarians have an answer for this today!

Here we have two persons called Lord, Jesus Identifies the second Lord that David called his Lord, as his Son. So Jesus identifies Himself as both the Lord and the Son. Does this not make the Son Yahweh?

Christ is Lord of all or He is not Lord AT ALL.

The term Son of God refers to His true and proper deity, being the Son from all eternity. Throughout the New Testament when Jesus often uses the term the Son of Man for Himself it was in reference to showing His authority He had on earth as a man. As a man He’s able to forgive sins, (Mk.2) to execute judgment, to resurrect, He even called himself the Lord of the Sabbath. “For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”(Mt.12:8). A human is not the one who made the Sabbath, nor rules over it.

In the New Testament there are two Greek words that are used for “Son”. For those who have experienced the new birth are called Sons of God by an adoption (Jn.1:12) the Greek word is teknon ( Rom.8:14-15, 19:23, Gal. 4:5, Eph.1:5). We find that this word for “Son” is never used for Jesus, instead the Greek word huios is used. This word is exclusively applied to Jesus as the Son, which refers to his position of nature. It signifies a relationship to his Father. It does not mean origin but is an expression of nature. When Jesus is called the “only begotten Son” it means He is the unique one of a kind, no other is like Him, He alone has that nature and position toward the Father, he alone has the Fathers nature.

To have a true confession we need to confess Jesus is Lord with the correct meaning, that He is God. We need to acknowledge him for who He really is, not just repeat what the bible says. Anyone can call him the Son of God, as the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Its what it really means that counts.

Mt. 10:32-33 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” We must acknowledge the real Jesus to be accepted by the Father

In Jn.8:54: “Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honors me.” Jn.5:23: “All must honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” If you withhold honor from the Son then you do so to the Father. To deny the same honor to the Jesus as you would the Father, is to deny honor to both. Both deserve the same reverence, obedience, and worship. If the Son were only human, this would not be Biblically possible. To honor a human as one honor’s God the Father would be nothing short of idolatry.

Christianity is about the glory of God in Christ. Christ not only lives in his teachings and in the people who believe in his word by faith, but he is seated at the right hand of the most high. No angel or saint ever coming close to this exalted position.

Oswald Sanders explains, “If Jesus is not God, then there is no Christianity, and we who worship Him are nothing more than idolaters. Conversely, if He is God, those who say he was merely a good man, or even the best of men, are blasphemers. More serious still, if He is not God, then He is a blasphemer in the fullest sense of the word. If He is not God, He is not even good.

In Isa. 45:5-6: The true God proclaims “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” Isa.44:6: “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and His redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

In Isa.41:4 the Lord says He is the first and last. Isa.44:6 clarifies it further, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.” The Lord and His redeemer are together in this declaration and Scripture makes it clear that the first and the last is God. Again in Isa.48:12: “Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last.” In Rev.1:8 Jesus says of himself, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,” says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come the Almighty.” The Greek phrase that precedes the almighty [ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos] “the one being and the one that was and the one coming, i.e. the Eternal.” The title alpha and omega means he is the beginner and end of all things. The alpha signifies he is eternal, He pre-existed and is before all things as in Jn.1:2 “He was in the beginning” (Col.1:15-17) with God. To be called the Omega means he controls the end, He is the Father of eternity (Isa.9:6) the source of all. As the Alpha and Omega He began all things and will complete them, in Him all things consist. Throughout the Revelation the word “was”, is in reference to Christ pointing back to his death. Rev.1:18 says of Jesus “I am He who lives and was dead, and behold I Am alive forever more.” Rev.2:8 affirms the first and the last as one “who was dead and came back to life.” The same is mentioned in Rev.4:8-9 “who was and is and is to come.” This phrase through the book correlates to this fact. Rev.22:12 tells us the one who is coming is the alpha and omega. Rev.1:17-18 shows John fell at the feet of “the first and last,” as the one “who lives and was dead and is alive forever more.”

If one believes the Father is God then certainly there is no alternative but to believe the Son is also. Otherwise they must conclude that the Father is not the first or last either. The one being that is God, (unified) is the first and the last. Christ cannot be Savior unless he is Lord (Yahweh), the Son of God.

Rom. 10:8-10 “But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (a quote from Deut 30:14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.)

“that is, the word of faith which we preach”(as Paul stated faith comes from hearing the word of God) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” The confession of the mouth, comes after the belief of the heart; “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” That word of faith is the gospel proclaimed by the apostles and us today. Here Paul make sit clear we are to confess Jesus as the Lord our external profession of the mouth corresponds with our internal agreement of a sincere heart with faith. As Paul writes Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. By our declaration we agree with what God about our lost condition, our sin and our need of a Savior; about the necessity of a change of heart, the born again (of the spirit) experience. We acknowledge Jesus as Lord, having the right to rule over our lives, because he died for our sin and rose again.

In Rom.10: 13: we find Paul quoting Joel 2:32 and applying it to Jesus “for whoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” The name Jesus, meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” Paul applies Lord (Yahweh) to the person of Christ. Jews always called on God to be saved and delivered. Paul as a Jew called Christ Lord not only as a theologian, but also as a worshipper of God. By this Paul presents Jesus as THE GOD of the Old Testament, Yahweh.

Believing in Christ, is to believe in God. To call on the name of the Lord Jesus is the same as to call on the Lord himself. The word “name” is repeatedly used in this manner. This is why people in cults cannot be saved, they do not acknowledge Him for who He is, LORD.

We find God the Father bestowed on Jesus the name above all names (Phil. 2:9); this couldn’t be just the name of Jesus that he received at his incarnation. When the Son came in the form of a man He humbled Himself, what is called His Humiliation. After He rose from the dead, He was exalted and all authority in heaven and in Earth was given (back) to Him (Mt.28:18-20- Phil.2:5-8) by His Father. It is by this name every knee should bow to, to the glory of the Father (Phil.2:10). It is at his exaltation that He is given the title of Lord Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:34-36 Peter proclaims that Jesus now sits at the right hand of God, And that God (the Father) has exalted him (and proclaimed Him) to be both Lord and Christ. Now at His coronation He is given the title of Lord with His name,”the LORD Jesus Christ”, As he has the name above all name (Acts 4:12) which shows His nature and his rank above all men and angels and His authority ruling over all. In Acts 10:36 the Apostles presented him as “Lord of All”, this new name is based on Him being the sovereign, being superior to all in both nature and position. It signifies His rulership on Earth and in Heaven. This also makes it clear that the Son is God, just as the Father is God.

Christ is Lord of all or He is not Lord AT ALL.

Can you confess this? Take the simple test to know if you are a Christian like the bible teaches, can you say from the heart He is Lord meaning He is God, as the Son of God? Now ask yourself is he Lord of your life are you owned by him, bought with the precious blood of the savior.

If you believe the testimony of the Scriptures believe and accept Him today for your forgiveness of Sins, there is no other way.

CHAPTER 10

EXPRESSIONS OF THE SON OF GOD

(This is another article from off the web, which I have lost its source. It gets into the expressions of the Son of God.)

Expressions of the Son of God, declaring God the Father.

John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the FATHER, He hath declared Him.

In John 1:18 many only quote the first portion of this text to give you the idea that “no man has seen God” and never go on with the rest of the text that clearly reveals that the Son of God has “declared God.” Notice it also uses the word “time.” In our carnal experience of time up to the moment where Jesus does declare God, no man had a clear idea of God. Now understand God has always been who He is; like a mystery hidden now is being revealed by the Son of God who was always in the bosom of God the Father. See “in the bosom” as about as close as one could get without being absorbed and lose Individualization. Those in Eastern thought imply that you get absorbed into their idea of god, thus becoming non-existent losing your unique personality. The Son remains the Son and the Father remains the Father in a very close relationship in an eternal embrace in the Essence of that which we call God.

So, if we are ever to see God we have to see what it is that Jesus declared about God. In this text we know that In God is the Father with the Son Embraced, separate yet ONE in the total essence of what we call God. Not, at this point, two separate Gods but two distinct personalities and later as we shall discover a third personality with does not speak of Himself, the Holy Spirit, but speaks of the Son through whom the Holy Spirit reveals God the Father. In this declaration we thus see God as He has always been now manifested.

John 3:35-36 “The FATHER loves the Son, and has given all things into His hands. He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Going on we discover Intellect, Emotions and Will expressed by the God the Father and God the Son. We see that the Father loves the Son. To love requires an object of that love or there could be no love or meaning behind it. In this UNITY of Diversity of Father and Son you can understand that God never had to create to meet any loneliness; throughout Eternity the Godhead had Love between the Father and Son with the added personality of the Holy Spirit to love Father and Son. Thus His creating was not out of loneliness as some have suggested. If you throw out what has just been said, you place God in the position of having to create to ease His loneliness thus He would be as dependent on His creation as that creation is on Him.

We see an act of the Free will and Intellectual decision on the part of God the Father to give all things into the hands of the Son. This being the case, if you don’t believe that your eternal destiny is in the hands of what God the Father is about to accomplish through the Son of God, then for you the wrath of God still abides. What the Son accomplished was to “REMOVE” this impending wrath against your being born through the fallen loins of Adam. The word “life” in this text is “ZOE”…the kind of life that only God can offer. If the Father or the Son were not in this LIFE, Essence of God, they could not have offered it.

The intellect, emotions and will of the Son is expressed by “saying” that day, what we now are reading. You can understand what Jesus meant when He said in John 3:34 “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God (in the case of John 3:35-36 …the words of GOD the Father;) for God gives not the Spirit by measure unto Him (the Holy Spirit is involved in the speaking of these words). You see it later in this expression by Jesus, John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh, opinions, carnal views, human words… profits nothing; THE WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE (ZOE).”

If our carnal limited ideas of Father or Son replace what Jesus was demonstrating that day of who God IS; God the Father and God the Son is lost in our limited views; and the God you are declaring is not the God that the Son of God that day was revealing. You can see the warning Jesus expressed in Matt. 23:9 “and call no man your Father upon the earth; for ONE is your Father which is in Heaven.” This is half the battle with our coming to see and understand God the Father. Our limited experience of that word father blocks anything that Jesus was declaring that day.

One more point, remember the illustration in my piece posted in Dimensional Overlay about how time is future, present, past and that this isn’t something that time DOES, IT IS WHAT IT “IS”. The same applies to the Father, Son, Spirit…it is not something that God does, it is something that GOD “IS” and was what Jesus was declaring that day.

Thinking alone these lines, concerning this matter of declaring; reflecting again on the piece offered to you all in dimensional overlays, what I have just said is “Liken unto” the objects of space declaring space which would remain invisible if it were not for the objects of space declaring it. As for the Father, had the Son not declared that day what He declared, would remain invisible; thus you can understand what Jesus was saying when He said, “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father; which would be like my saying if you see the sun, moon and stars of this universe you have seen space, which without these objects declaring it, we could not say we have seen space.

John 4:21-23 “Jesus says unto her, “Women, believe me, the hour comes, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship you know not what; we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeks such to worship Him.

John 5:17 “But Jesus answered them, “My Father works hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for what things soever He does, these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them; even so the Son quicken whom He will. For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son. That all men should honour the Son, even as they Honour the Father. He that homours not the Son honours not the Father which has sent Him.

EXPRESSIONS OF THE SON OF GOD IN THE “MODE” OF BONDSLAVE

Before I begin, I feel I must define some words that will be used. The first word is this word “mode.” It is defined: A particular form or variety; Style; a distinctive method of expression. The means or procedures used in attaining an end; the way in which one exists or shows existence or is given distinctive character; the prevailing or accepted custom.

When Kenneth Wuest in his Greek studies uses this word “mode” he uses it to describe a “distinctive method of expression” that the Son of God gave while incarnated in a body; which we know as Jesus; while in this body He was in the Mode of expression of a bondslave.

This word Bondslave is the second word that needs defining. A bondslave was one who had chose to be in the position of a servant by choice and not forced. The Son of God chose to come into this Mode of being, thus while in this mode of being, set aside any mode which He was before coming in a body as man; which has already been dealt with in my other post. What I would now like to do is reveal these expressions that the Son of God gave while in the Mode of a servant, which many use to confuse the issue not knowing what mode the Son of God was in when saying what He said. Here is the first example:

John 5:19-20 “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for what things soever He does these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel.”

This whole chapter is spoken as Jesus in the MODE of bondslave. John 5:27 gives the expression clearly using the Son of God in comparison to The Son of man. Hear it…

“And has given Him (Son of God) authority to execute judgment also, BECAUSE He is he Son of Man:”…in other words it is saying, Because of the Son of God’s decision to come in this mode of a servant to save mankind, and accomplish what He would accomplish, He, the Son of God would have the Authority and right to execute judgment because of what He did coming as the Son of man giving Him that right….the God/man. He placed Himself in a position, becoming a Son of man, putting aside His own attributes of deity as the Son of God, thus experiencing what an un-fallen Adam would have and should have experienced being dependent upon God the Father while in this mode. You can we why He is called the Second Adam.

“IF”…Jesus ever exercised the attributes of His pre-incarnate place as Son of God, while being the Son of man, it would have disqualified Him as a man paying for the sin of man. You hear Him express this when He says, “which of you convince (accuse) Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe Me? John 8:46 In other words, “which of You can accuse Me of acting independent from Hearing My Father’s voice, and in the place of hearing the Father’s voice using the voice of My being a bondslave, in the flesh, which would only be words derived from the flesh or my up-bring coming from My culture, creeds and views and opinions of men? (think of these texts in light of this…Matt. 15:3, 6, Mark 7:3, 5, 8,9, 13, ….Jesus was not quoting their traditions but was quoting THE WORDS OF THE FATHER. So, He is saying, “You can attack me for not following your traditions of men, “BUT” you can NOT accuse Me of not following the Voice of My Father.” And in this Mode of being, that was the way it would be. But their comes the time when this Son of man will be glorified; “THEN” you will see Him manifest as THE SON OF GOD!! Do not reject this!!

Hear these texts now in light of all that has been shared:

I John 1:3 “That which we have seen and heard DECLARE we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with the Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that our JOY may be full.

John is only declaring what he had heard Jesus declare. Based on what Jesus had declared gave us true fellowship with God the Father and with the God the Son.

I John 2:22-23 “Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father; (but) he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

From what has been shared you can see how this is so. Reject what the Son clearly declared is to reject what the Father clearly reveals through the Son.

I John 4:14 “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him, and he in God. (Remember it is said that Christ is in us and all the wisdom and knowledge of God is hidden in this Christ in us. So, if this Christ is in us, this text is saying that because we have confessed this, this Christ is in us, thus God in us, and we are in God or In Christ who is God.)

Yet, in the mode as a bondslave, which mode He took by choice, He accomplished what was needed to save the world. Thank God the Father for sending the Son.

I John 5:7 For there are THREE that bear record in Heaven, the FATHER, the WORD (Jesus the Christ that Word manifested in a body), and the Holy Ghost; and these THREE are ONE. (In the Essence of God, this ONE)

You can twist this text to mean whatever you want, but from what has been clearly shared it is evidence enough to reveal the true nature of God as being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. THREE bearing record, a record which required Personified Intelligence in agreement; a PERFECT Unity in Diversity, a philosophical question debated from the dawn of human history, which all human efforts could never solve. The Trinity is that solution. The Spirit edifies the Son, the Son edified the Father and in it all they are in perfect harmony expressing Perfect Love and unselfish abandonment too One and the Other. Throw this out and you will NEVER solve the riddle or find Unity in all the Diversity of this life or any to come.

II John 1:9 “Whosoever transgresses, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has BOTH the Father and the Son.

What it is saying is, If you transgress, fail to keep, offend what has been clearly declared; doctrine meaning something that has been taught by the Son of God, a principle accepted as valid and backed by the authoritative expression of God the Father through the Son, any idea you might have of God other then that taught by the Son of God coming from God the Father, is not the God that Jesus, the Son of God, or God the Father clearly taught.

CHAPTER 11

THE BOOK OF HEBREWS AND THE DEITY OF JESUS

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

This is another article from off the web with source unknown. It does an excellent job using the Book of Hebrews to reveal the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Today teaching theology is absent from most Churchs and because of this many of the members become subject to the cults who have honed their arguments and convince them Jesus is not God or there is no tri unity in His nature.

Jesus cannot become people’s savior without them knowing that He is Lord. To be Lord means more than just master but to the Hebrews it meant Yahweh the creator. The book of John concentrates on the deity of Christ. It starts with His preexistence and goes through His life and His claims proving where he came from. His miracles are presented as proof of who He claimed to be. Old Testament typology is used to prove that Jesus was claiming to be the I Am of their deliverer from Egypt and the true tabernacle.

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. This means to have a respect for our maker, wisdom is when we act upon knowledge we received, to ignore it is not wisdom. There is very little fear of the Lord in the Church today. I think it’s mainly because we have gotten away from understanding of who Jesus is. He is God.

The best and only place to start in finding this out is in the Scriptures where eyewitness accounts are historically recorded. It is the most thoroughly documented teaching in the Scripture and the early Church. It also happened to be the most attacked doctrine throughout history and still is today.

There is no more clear evidence of the fact of Jesus being God in any book of the bible than in the Book of Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews whoever he was had a superior understanding of Judaism and the functions of the tabernacle, sacrifices and their prophetic significance. The writer of Hebrews used the three most important subjects to the Jews, the angels, the priesthood, and the sacrifices, and we find the Son is compared to them all, is called superior.

Scripture consistently states God is eternal and does not change. If there is an eternal Father, then there is an eternal Son. These are terms of relationship to one another. The title Lord (which is Yahweh) is applied to the Father, to the Son and to the Spirit. All three are called LORD, (YAHWEH). They are three persons but one Lord and God.

“I the Lord do not change” (Mal.3:6). The God of the Scriptures is presented as eternal in his nature, unchanging. (Deut. 33:27). “ From everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Ps.90:2). The word also teaches that all three persons of the Godhead are also eternal; all belong to the order of eternity. Anything that undergoes a change in nature cannot be God. Change describes something not retaining its own being. Only something that is created is subject to change. Therefore God’s attributes, characteristics and persons are as eternal as His nature.

Heb.1:2 states that God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son whom he has appointed heir of all things, “through whom He made the worlds.” This agrees with Jn. 1:3: “all things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made.” All means all, not all other things as the Jehovah’s Witnesses insert in Col.1:15. Here we see the Bible teaching that Son exists prior to creation, which makes Him more than just a creature.

However more than ever we need to be able to prove this. The bibles evidence of this fact is not lacking, it is overwhelming. The same Son that was manifested in the flesh was present at creation. This is the same Son that was in the bosom of the Father before anything was created Ex Nihilo (Jn.1:14,18). If Hebrews 1:2 tells us that God made the worlds through the Son; the Son had to have existed before anything was created, to create everything that exists, so does the Father. Therefore they are both uncreated. 2 Pet .3:5: “they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old.” Ps.33:6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” V.9 “For He spake, and it was done, He commanded, and it stood fast.” Christ is the word, the word is a person Ps.148:1-6: “For He commanded and they were created.” Col. 1:16-17 Speaking of the Son; “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” The text is revealing that it was “in Him” that all things were created (Greek- en as the essential instrumental of agency).

Here we find the consistency of the teaching in New Testament of his pre-existence as the Creator yet as Heb.1:2 says it was through Him God made everything. We can see the Sons role was not a secondary one but primary. Scripture teaches that creation was from the Father- through the Son- and by the Spirit. The Father as the source created through the Son who is the agent and the Spirit was the power. If the Son is not pre-existent then why should we believe the Father is? If we apply the same rules of interpretation to both, this is the only conclusion we can come to. But the truth is that they both exist eternally. How then could God make the worlds through the Son in Heb.1:2 If He did not exist prior to creation? This text should stand alone from any attacks of anti Trinitarians.

The book of Hebrew’s chapter one explains the Son’s participation in creation and his incarnation. Heb.1:3: “Who being the brightness of His glory and express image of his person.” Athanasius had used Heb. 1:1-4 in his controversy with Arius to prove Christ did not having a beginning His true essential nature was of God. There are a number of Greek words that are explicit in their explanation. Being (Greek:oon) meaning Absolute and timeless existence (Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament) “glory” is the expression of the divine attributes collectively. It is the unfolded fullness of the divine perfections, (Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament) “the very image” (or impress) of his substance.” (ibid.) He is the perfect representation of another person therefore He too is a person of that nature. Jesus is called the exact image, the word used is an illustration of an engraving tool that would stamp its impression on a coin or seal. It bears the image produced by it having the exact reproduction of the original. Yet the image is not the same identity as the seal. Neither is the Son the identical person as the Father except in his nature. The impress would be found in His humanity as Col.2:9 states in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form.”

Heb.1:3 calls Christ “The effulgence of his glory the very image of His substance,” This is what was within Him and expressed by His life, His teachings and actions. Here Jesus shows that He has the glory of God that manifested itself in the Old Testament and dwelt in the tabernacle. It is this glory that was revealed on the Mount of transfiguration when this image became visible to the disciples. The Fathers voice from heaven testifies “this is my beloved Son hear him.” Notice that he says to listen to Him. God was not pointing to a human but the Son. In Jn.17:.5 Jesus prays “And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with thine own Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” Here is Jesus asking to be restored to His glory that He always had but was presently hidden under the veil of flesh.

In speaking of the Son in Heb.1:4: “having become so much better than the angels.” How, did he become better? By exaltation at the resurrection that returned Him to His former position in heaven. He already was better in nature before His incarnation, being deity, the very one who created all the angels. Yet He was made a little lower than the angels. Heb.1:5: “For to which of the angels did He ever say Ayou are my Son today I have begotten you?” Here the writer is proclaiming the Son as superior to all the angels. Angels as a species are called Sons of God (Elohim) (Psalm 29:1), but no single angel is ever called God’s Son, they are called the sons of God collectively. No creature is ascribed to them the name of “ My Son”. Angels are the greatest of God’s creation and the Son is said to be unique, how? Because the Son of God is of the same nature as His Father! This should shut down any thought entertained of Jesus being an angel as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim. Actually the whole of chapter one and two of Hebrews compares Him to angels and He is superior. (V.5) “To which of the angels does he say you are my Son?” (V.13) “To which of the angels did He say sit at my right hand?” The answer is not one.

In Heb.2:5 it states, “He (God) has not put the world in subjection to angels.” If the world is subject to Jesus (and it is) then He is not an angel. God did not put any angel in control of all things, so Michael the Archangel cannot be God’s Son.

In Heb.1:6 The Father tells all the angels to worship the Son. Certainly God is not telling angels to worship another angel or a human? To worship any creature except God is forbidden, yet here we have God the Father telling the angels to worship the Son. What Father is saying is that Jesus is the eternal Son. This certainly should settle the issue if He is an angel or a man. This quote is found in both Deut. 32:43 and Ps 97:7 of the Septuagint where it speaks of angels worshiping the Son. The only way Angels can worship the Son is because they are subordinate to Him. Jesus said “That all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” Does the Father command us to give the same honor to a human that we are to the Father who is God? No, so Jesus is more than a man.

The Father speaking, in v.8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God is forever and ever... God, even thy God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (Heb.1:8) Here is God the Father saying to the Son He is God and he has a throne which is eternal. Does a human have a throne that is forever or is it God? The Jehovah’s Witnesses go the furthest in reinterpreting this to say God is the throne, this means He’s become a chair. The lengths some will go to to deny His deity.

In the Hebrew Ps.45:6-7 (kic’akaa ‘Elohiym `owlaam wa`ad) means” Thy throne, O God, is forever, and to eternity.” : the on shi of thy kingdom is a right on shi. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” The Son also has a kingdom. The later part of the verse is better translated, “O God, thy God hath anointed thee.” The title God is given to two individual persons, God says to another who is also God, that he has anointed him with the oil of gladness. There are two and both are called Elohim.

Isaiah prophesies Isa.42:1: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen,( Jesus) in whom my soul delights in, I ( the Father) have put my spirit (Holy Spirit) upon him.” There are three persons in this verse, the speaker is one person, the servant is the other who is to be anointed, the third person is the Spirit of God. When we come to the New Testament we find who the other is that is anointed. This event occurred at Jesus’ baptism as he had the fullness of the Spirit rest upon Him. All the functions and gifts of the Spirit were active and present in Christ. It is this event that is spoken of in Luke 4:17-18: “And there was delivered unto Him (Jesus) the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He (Yahweh the father) hath anointed me (Jesus).”

Irenaeus one of the early church’s greatest theologians writes in 200 A.D. “The Father is the anointer, the Son the anointed, the Holy Spirit the unction. As the word declares through Isaiah the Spirit of God is upon me because he has anointed me, The Father sent the Spirit over the Son who is God also. Three Coherent persons, the giver of the command to the receiver and the spirit as the executor.” Jesus was anointed as a human above all who maintained a priest or kingly office, for He is King of Kings. What better source do we have to confirm the deity of the Son?

In Heb.1:10 The Father speaking of the Son says, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands... and they shall be changed: but thou art the same.” This is a quote from the Old Testament of Psalm 102:25 and is speaking of God. The writer attributed the “name” Yahweh to the Son in Heb 1:10, and the Father addresses the Son as eternal and being immutable “they will perish, you will remain”.

We know from Scripture the Father is eternal (James 1:17). This is never disputed by anti Trinitarians. Since it is essential for God to possess an eternal nature and exist in this manner to create all things. What is disputed is that the Son is also eternal. Speaking of Jesus “whose goings forth are from old (ancient times) from everlasting (from eternity).” (Micah 5:2) “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8) meaning His nature is unchangeable.

Heb.1:.10 the Father still speaking to the Son “and You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the heavens are the work of Your hands.” This agrees with Jn.1:1-3; Heb.1:2; Col.1:15-17. The words “the foundation of the Earth” and “heavens” means all parts of the universe, all that was made came through His hands. So the Father states the Son is the Creator of all things. If the Son is the creator, then the Son is God the creator of Gen.1:1. The testimony of the Father who is recognized as God, should be heeded. It is impossible for the Son to not really be Lord or God, if the Father calls him such. Since God cannot lie. It is clear the writer meant to apply it to the Lord Jesus to prove conclusively that He is deity. No one, on reading the Psalm 102:25-27 would question it referred to God, neither should they in Heb.1:10.

Heb.3:2-6: We find Christ is faithful to Him who appointed Him just as “Moses also was faithful in all his house.” That He is counted to have more glory than Moses, for “He who built the house has more honor than the house.” As v.4 states “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” V.6 “But Christ as a Son over his own house whose house we are.” Christ is the head of the house- the body of Christ. He is the architect (builder) of all things (Col.1:15-17) therefore He is God. In Jn.14 we are told just as the earth was formed by His hands He went to heaven to prepare a place for His household, that where He is we may be also. He is the wisdom personified in Prov.8:22 and called the master craftsman in v.30. He as the Son is attributed to be co-creator with the Father in Prov.30:4 when Agur asks what is God’s name what is his sons name if you know? It is God who created all things. The New Testament is not lacking in attributing divine creatorship to His hands as in Jn.1:1-3: “He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” V. 10 “and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.” Col. 1:16-17: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” Rev. 4:11:”You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created.” (The whole chapter of Heb.1 attributes Christ being the creator by His Father). In Acts 4:24-25 the disciples in Aone accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them.” Certainly to call one Lord meant to the primitive Church He was God.

“In all things He had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in all things pertaining to God.”(Heb.2:17) How was He made like His brethren? In His humanity, as God took on human flesh. The purpose was so he can understand the human condition experiencing it personally.

Heb.4:14: “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” The priestly function is tied with the New Covenant, it is dependent on the God/man accomplishing salvation and distributing the benefits of it for those who enter into the Covenant by faith. We see this Scripture clearly states that Jesus is still the Son and has not changed to another person. He was the Son before and He is the Son for all eternity. He’s continues in his mediatorial role, Heb.6:20: “He is our high priest forever,” 7:3 “abides continually,” V.17: “forever” The mediatorial roles insist that there is another person who is God, for its functioning.

If he is only a man how can he pray and intercede for everyone. 1 Jn.2:1: “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Jesus is our advocate to the Father. An advocate means someone who is as a defense lawyer and pleads our case to another authority. But this advocate is sinless, which no man ever was. Can a man hear all our prayers at the same time; can he pray for everyone, can he answer all our prayers? The only way possible is that He is more than man, but is the God/man.

“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,” (Heb.5:6) To function as an eternal priest in an eternal priesthood, proves Him to be the eternal God/man. 1 Cor.5:21: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” Jesus is both man and God two natures in one person and because of this He is able to mediate for both parties. “Now a mediator does not mediate for one only but God is one.”(Gal.3:20) One who mediates has two sides to reconcile, mankind and God.

The writer of Hebrews in 5:9-11 identifies the Son as the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him. To be the author means the source and originator. Since God is the source of all things eternal and in Isaiah he calls out “look to me all the ends of the earth to be saved”, there is salvation in no other (Acts 4:12), because God (the Son) alone can save and forgive sins.

Again the theme of Hebrews is using comparisons of the Son to three most important subjects in Judaism, angels, the priesthood, and the sacrifices. Showing he is better and greater than all of them, in Heb.7:15 the author states “And it is far more evident, if in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of the fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.” This Son is called by God the high priest of the order of Melchizedek which never ends.

The author of Hebrews contrasts the two priesthoods. Jesus served as a priest on earth not from the tribe of Levi but of Judah (Hebrews 7:14; 8:4) which is unheard of. There is only two mentions of the Melchizedek priesthood in the Old Testament and one was before the Levitical priesthood was established.(Gen.14:18;Ps.110:4) When the Old Testament law was given in exodus a priest was required to be a descendant of Levi. High priests who performed the atoning sacrifice on the Day of Atonement were required to be descendants of Aaron, Levi’s great grandson (Numbers 18; Hebrews 5:1-4). To be an Aaronic priest, one had to trace their ancestry to Aaron, to be a Melchizedek priest was of a divine appointment. Christ is a priest from the line of David, from the tribe of Judah He was not from the Levitical order. The Melchizedek priesthood is superior because it is eternal in contrast to Aaron’s priesthood that was temporary and continually changed due to death of the priest. While the Levitical priesthood ministered to only one nation, the Melchizedek priesthood is able to minister to all.

Upon Christ’s resurrection, He became an eternal priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:19-20). Jesus is the eternal Son who died once and resurrected continuing in his priesthood forever as His priesthood is based on an endless life. The only one who can guarantee forgiveness has to be the mediator of the New Covenant vs.22-28 This is a perfect priesthood unlike the old which changed, this continues forever administered by the eternal Son of God to all who are in the house of God. (Heb.9:15-10:21) Christ became the high priest after he sacrificed his life and went to heaven, now sitting down in His mediatorial role at the right hand of the Father. In Heb.7:26 He became higher than the heavens, (v.28) “For the law appoints as high priests men who have weaknesses, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.”

No prophet or king was allowed to hold the three ruling offices in Israel. Jesus holds to all three offices eternally, but He functions in them chronologically. He came as a prophet (Jn.4:44), today he is currently holding the office and functioning as our high priest (Heb.5:6, 10). He was announced as King in his first coming but was rejected (Mt.12:22-45). At his second coming He will be realized as King and accepted. (Isa.9:6; Mt.25:34-45).

Just believing in Jesus doesn’t save you, although you may feel good and secure about Him. He must be understood as Lord, God, without this you don’t have Christianity nor do you have the true Christ.

The Son is just as real and present before the creation of the world as the Father is. Who said so? The Father!

CHAPTER 11

THE BOOK OF HEBREWS AND THE DEITY OF JESUS

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

This is another article from off the web with source unknown. It does an excellent job using the Book of Hebrews to reveal the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Son is just as real and present before the creation of the world as the Father is. Who said so? The Father!

CHAPTER 11

THE BOOK OF HEBREWS AND THE DEITY OF JESUS

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

This is another article from off the web with source unknown. It does an excellent job using the Book of Hebrews to reveal the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Son is just as real and present before the creation of the world as the Father is. Who said so? The Father!

CHAPTER TWELVE

WHAT IS THE TRINITY

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

This article give a good definition of what the Trinity is. Most cult group have this problem; the problem of not see just how we defined the Trinity. Get this fixed in your thinking and they will not be a problem.

WHAT IS THE TRINITY

A.H.Strong; “In the nature of the One God there are three eternal distinctions…and these three are equal. “The doctrine of the Trinity does not on one hand assert that three persons are united as one person, or three beings in one being, or three Gods in one God (tritheism); nor on the other hand that God merely manifests himself in three different ways (modal Trinity of manifestations); but rather that there are three eternal distinctions in the substance of God.” (Theology p.144)

The Trinity is not three substances but three persons existing simultaneously, which are the one essence. These person’s are not separate from the essence, they subsist in it. Nor are there three essences that would make them three God’s. God is tri-une as persons but in nature one God. As Athanasius coined the phrase “not dividing the substance nor confusing the persons.”

Each person has a position and a relationship to each other. The essence is not exclusive to only one of these at a time such as the Father and at another time the Son. All three have existed throughout eternity. If the Son owes his existence to the Father, or either change’s to become another, then neither of them are eternal or self existent. The essence is not divisible among the distinction’s of persons but indivisible. While we must guard against separating the three personages (tritheism ) we must also be aware of the flaw of their being numerically one, they are Distinct but not separate. The church has always maintained the indivisibility of God, being so united that they are three inseparable persons. The traditional doctrine called the perichoresis means the mutual indwelling of the three persons, in that each person permeates the other being united in substance. This guarded against any teaching that there are three separate Gods as in tritheism. That if God were deduced to a mathematical formulae he would not be 1+1+1=3 which would be tritheism, but would be 1x1x1=1, a unified one. None of the persons can exist without the other, they all make up the one God in unity. That each person dwells in the other two which makes God indivisible and unquantifiable, so that wherever one of the persons of God is, all of God is there. What we are not saying is that they separate nor physical.

This is why Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily by himself, God cannot be divided, he is one God in his nature but three in persons. Its not a matter of opinion because this is the only conclusion one can come to from the overall body of literature in the scripture. All three are called God, the Father calls the Son God in Heb.1 the Son calls the Father God. All three simultaneously exist.

Today we hear “How is it possible,” for Jehovah to be three and one both at the same time? It is illogical, unreasonable, and God is not the author of confusion!”

It is a fact of chemistry that plain water, when placed in a vacuum under gas pressure of 230 millimeters and at a temperature of 0 degrees Centigrade, Will solidify it into ice at the bottom of the container, the liquid will remain in the center and at the top it vaporizes! At a given moment the same water is both solid, liquid and gas, yet all three are manifestations of the same base substance H2O – hydrogen/ two parts; oxygen/ one part.

Can’t the Creator of this substance be Father, Son and Holy Spirit – three Persons and one Nature as Spirit without violating the law of logic or reason ?

The Bible never says there is only one person in the Godhead such as the Father only, which the J.W.s and other anti Trinitarian cults claim. Nor is it Jesus only, as Oneness Pentecostals claim describing the three as temporal offices appearing one at a time and then changing back to another. There is a distribution of three personas expressed throughout eternity. To dispense of any of the two persons, to have only one at a time is to eliminate essential beings who comprise the nature of God. The Trinity is not in the one God, it is the one God. Each person is equal in essence with none being superior or inferior in that essence of their nature. Positionally they are different, having an ontological order in the Godhead. ( the Father sent the Son ,the Son sends the H.Spirit, the Spirit points back to the Son, and the Son glorifies the Father.) The titles Father and Son are descriptive of persons not roles or offices. They are relationship terms, one cannot be a Father without having a Son nor vice versa. These do not describe what they are but who they are as persons.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is not a result of mere speculation, nor a theory of hypothesis spun by theologians out of their own fancies, still less, as some eminent writers would maintain, the result of the importation of Greek metaphysics into Christian theology…. The triune conception of God is justified, when it is shown to be the conception which underlies the triune revelation God has given of himself, and the triune activity in the work of redemption” (Dr.James Orr the Christian view of God and the world p.303-304)

God is described as love (which is his nature then it too is eternal) to have love there must be a giver and a receiver, love is reciprocal, there needs to be an exchange, otherwise it’s self love which is not real love. If God were to be only one person he would have need of the creation as the object of his love which would contradict the love and sufficiency that God is by himself. Jn.17:24 Speaking of the Father. “for thou loved me before the foundation of the world.”

Here we find the Son as the object of his love before anything existed. This is not a love of the future but was active and real just as much in eternity past, as it was in the N.T. time and as it is today. The Son is pre-existent just as the Father is. To change this is to lose the Biblical God of the scriptures.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

THE WORD PERSONS

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

What makes someone a person? Speaking in human terms, for one to be called a Father they must have a Son. For one to be called a Son they must have a Father. This requires two individual persons. Many interpret this from the human standpoint of offspring and begotten. Biblically, this does not mean a literal Father or Son but is communicating a relationship of love and communion between two. Both are eternal as the Son and The Father, this means they are in this state of being individuals forever. No matter what title or function is applied to them it doesn’t change who they are as individual persons.

Using the word person is an accommodation to our human language to show individual identity. The term “person” was chosen to convey the concept that the Father, Son and Spirit each have their own consciousness. The three have always been and will be together in union as the one “being” called God. When we hear such statement=s as, the Bible never says they are three persons, it is an appeal to ignorance. There are many words that are not found in the Scripture that are used to describe doctrines. The word Bible is not found in the Bible! Should we dispense with that too?

When we use the word person we are trying to distinguish between who is who in personality. We are sure that Abraham, Moses, John and Peter were not only persons but different persons, yet no where does it specifically say they are persons. When we read of angels such as Michael or Gabriel we know they are individual persons, just as we know Satan who is a Spirit is a person. We know this because they have personalities. Yet the Bible never says they are persons. The term “person” should not be restricted to human beings only, since angels are personal subjects also.

The titles Father and Son are descriptive of persons not roles. They are relationship terms, one cannot be a Father without having a Son nor vice versa. If God is a personal being, (not a human in origin of course) than the Father is a person, so is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore if all three are called God separately and together, and are three persons, they are one God. The problem many anti –Trinitarians are finding is that they interpret the word person incorrectly. They think they are separated forms that look human. This is not what the early church or what the church today believes or teaches. Once this misunderstood barrier is overcome they can grasp what is explained in the scripture.

When God appears with two other men who are angels to visit Abraham in Gen.18:1-5 he conversed with him were they all not persons? Each having their own personalities, mind, will and even bodies. Likewise when two or more persons of the one God appear together they too are individual persons. (not physical or separate as people are.)

Even the way image of God is used is in reference to a person. The penalty for murder in Gen.9:6 was on the basis that the victim was made in the image of God. When it says Jesus is the exact image of God should we not think of him as a person? And in whose image is he exactly like? Another who is a person; if the image is a person so is the one he is the image of, God is not some nebulous Spirit nor is he physical like a man. He is a personal uncreated Spirit.

The term for the Son of God was always there, the term Lord Jesus Christ was given to the Son after his resurrection by his Father Acts 2:36, Phil.2:11.

The term “Son of God” describes Christ’s position and his true deity. The term “Son of Man” describes His true humanity. Therefore, the Son of God refers to the order of eternity, and the Son of Man refers to the order of time. In Judaism, for one to be called the Son of meant that he had the same nature as his Father. To call Jesus Christ is equal to him being the Son Acts 9:22.”As Paul preached he is the Christ, the Son of God”.

If one is to claim that Jesus Christ has derived the title of the Son of God solely because of the incarnation, transgresses the doctrine of Christ. To deny that the Father is an eternal Father, and the Son, an eternal Son, is to deny a distinction and relationship in the being of God which the Bible clearly indicates.

“He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” Because Christ is the revealer of the Father, no man can reveal God in such a perfect and pure manner as the Son does.

There are numerous texts throughout the Bible which indicate communication and relationship between the persons. The plain sense of scripture indicates three distinct persons. To come to any other conclusion is to violate the plain sense of scripture and the English language

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

PLURAL PASSAGES

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

When God is referred to in the singular such as I, it is showing the being of God as the only God. When it is in the plural he is revealing something personal of his nature.

What cults do is concentrate only on the single passages that describe God as I, me, myself and ignore all the plural passages such as us, we, our. They also ignore how they are used. Because of their preconceived notions that God has to be numerically one they have tunnel vision. If we look carefully we find God is usually revealing his persons

when speaking of himself in the plural context. Trinitarians realize that God is described in both ways and take the whole of the Bible instead of a cut and paste theology that makes the scriptures conform to our own interpretation. God is clearly presented as a united one not only through the language but through the descriptions themselves.

“In the light of the facts of the New Testament we cannot refrain from asking whether there may not have been some adumbrations of it in the Old Testament. As the doctrine arises directly out of the facts of the New Testament, we do not look for any full discovery of it in the Old Testament. We must not expect too much, because, as Israel’s function was to emphasize the unity of God (Deut.6:4), any premature revelation might have been. But if the doctrine be true, we might expect that Christian Jews, at any rate, would seek for some anticipation of it in the Old Testament. We believe we find it there. (a) The use of the plural “Elohim,,” with the singular verb, “bara,” is at least noteworthy, and seems to call for some recognition, especially as the same grammatical solecism is found used by St. Paul (1 Thess.3:11). Then, too, the use of the plurals “our” (Gen. 1. 26), “us” (3:22), “us” (11:7), seems to indicate some self-converse in God. It is not satisfactory to refer this to angels because they were not associated with God in creation. Whatever may be the meaning of this usage, it seems, at any rate, to imply that Hebrew Monotheism was an intensely living reality”. ( Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas Principles of Theology The Doctrine Anticipated” pp. 25, 26), God has unfolded his revelation throughout history and many times we had to wait to understand it. This is especially true for prophecy. When we take all the information the Bible has on a certain subject such as the nature of God we can understand what was said in the past. What was given in Genesis, needed to have future revelation to explain its meaning. In the same way, there are only two scriptures relating to a virgin conceiving Gen.3:15, Isa 7:14 and needed the future revelation to understand their meaning.

The example of this is Gen. 1:26: “ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” Let us make man in our image-Naase=let us make, adam bitzalmanu- adam bitzalmanu- nu=our, tselem= image in our likeness- keedmutenu- keedmutenu- nu=our, demuth=likeness. (dashes found in Hebrew mean 2 words in a relationship to one another) the words our and us are interconnected with other words and cannot be separated.

Anti Trinitarians like Jehovah Witnesses and others entertain the only reasonable explanation from human wisdom. Trying to avoid the issue saying God talked with the angels, The Bible once again refute this logic in Isa.40:12-15 when speaking of God creating the world it asked, “With whom did he take counsel.” Can anyone find this statement of his conferring with angels in the Bible. I’m sure when they do it will be right next to God is strictly one person.

The speaker of Gen.1:26 is God, the other he is speaking to is of the same nature and essence because he includes him in being equal, as the source of creating. The words image and likeness are attached to the plural pronoun our and us. So the speaker and the ones addressed are of the same image. While the J.W. and other anti Trinitarians will say he speaking to the angels the very next verse settles the matter. Vs.27 verifies all this by saying “so God created man in his own image ; in the image of God he created him.” There were no angels involved in making man in his image.

Isa.45:11: “Thus says the holy One of Israel and his maker “I have made the earth, and created man on it. I–My hands–stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded.”

Gen. 3:22:” And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,” us is indicative of number; the word one is also the word echad meaning to unite.

Gen.11:7: ...” let us go down, and there confound their language,”’ the us is found in this text and is the same word for us in vs.4 when the people said “come let us build ourselves a city”. If one is going to say us can’t be plural, then they will have to be consistent and change this to, come let myself build a city.

Gen.19:24: “Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from Yahweh out of heaven Yahweh who was on earth talking to Abraham in form rained it from another who is Yahweh in heaven.

ISA.48:16: “from the beginning from the time that it was, I was there: ( 1^st person) and now the Lord GOD (2^nd person) and his Spirit, (3^rd person) hath sent me(1^st person).” Here we have three individuals existing together, the one speaking states that he was there from before time (Jn. 1:1 ) he refers to the Lord and states that both Yahweh and his Spirit have sent me, (the speaker.) This goes perfectly in line with Isa. 6:8 God speaking to Isaiah “Who shall I send, who will go for us”. Both the singular and the plural are used in the same verse.

Zech.2: 8-11: Here we have an account of someone being sent from the Lord yet as the description goes on in the passages we find this person to be God himself. In vs.10 “ sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst says the Lord. In vs11 ...” And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you” Here are two persons mentioned the Lord said he is coming he then says the Lord of hosts is sending him, who is identified as Yahweh. It is this one who will dwell with man.

Isa.41:21-26: God asks the people to present their case in vs.22 he uses the plural us, and we for himself . In vs.23 we vs.26 we . Since this is God speaking the conclusion is that he refers to himself in the plural.

Isa.45:11:” Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, I have made the earth and created man on it, I my hands stretched out the heavens.” Two persons Yahweh and his maker who is God also. Singular as God, plural in persons (Isa. 45:18, ) How does this mesh with Isaiah 44:24 ? It states that the Lord made all things who stretched out the heavens all alone, who spreads out the earth by myself.” There is no conflict, because the Father, Son and the Spirit are all God. As the one God alone, he made everything! In the N.T. we find this maker is Christ the Son (Col.1:16, Jn.1:3,Heb.1:2) God the Father is the source, Christ is the means and the Spirit is the power that created all things.

Since all three are involved in creating they are the one God. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God (Elohim) created. The word Elohim is a compound unity. It describes more than one person as a unified one as in this description of God. If all three are attributed to this event then they are Elohim.

Zech.13:7: “ Awake, O sword against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, says the Lord of hosts.” The Hebrew word for fellow means equal, so it reads against the man who is my equal (deity).

Jer.23:5-6: “ Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise to David a branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is his name by which he will be called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Here is described a descendant of David a man who will reign on David’s throne and is called the Lord, yet there is another who is Lord who raised him up. This is echoed by Isaiah 9:6 about the Son who is given, “of the increase of his government and peace, there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom. To order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward even forever.” What other man could deserve the title “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS? Except the sinless God/man. The mighty God of Isa.9:6.

The ancient rabbis also believed that this verse was a reference the Messiah?

This verse is applied to the Messiah in a number of rabbinical writings. Regarding Jeremiah 23:6, the ancient’ of the Prophets states: ‘And I will raise up for David the Messiah the Just.

Rabbi Kimchi (I160-1235 C.E.), a highly respected Rabbi in his time, wrote of this prophecy: ‘By the Righteous branch is meant Messiah “.

In the Midrash on Psalm 23, it is interesting to note the Messiah is given a divine designation. He is called, “Jehovah is a man of war’ and “Jehovah our righteousness., Also in the Midrash on Lamentations 1: 16, the name Jehovah is expressly attributed to the Messiah. If the ancient rabbis are correct, then the obvious and startling conclusion is that the Messiah (the righteous shoot) will be born into the world as a literal physical human being.

Isa.11:1-5 “There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.” Here we have the Branch mentioned which indicates the lineage of Jesus coming from King David’s Father Jesse. (Lk.22:42) We also see him having the fullness of the Spirit even beyond what Solomon had. The Spirit is mentioned 7 times a number indicating completeness or fullness. “The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. His delight is in the fear of the LORD, …”

Zech.3:8-9 ‘Hear, O Joshua, the high priest, you and your companions who sit before you, for they are a wondrous sign; for behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH. For behold, the stone that I have laid before Joshua: upon the stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave its inscription,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘And I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day”. This identifies him as the branch. He is Gods servant, Jesus said he did not come to be served but to serve. He also says he will remove the sin in one day, which is exactly what happened when Jesus died. Continuing in his revelation he is told by the Lord in Zech.4:7 that he will bring forth the capstone with shouts of grace, grace to it. The day iniquity was removed was because of grace, the New Covenant.

Zech.12:10:”and they will look upon me (the word “me” is given two letters the Aleph and the Tov in Hebrew which is equal to the alpha and omega in the Greek) whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only Son.” There is the 1^st person speaking who is God, he addresses the subject pierced as himself and then addresses himself in the 3^rd person as the Son. This is a clear indication of God becoming man and dying for the sins of the world.

CHAPTER 15

The I AM STATEMENTS OF JESUS

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

Who do you say Jesus is? Jesus asked this same question to his disciples about what others thought of him and then asked what they thought of him.

Jn.5:37: “And the Father himself, who sent me, has borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. ‘Jesus gives the source of his commission, which is from the Father personally. It is the Fathers voice and form they have not seen, yet Christ has.

Christ who is called the exact image of the invisible Father is the voice that the people heard. He then says that they search the Scriptures in them you think you have eternal life but they testify of me.”(v.39) The Son is said to be the eternal life with the Father. Are we to believe the Scriptures testify of only a human being and not God himself? In the end of the discourse Jesus says in vs.46-47 “If you believed Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

When did Moses write of him? Deut.18:15-19: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, “according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ “And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. ‘I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. ‘And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.” Jesus claims to be the prophet Moses spoke of that should listen to. Notice that it says they did not want to hear the voice of the Lord anymore or see his glory in Horeb. Then God says he will put his words in a future prophets mouth if they do not listen to his words, God will require it of him.” This very thing Jesus said of himself in Jn.8:24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am (He), you will die in your sins.”

John 6:51:”I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;”

John 8:23: And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I AM from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 8:12: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
John 10:9: “I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.”
John 10:11: “I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
John 10:36: “do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
John 11:25: Jesus said to her, “I AM the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.
John 14:6: Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 15:1: “I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
John 19:2: Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”’”
Acts 7:32: Stephen speaking of Moses’ encounter at the burning bush “saying, ‘I am the God of your fathers–the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and dared not look.”
Acts 9:5: And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
The I Am In the Old Testament was whatever man needed He became, he was his all in all. Jesus in the New Testament uses all the examples to show who He is. He is everything to man and the only way to God.

Christ’s Deity Was questioned many times in different ways, and many times it was Affirmed by both God and man

The IF of Satan- IF Thou art the Son of God command that these stones be made bread” (Matt, 4- 3).
God’s Testimony: -This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17 ) Affirmed by God the Father.
The IF Of ‘the Jews- ‘IF You are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10: 24).
Christ’s Testimony v.25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.”v.36”I am the Son of God.”. Affirmed by Jesus
The IF of the Chief Priests- “If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.” (Matt 27:42)
Nathanael’s Testimony: -“Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel” (John 1: 16). Affirmed by a Jew with no guile. Luke 23:38And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS
The IF of the passersby-‘IF Thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross” (Matt. 27: 40).
The Centurion’s Testimony-Truly this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27: 54). Affirmed by a Roman witness
The IF of the Rulers- “Let Him save Himself IF He be the Christ, the chosen of God” (Luke 23: 35).
The Father “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. John 8:54
the IF of the Pharisee “This man, IF He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.”
Jesus’ testimony But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, John 2:24
Luke 19:10”for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Affirmed by Jesus
The IF of the high priest –“I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matt 26:63)
Jesus’ Testimony “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Matt 26:64 affirmed by Jesus
The thief’s testimony Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” (Luke 23:42) Affirmed by a criminal put to death.

Why would Satan challenge on his being the Son of God if son only meant his humanity or being a child of God in the general sense like anyone else. It was an assault on His true person who He was before he came to earth. For one to claim specifically to be God’s Son was to claim a unique relationship that no one else has. In Jn.5:18, the Jews wanted to kill him because He said God was his Father, making himself equal with God (in nature.) This meant a special relationship that excludes anyone else is able to have. In Jn.10:30 Jesus claimed “I and my Father are one.” In V.33 the Jews pick up stones because they understood this as blasphemy in v.36 Jesus interprets what He meant by saying, “because I said, I am the Son of God.”

4 TITLES of Son are used in the New Testament:

The Son of Adam- Means he is a man (Son of Man) within the lineage of humanity.
Son of David- Means Jesus is a King a descendent of David being an heir to his throne.
Son of Abraham- Means Jesus is of a Jewish descent.
Son of God –Means Jesus is God just as the Father is God. The phrase “Son of”- is used among the ancients to refer to one who has the same nature as...Son of God, means he has the same nature as God. He was called THE Son of God, being unique one of a kind.

CHAPTER 16

THE ANTI-TRINITARIANS GROUPS

(Let Us Reason ministries P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

This comes off the web and gives a list of Anti-Trinitarian groups to beware of. You can read their confusion and misunderstanding of the Trinity. Allow what you read in the chapters of this book I am offering to answer their questions. Get to know these cults and allow the Holy Spirit to counter their attack on you and the Deity of Jesus Christ.

· Ecumenical gathering of Anti-Trinitarians

All cults have a common denominator; almost all think they are the one true church or religion.

Yet there is another common teaching....Islam, Buddhism, J.W., Mormons, Bahais, Iglesio Ni christo, Unitarians, Moonies, the Way, just about every religion and cult that denies the deity also denies the triunity.

Here are some quotes from familiar anti-Trinitarians.

Islam

The originator of heavens and earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort ...? (Qur’an 6:102)

And (we believe that He – exalted be the glory of our Lord – hath taken neither wife nor son.( Qur’an 72:3 )

Sura 43:59 states “Jesus was no more than a mortal whom Allah favored and made an example to the Israelites. They are unbelievers who say God is Messiah, Mary’s son.”

Jehovah Witnesses (C.T.Russell)

“The origin of the trinity is traced back to the Babylonians and Egyptians.”

It is difficult to love and worship a complicated, freakish looking, three headed God.”(Let God be true 2^nd ed. P101-102)

There was therefore a time when Jehovah was all alone in universal space.”(meaning God the Father)

“… The answer is obvious that there is only one Jehovah...If he is one Jehovah, then could he be three gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, as the Trinitarians teach?” (Watchtower, April 1, 1970. P. 210)

“the doctrine originated from Satan” (Make sure of all things 1953 p.386)

Christedelphians

We reject that God is 3 persons “We reject the doctrine of the Son of God was co-eternal with the Father.”

“Jesus on sh did not exist as a person from eternity as one of the triune Godhead...”He did not actually come into being until he was begotten of the Holy spirit in Bethlehem.”( Christadelphian messenger no.46, the word made flesh, p.3)

Mormonism (J.Smith)

“Many men say there is one God the Father , Son and the H.Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow- three in one , and one in three.

Jesus speaking... For behold I Am the father.” Ether 4:12(Modalism)

“Three separate personages-Father, Son and holy Ghost- comprise the Godhead…these three are the only Gods we worship.”(Mormon doctrine 1966 ed. P.576-577)

Former W.W.Church of God (leader H. Armstrong)

“The concept of the trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible it has been formed by men under the influence of Satan. The trinity doctrine maintains the godhead is a closed unit into which no one else can enter.” (Good news Nov 1990 p.10)

Iglesio Ni Christo (Felix Manalo)

“If there is any verse which people claim proves the alleged deity of Christ, this verse has been wrongly interpreted by the people.”(Pasugo 1984 May/june p.14)

“Col.1:15 states very clearly, Christ is ‘the firstborn of every creature,’ and is therefore not the creator.”(Pasugo Jan/.Feb 1980 p.37)

“We now affirm that Jn.1:1 does not call Jesus Christ God…’It does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.”(Gods message July/Sept 1995 p.14)

Bahai

Was Christ within god, or God within Christ ? No in the name of God. “ (Abdul Baha Questions pg 97)

“The revelation of Jesus was for His own dispensation –that of ‘the Son.’ Now it is no longer the point of guidance to the world. ... All the teachings of the past are past.” Abdu’l-Baha is now supplying all the world.”(C.M. REMEY. “Star of the west Dec.31 1913

Each period of history through a chosen Individual Whom Bahais call “the Manifestation of God.” He restates in every age God’s purpose and will. His teachings are a revelation from God. Abraham, Moses –Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Christ, and Muhammad were Manifestations of God. (Tract on Basic facts of the Baha’I faith Bahai publishing trust on ship Illinois)

The Way int. (Victor Paul Wierville)

“... The gospel of John established the truth of God’s word that Jesus Christ was the son of God, not “God the Son” or God himself” Jesus Christ is not God (New Knoxville press 1975 p.79)

“Trinitarian dogma placing Jesus Christ on Gods level degrades God and leaves man unredeemed.(Ad for Jesus Christ is not God)

“Those who teach that Jesus Christ is God and God is Jesus Christ will never stand approved in “rightly dividing” God’s word, for there is only one God...The bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ was a man conceived by the Holy Spirit...”(Ibid.)

Speaking on ancient religions, “Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences.”(Ibid.p.19-20)

Unification Church (Sung Yung Moon)

“Unification theology starts with the fact of polarity as the main clue for understanding the essential nature of God. Hence it is not primarily interested in defending Trinitarian doctrine of the 4^th century creeds.” (Unification Theology p.53)

The Holy Spirit,…”appears feminine, masculine and impersonal… like God himself. .is invisible and incorporeal- a bright light or a field of magnetic energy. (Unification Theology p.201-202)

Mediums

James Pike a medium “The Trinity is not necessary our Lord never heard of it the apostles knew nothing of it.” (NYC Aug.30 1964)

The White Eagle lodge

“that God the eternal spirit is both Father and mother...that the son-the cosmic Christ-is also the light which shines in the human heart.”

Unity

“God is Spirit, or creative energy which is the cause of all visible things… each rock, tree, animal everything visible, is a manifestation of the one spirit-God- differing only in degree of manifestation; and each of the numberless modes of manifestation, or individualities, however insignificant, contains the whole.”(Lessons in truth H.E. Cady p.6,8)

Unitarian

“One God and only one, the father, a Spirit...”

“Jesus is not God the Son , but the son of God his on ship consisting in moral god-likenesss,”

Oneness Pentecostals (Jesus only)

“Trinitarianism is of the devil” William Branham.

“...not one place in the Bible is trinity ever mentioned...It’s Catholic error and you Protestants bow to it” (Conduct, Order, Doctrine Q and A, p. 182). “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is offices of one God. He was the Father; He was the Son; He is the Holy Ghost. It’s three offices or three dispensations,” Conduct, Order, Doctrine p. 392). “But Father, Son, and Holy Ghost has one name, the Lord Jesus Christ,” (ibid, p.392).

“If we understand the doctrine of Christ we will realize Jesus is both the Father and the Son.” (The Oneness of God D. Bernard p. 191)

“The Son of God existed from all eternity only as a plan in the mind of God.” (The Oneness of God D. Bernard p.295)

“…Trinitarianism is a doctrine that does not belong to Christianity.” (The Oneness of God D. Bernard p.294)

“We do not believe in a three-person Trinity, we believe that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. We do not believe that the terms `Trinity’ - `God the Son’, `God the Father’, `God the Holy Ghost’, `eternal Son’, the `first, second, and third persons in the Trinity’ are either scriptural or correct. We believe the doctrine of the Trinity was a product of pagan mythology and Grecian philosophy.” ( 1985 the John Ankerberg Show, Rev. Nathaniel Urshan U.P.C)

OUR RESPONSE:

It is a reality too often repeated, that when the nature of God is distorted, all the rest of Christian doctrines come under it’s rippling effect. The Puritan, Steven Charnock rightly said “The eternity of Christ is the ground of the Christian religion” (Works, Vol.1, p.361)

Waterland states “If God be Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the duties owing to God will be the duties owing to that triune distinction, which must be paid accordingly; and whoever leaves any of them out of his idea of God, comes so far short of honoring God perfectly, and of serving him in proportion to the manifestations he has made of himself”. ( Cited in Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic theology vol.1 p.278)

“If Jesus is not God, then there is no Christianity, and we who worship Him are nothing more than idolaters. Conversely, if He is God, those who say he was merely a good man, or even the best of men, are blasphemers. More serious still, if He is not God, then He is a blasphemer in the fullest sense of the word. If He is not God, He is not even good.

It has rightly been maintained that there is no stopping between Unitarianism and rationalism after Christ. The deity of Christ is the key doctrine of Scripture. Reject it, and the Bible becomes a confused jumble of words devoid of any unifying theme. Accept it, and the Bible becomes an intelligible and ordered revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the center of Christianity, and the conception we form of Christianity is therefore the conception we have of Him. He must be acknowledged in his rightful place.

Our belief in the deity of Christ is, in the final analysis, based on our faith in the Scriptures. We believe Him to be the Son of God because we accept the teaching of Holy Scripture and its statements about Him. When we assert belief in the deity of Christ we mean that the person known to history as Jesus of Nazareth existed in eternity before he became man, as the infinite and eternal God, the second Person of the Trinity .

The very basis of Christianity is that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16). If that assertion can be overthrown, then the whole superstructure of Christianity crashes to the ground, and we are bound to assume that Jesus was either a shameless impostor or that He suffered from a delusion”. (The Incomparable Christ J. Oswald Sanders p.53)

All the cults have a common denominator, all think they are the one true church or religion. They deny the deity of Christ, and the nature of God as tri-une. By doing this they have lost the Biblical Christ, and the heart of the message of Christian teaching. God came as man so we could personally understand and know him. In doing this they cannot teach about having a relationship, but only point to there being a God whom one cannot know personally.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS
(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS

Instead of letting the Bible express what it means J.W.s and others who promote the Father only as God use their cultic interpretation making their own rules for Biblical hermeneutics.
Heb.1:2 states that God... has in these last days spoken to us by his Son whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom he made the worlds. This agrees with Jn. 1:3 “ all things were made through him and without him nothing was made that was made.” All means all, not all other things as the Jehovah witnesses insert in Col.1.
The same Son that is speaking to us now was present at creation. This is the same Son that was in the bosom of the Father before any thing was created Ex Nihilo. Hebrews 1:2 tells us that God made the worlds through the Son. The Son had to have existed before anything was created, to create everything that exists, so does the Father therefore they are both uncreated.
Ps.33:6 By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, vs.9 For He spake, and it was done, He commanded, and it stood fast.” Christ is the word. Ps.148:1-6 “For He commanded and they were created.” Col. 1:16-17; speaking of the Son, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. This means he is not one of those things created if he is before them.
Here we find the consistency of the N.T. of his preexistence as the creator yet as Heb.1:2 says it was through him God made everything. We can see the Sons role was not a secondary one but primary, that creation was from the Father- through the Son- and by the Spirit. The Father as the source created through the Son who is the agent and the Spirit was the power.
Heb. 7:3 the author of Hebrews describes Melchezidek as one without Father or mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning nor end of life, like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” Here he is giving the comparison of Melchezidek as a type of Christ in that he always existed. He also parallels the eternal priesthood and the Son as an eternal being without beginning of days or end of life. The writer of Hebrews used the three most important subjects to the Jews, the angels, the high priest, and the resurrection and we find the Son who is compared to them all, is superior. All of these were earthly examples of heavenly truths.
In Dan.7:9,13,and 22 he writes about the ancient of days which indicates him as the Father. In vs.13 we read about another called the “Son of man” who in vs.14 is called the most high (also verses 18, 22, 25, 27). The Son of man is seen in a vision as coming to the ancient of days, with the clouds of heaven vs.13, this correlates with Rev.1:7 as the clouds usually refer to glory.

The Son of man is given:

1 a dominion of everlasting length vs.14

2) a kingdom of everlasting length vs.14, 27 this correlates with Isa.9:6-7 in which the Son will rule.
3) Glory vs.14 this correlates with Jn.17:5 and Matt 16:27 “”For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, “
4) that people of all nations and languages would serve him v.18, 27 this correlates with Rev.22:3-5 “His servants will serve him . John 12:26”If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.
Daniel is told the saints of the Most high would posses the kingdom which we find from Daniels writing that this is the Son of man. We find the scriptures clearly mentioning Gods kingdom as the Sons also.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, Ybut now My kingdom is not from here.” Here Jesus claims the kingdom is his and that he has servants in it. Yet it has not come yet on the earth. Acts 1:6 “Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”(Also Mt.24)
Ps. 22:28 “For the kingdom is the LORD’S, and He rules over the nations. Ps 103:19 “The LORD has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all. “ Ps 145:13 “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations. “Isa.9:6 attributes all this to the Son who is the mighty God.
Matt. 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Jesus equates himself with the Father in sharing the kingdom with another.
2 Pet 1:11 “for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. “Peter writes that it is Christ’s kingdom as he is the Son of man who inherits it.
Matt 16:28”Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Mt.16:13 “When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” Peter receives a revelation from the Father “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.” The Son of man is therefore the same person as the Son of God. Yet each describes a different facet of his nature.
Rev 14:14 “Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.
John 6:62 “What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before.” The Son went to the place he previously was before becoming a man. This is the vision Stephen saw in Acts 7:56 “and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

We find the phrase one like the Son of man in Dan.7:13 who sees Jesus in his post resurrection form. This corresponding to Rev.1:13 who says in vs.17 is the first and the last :18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” vs.8 is the Alpha and Omega and the Almighty. All these are descriptions of Jesus who will be the one the saints serve in his kingdom.
In Micah 5:2” But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler (shepherd) in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Here is God speaking of another person who is from eternity past and will be the (ruler) shepherd in Israel, we know this is the Lord Jesus himself, the Son born in Bethlehem. To deny this is to refuse the word of Gods clear teaching of the shepherd Being the Lord of Ps.23. Notice that he will come forth to God and yet he too is eternal making the Son and the Father two different individuals.
Heb.2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the Angels...”How was he made lower, by nature? No, by humility in his position. Is this speaking of his humanity, No , because we as humans are already lower than the angels. So it is speaking of his position he took as a man, he is one person with two natures, he did not lower himself in only one nature but came as a servant as one person.
Heb.1:4: “having become so much better than the angels.” How by nature ? No, by exaltation at the resurrection. He already was better in nature before his incarnation being deity the very one who created all the angels.
Heb.1:5: “For to which of the angels did he ever say “you are my Son today I have begotten you” Here the writer is proclaiming the Son as superior to angels. Angels who are the greatest of Gods creation and the Son is better vs.4.
How? Because he as the Son is of the same nature with his Father. This should shut down any thought entertained of Jesus being an angel as the J.W.’s claim. Actually the whole of chapter one and two of Hebrews compares him to angels and he is superior. Vs. 5 to which of the angels does he say you are my Son. Vs. 13 to which of the angels did he say sit at my right hand. In Heb.2:5 It states “He has not put the world in subjection to angels.” If the world is subject to Jesus then he is not an angel. God did not put an angel in control of all things.
Heb.1:6 The Father tells all the angels to worship the Son. Do they worship his humanness ? Or do they worship God the eternal Son. To worship any creature except God is forbidden, yet here we have God the Father telling the angels to worship the Son. This certainly should settle the issue that he is an angel or only a man. Otherwise he is promoting idolatry!
Heb. 1:8 God the Father says to the Son “ your throne is forever and ever.” Does a human have a throne that is forever or is it God ? The J.W’s go the furthest in this saying God is the throne, this means he’s become a chair. Vs.10 the Father still speaking to the Son “and you, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the heavens are the work of your hands...” This agrees with Jn.1:3 Heb.1:2 , Col.1:15-17.

Someone is confused here, how is it possible the Son is not really Lord or God if the Father calls him such. If Jesus is the same Son of all these scriptures in Heb.1 maybe its just as the Trinitarians have been stating the Son is eternal. The cults can do the Chubby Checker dance of twist and shout but they will never remove the eternal Son from the book of Hebrews or the rest of scripture,” thy word is settled in the heavens forever”.
In Prov. 30:1-4 Agur writes asking what is his name? Which in the O.T. would be the four letters in Hebrew YHVH pronounced as Yahweh or the title of Lord. He then asks the last question and what is his Son’s name if you know? This is in the present tense so it is not a prophecy, he existed when this was written. What this is teaching is that God has a Son whose name has not yet been revealed, yet in the future the prophets would write about him. Unfortunately there are those today who still don’t know it by influences from their group or self inflicted theology.
The Old and New testament teach that the Son was there before the beginning. ( Jn.1:1) The term beginning refers to time and space, when the universe began. So if the Son was already there, he belongs to the order of eternity. This is exactly what is expressed in Jn.1:18 the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father.
The early church’s theologians and apologists had clear teachings in defense of the Son existing prior to creation. Irenaeus Stated “Now it has been clearly demonstrated that the word which exists from the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also present with the race of men at all times, this word has in these last times, according to the time appointed by the Father, been united to his own workmanship and has been made passable man. Therefore we can set aside the objection of them that say, “If he was born at the time it follows that Christ did not exist before then.” For we have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist since he existed with the Father always: But when he was incarnate and made man, he recapitulated (or summed up) in himself the long line of the human race, procuring for us salvation thus summarily, so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, the being in the image and likeness of God, that we should regain in Christ Jesus”. ( Irenaeus The >Recapitulation= in Christ :Adv. Haer. III xviii)
John the Baptizer certainly thought of Jesus as eternal, remember he was born 6 months before his cousin. In Jn.1:15 he cried out” this was he of whom I said he who comes after me is preferred before me for he was (existed) before me . After John announces Jesus as the lamb of God he writes in Vs 30 “this was he of whom I said,” He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me,”. John the Baptist was actually older than Jesus so this is a clear reference to preexistence. He then testifies of him to be the Son of God which sums up equality in nature, that he is eternal.

Isa.9:6 says, He is the everlasting Father. Oneness Pentecostals use this to prove he is the Father and not the Son. Others ignore this verse purposely. But it is speaking of the Son who is called Wonderful (Hebrew- Pele) this is exclusively used of God alone, it means unable to comprehend indescribable. Counselor, Mighty God (Heb. El Gibbor). In Hebrew he is called the Father of ather of eternity in Hebrew Abi-Ad . Among the ancient Hebrews the term Father of, was always used to indicate him who possessed the thing that followed. For example the Father of strength –means strong; the Father of knowledge –means intelligent, the Father of peace –means peaceful, the Father of glory –means glorious. So the Son is called the Father of eternity meaning he is eternal, he is the source of all things and can give eternal life. This is not a literal Father nor a literal Son but terms describing a relationship. This is a relationship by nature not by origination.
In Lk. 3:22 We see God the Father speaking from heaven declaring him his Son in Lk.3:23 traces the genealogy of Christ backward from Mary back to Adam. Connecting Jesus as the seed of the women that would crush the serpents head Gen.3:15. He then goes into tracking him in the genealogies of man tracing mankind to their origin, back to Adams supernatural creation. Lk.3:38 “The son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the Son of Adam, The Son of God.” Many say that this is Adam called the Son of God, not according to the sequence. Here we have the Son of God as the source of Adams creation. Christ being the source of his life, who had existed before him and proving it was his hands that made him. As the last Adam Jesus had a supernatural birth his body directly overseen and prepared by the superintending work of the H.Spirit who is God. Adam the first man from the ground, Christ the last Adam from Gods hands from heaven; so both were made supernaturally without the normal means of conception.
Adam was the natural headship over the human race. Christ the last Adam is the spiritual headship over the human race. By Adams sin death came to all people by Christs death this penalty was reversed and eternal life in the body is given to all people who receive it by him
Rom.1:3 “Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.” According to his flesh he is called the “Son of David” According to his person of nature he is the “Son of God.”
Rom.8:3 God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, so the Son already existed and took on humanity. We also see a distinction between who is sent and the one sending. What it does not say is that he made the Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Giving him have a beginning an end.
1 Jn.1:2: (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) The question is, did this life already exist in the Son or was it deposited in the Son. 1 Jn.5:10: He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.11: And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.12: He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 Jn.5:20: “And we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life.” Eternal life.” Jn.1:2: “He was in the beginning with God all things were made through him... In him was life... From this we see this life is a he which is a person. Again in vs. 10 “He was in the world, and the world was made through him. This is the same he and him that is previously established to be with God (vs,1) and is God.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS

Instead of letting the Bible express what it means J.W.s and others who promote the Father only as God use their cultic interpretation making their own rules for Biblical hermeneutics.

Heb.1:2 states that God... has in these last days spoken to us by his Son whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom he made the worlds. This agrees with Jn. 1:3 “ all things were made through him and without him nothing was made that was made.” All means all, not all other things as the Jehovah witnesses insert in Col.1.

The same Son that is speaking to us now was present at creation. This is the same Son that was in the bosom of the Father before any thing was created Ex Nihilo. Hebrews 1:2 tells us that God made the worlds through the Son. The Son had to have existed before anything was created, to create everything that exists, so does the Father therefore they are both uncreated.

Ps.33:6 By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, vs.9 For He spake, and it was done, He commanded, and it stood fast.” Christ is the word. Ps.148:1-6 “For He commanded and they were created.” Col. 1:16-17; speaking of the Son, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. This means he is not one of those things created if he is before them.

Here we find the consistency of the N.T. of his preexistence as the creator yet as Heb.1:2 says it was through him God made everything. We can see the Sons role was not a secondary one but primary, that creation was from the Father- through the Son- and by the Spirit. The Father as the source created through the Son who is the agent and the Spirit was the power.

Heb. 7:3 the author of Hebrews describes Melchezidek as one without Father or mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning nor end of life, like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” Here he is giving the comparison of Melchezidek as a type of Christ in that he always existed. He also parallels the eternal priesthood and the Son as an eternal being without beginning of days or end of life. The writer of Hebrews used the three most important subjects to the Jews, the angels, the high priest, and the resurrection and we find the Son who is compared to them all, is superior. All of these were earthly examples of heavenly truths.

In Dan.7:9,13,and 22 he writes about the ancient of days which indicates him as the Father. In vs.13 we read about another called the “Son of man” who in vs.14 is called the most high (also verses 18, 22, 25, 27). The Son of man is seen in a vision as coming to the ancient of days, with the clouds of heaven vs.13, this correlates with Rev.1:7 as the clouds usually refer to glory.

The Son of man is given:

1 a dominion of everlasting length vs.14

2) a kingdom of everlasting length vs.14, 27 this correlates with Isa.9:6-7 in which the Son will rule.

3) Glory vs.14 this correlates with Jn.17:5 and Matt 16:27 “”For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, “

4) that people of all nations and languages would serve him v.18, 27 this correlates with Rev.22:3-5 “His servants will serve him . John 12:26”If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.

Daniel is told the saints of the Most high would posses the kingdom which we find from Daniels writing that this is the Son of man. We find the scriptures clearly mentioning Gods kingdom as the Sons also.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, Ybut now My kingdom is not from here.” Here Jesus claims the kingdom is his and that he has servants in it. Yet it has not come yet on the earth. Acts 1:6 “Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”(Also Mt.24)

Ps. 22:28 “For the kingdom is the LORD’S, and He rules over the nations. Ps 103:19 “The LORD has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all. “ Ps 145:13 “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Your dominion endures throughout all generations. “Isa.9:6 attributes all this to the Son who is the mighty God.

Matt. 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Jesus equates himself with the Father in sharing the kingdom with another.

2 Pet 1:11 “for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. “Peter writes that it is Christ’s kingdom as he is the Son of man who inherits it.

Matt 16:28”Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Mt.16:13 “When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” Peter receives a revelation from the Father “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.” The Son of man is therefore the same person as the Son of God. Yet each describes a different facet of his nature.

Rev 14:14 “Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.

John 6:62 “What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before.” The Son went to the place he previously was before becoming a man. This is the vision Stephen saw in Acts 7:56 “and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

We find the phrase one like the Son of man in Dan.7:13 who sees Jesus in his post resurrection form. This corresponding to Rev.1:13 who says in vs.17 is the first and the last :18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” vs.8 is the Alpha and Omega and the Almighty. All these are descriptions of Jesus who will be the one the saints serve in his kingdom.

In Micah 5:2” But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler (shepherd) in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Here is God speaking of another person who is from eternity past and will be the (ruler) shepherd in Israel, we know this is the Lord Jesus himself, the Son born in Bethlehem. To deny this is to refuse the word of Gods clear teaching of the shepherd Being the Lord of Ps.23. Notice that he will come forth to God and yet he too is eternal making the Son and the Father two different individuals.

Heb.2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the Angels...”How was he made lower, by nature? No, by humility in his position. Is this speaking of his humanity, No , because we as humans are already lower than the angels. So it is speaking of his position he took as a man, he is one person with two natures, he did not lower himself in only one nature but came as a servant as one person.

Heb.1:4: “having become so much better than the angels.” How by nature ? No, by exaltation at the resurrection. He already was better in nature before his incarnation being deity the very one who created all the angels.

Heb.1:5: “For to which of the angels did he ever say “you are my Son today I have begotten you” Here the writer is proclaiming the Son as superior to angels. Angels who are the greatest of Gods creation and the Son is better vs.4.

How? Because he as the Son is of the same nature with his Father. This should shut down any thought entertained of Jesus being an angel as the J.W.’s claim. Actually the whole of chapter one and two of Hebrews compares him to angels and he is superior. Vs. 5 to which of the angels does he say you are my Son. Vs. 13 to which of the angels did he say sit at my right hand. In Heb.2:5 It states “He has not put the world in subjection to angels.” If the world is subject to Jesus then he is not an angel. God did not put an angel in control of all things.

Heb.1:6 The Father tells all the angels to worship the Son. Do they worship his humanness ? Or do they worship God the eternal Son. To worship any creature except God is forbidden, yet here we have God the Father telling the angels to worship the Son. This certainly should settle the issue that he is an angel or only a man. Otherwise he is promoting idolatry!

Heb. 1:8 God the Father says to the Son “ your throne is forever and ever.” Does a human have a throne that is forever or is it God ? The J.W’s go the furthest in this saying God is the throne, this means he’s become a chair. Vs.10 the Father still speaking to the Son “and you, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the heavens are the work of your hands...” This agrees with Jn.1:3 Heb.1:2 , Col.1:15-17.

Someone is confused here, how is it possible the Son is not really Lord or God if the Father calls him such. If Jesus is the same Son of all these scriptures in Heb.1 maybe its just as the Trinitarians have been stating the Son is eternal. The cults can do the Chubby Checker dance of twist and shout but they will never remove the eternal Son from the book of Hebrews or the rest of scripture,” thy word is settled in the heavens forever”.

In Prov. 30:1-4 Agur writes asking what is his name? Which in the O.T. would be the four letters in Hebrew YHVH pronounced as Yahweh or the title of Lord. He then asks the last question and what is his Son’s name if you know? This is in the present tense so it is not a prophecy, he existed when this was written. What this is teaching is that God has a Son whose name has not yet been revealed, yet in the future the prophets would write about him. Unfortunately there are those today who still don’t know it by influences from their group or self inflicted theology.

The Old and New testament teach that the Son was there before the beginning. ( Jn.1:1) The term beginning refers to time and space, when the universe began. So if the Son was already there, he belongs to the order of eternity. This is exactly what is expressed in Jn.1:18 the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father.

The early church’s theologians and apologists had clear teachings in defense of the Son existing prior to creation. Irenaeus Stated “Now it has been clearly demonstrated that the word which exists from the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also present with the race of men at all times, this word has in these last times, according to the time appointed by the Father, been united to his own workmanship and has been made passable man. Therefore we can set aside the objection of them that say, “If he was born at the time it follows that Christ did not exist before then.” For we have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist since he existed with the Father always: But when he was incarnate and made man, he recapitulated (or summed up) in himself the long line of the human race, procuring for us salvation thus summarily, so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, the being in the image and likeness of God, that we should regain in Christ Jesus”. ( Irenaeus The >Recapitulation= in Christ :Adv. Haer. III xviii)

John the Baptizer certainly thought of Jesus as eternal, remember he was born 6 months before his cousin. In Jn.1:15 he cried out” this was he of whom I said he who comes after me is preferred before me for he was (existed) before me . After John announces Jesus as the lamb of God he writes in Vs 30 “this was he of whom I said,” He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me,”. John the Baptist was actually older than Jesus so this is a clear reference to preexistence. He then testifies of him to be the Son of God which sums up equality in nature, that he is eternal.

Isa.9:6 says, He is the everlasting Father. Oneness Pentecostals use this to prove he is the Father and not the Son. Others ignore this verse purposely. But it is speaking of the Son who is called Wonderful (Hebrew- Pele) this is exclusively used of God alone, it means unable to comprehend indescribable. Counselor, Mighty God (Heb. El Gibbor). In Hebrew he is called the Father of ather of eternity in Hebrew Abi-Ad . Among the ancient Hebrews the term Father of, was always used to indicate him who possessed the thing that followed. For example the Father of strength –means strong; the Father of knowledge –means intelligent, the Father of peace –means peaceful, the Father of glory –means glorious. So the Son is called the Father of eternity meaning he is eternal, he is the source of all things and can give eternal life. This is not a literal Father nor a literal Son but terms describing a relationship. This is a relationship by nature not by origination.

In Lk. 3:22 We see God the Father speaking from heaven declaring him his Son in Lk.3:23 traces the genealogy of Christ backward from Mary back to Adam. Connecting Jesus as the seed of the women that would crush the serpents head Gen.3:15. He then goes into tracking him in the genealogies of man tracing mankind to their origin, back to Adams supernatural creation. Lk.3:38 “The son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the Son of Adam, The Son of God.” Many say that this is Adam called the Son of God, not according to the sequence. Here we have the Son of God as the source of Adams creation. Christ being the source of his life, who had existed before him and proving it was his hands that made him. As the last Adam Jesus had a supernatural birth his body directly overseen and prepared by the superintending work of the H.Spirit who is God. Adam the first man from the ground, Christ the last Adam from Gods hands from heaven; so both were made supernaturally without the normal means of conception.

Adam was the natural headship over the human race. Christ the last Adam is the spiritual headship over the human race. By Adams sin death came to all people by Christs death this penalty was reversed and eternal life in the body is given to all people who receive it by him

Rom.1:3 “Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.” According to his flesh he is called the “Son of David” According to his person of nature he is the “Son of God.”

Rom.8:3 God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, so the Son already existed and took on humanity. We also see a distinction between who is sent and the one sending. What it does not say is that he made the Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Giving him have a beginning an end.

1 Jn.1:2: (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) The question is, did this life already exist in the Son or was it deposited in the Son. 1 Jn.5:10: He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.11: And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.12: He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 Jn.5:20: “And we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life.” Eternal life.” Jn.1:2: “He was in the beginning with God all things were made through him... In him was life... From this we see this life is a he which is a person. Again in vs. 10 “He was in the world, and the world was made through him. This is the same he and him that is previously established to be with God (vs,1) and is God.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

I have listen to Christian chat rooms for years now and have seen a recurring debate over the correct pronunciation of the name Jesus from the Hebrew. Some have been so dogmatic that they have made it sound as if the mispronunciation of the name would bring eternal damnation. I would like to introduce some thoughts and scriptures that may help remove this unneeded debate.

A rose by any another name would smell as sweet. Thinking on this well-known quote, for example, my birth name is Paul Carlton Woodward. On my job, working for the Dept. of Corrections, for the last 23 years I have been known as Woody to my fellow officers, civilian staff and inmates. But my real name is Paul. A few call me Paul but all know me for who I am on that job. My character describes who I am not necessary the choice of Paul or Woody. Over the years the main character in Scriptures has been known to many, the English translation, Jesus. Not till lately has the stress been on the Hebrew name, its spelling and pronunciation. The same applies to Supreme Being which has always been referred to as God with a few using the Hebrew name Jehovah and lately its Hebrew spelling and pronunciation. The debate in these chat rooms I encountered appeared to be on tracking the name Jesus to pagan roots. I can understand their concern, without tracking the roots and history of this name to confirm if what they say is true or not. The point I am attempting to make in this article is that whether or not this is true, the point remains as to the individuals’ perspective of the name Jesus or God. This is of the utmost importance. You can change the pronunciation of the name but if your perspective of the character of that name is incorrect the changing of the name makes no difference.

I work with 168 inmates in my prison unit. I would say a little over one third of that unit is made up of Black Muslims, who have changed their English name to Muslim names. I have known them under their English name and now under their Muslim name. For many, their character did not change when they changed their name. So, the point I will attempt to make is this......the name we use, whether Jesus in the English or Hebrew, if without a deep understand of who this character is, makes no difference. One may know Him by His English translated name and have more understanding of Him then those that correctly pronounce His name and have no knowledge of Him at all. The point being this, get knowledge, get wisdom, but above all these get an UNDERSTANDING of the main character of Scripture.

Let me now give some Scripture base to my thoughts. In II Cor.5:16 (Wuest expanded Greek translation).... “So that, as for us, from this particular time onward, not even one individual do we know as judged upon the basis of human standards. Even though we (Paul

in his unsaved state) have known Christ as judged by human standards, yet now no longer do we know Him as such.”

Paul had known the Christ in His earthly state and with the birth name of Jesus. Paul says here that NOW he no longer knows Him that way. We now ask how did Paul know Him and how are we to know HIM? II Cor. 5: 17.....”So that, assuming that anyone is in Christ (gains the perspective Paul had), he is a CREATION NEW IN QUALITY. The antiquated out-of-date things (which do not belong to the new life in Christ Jesus) have passed away.”

The question still remains, how are we to know Him. We understand that what ever view we may have had of Him should pass away and be replaced by something NEW. What is this NEW thing or view? Remember something I have said in other writings on this matter of the word New. Read the following verses that use this word “New” as new to us. Starting with Rev. 3:12 we begin to get a clearer view of this word NEW:

(Letter to the Church of Philadelphia.....represented as the 6^th period of church history, with the 7^th as the last period.....we now are somewhere in the middle of these two periods).....”I am coming quickly. Be holding fast that which you have in order that no one takes your victor’s crown. The one who gains the victory; I will make him a pillar in the inner sanctuary of my God. And he shall by no means go out any more. And I will write upon him the Name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the Jerusalem new in quality which comes down out of heaven from my God, also my Name, the ONE NEW in quality. He who has ears, let him hear at once what the Spirit is saying to the assemblies.”

Isa. 62:2...”And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, (Christ Jesus), and all kings thy glory; and you shall be called by a NEW NAME, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.”

Rev. 2:17...(To the assemblies at Pergamos)..... He who has an ear, let him hear at once what the Spirit is saying to the assemblies. To the person who gains the victory, I will give him the manna, the manna which has been hidden, and I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a NAME which has been permanently inscribed, new in quality, a name which no individual knows with absolute clearness except the person who receives it. (future tense).

................think of all this in light of I Cor. 2: 14-16 “But the unregenerated man of the highest intellectual attainment does not grant access to the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are folly, and he is not able to come to KNOW them because they are investigated in a spiritual realm. But the spiritual man investigates indeed all things, but he himself is not being probed by anyone. For who has come to KNOW experientially the Lord’s mind, he who will instruct Him? BUT AS FOR US, CHRIST’S MIND WE HAVE.

Any view of Jesus, by any other pronounced name, if that view isn’t coming from the Holy Spirit, and is not the MIND of Christ, and is coming from this World’s view of the man Christ Jesus, that view is in error. To say we know THAT NAME, THE NAME, and attribute it to English, Greek, Hebrew or any other language we are missing the important issue at hand.

Kenneth Wuest, in his expanded Greek New Testament, in the Preface helps to make my point and ends this article. The word “NAME” is used in connection with our Lord. Paul Says, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him THE NAME (the definite article is used in the Greek), that at THE NAME of Jesus every knee should bow.” (Phil.

2:9). That name is not Jesus. The latter designation was given Him at birth. Paul is speaking here of His exaltation consequent upon His humiliation. The expression, “The Name,” is one found in the Old Testament and refers there to all that God is in His attributes, character,

majesty, and glory. All of that was placed upon the shoulders of the Man Christ Jesus at His exaltation, although in His deity He possessed it from eternity. Thus, when Jesus says, “Whatsoever you shall request of the Father, He will give it to you in view of all that I am in His estimation.”

I have shared this above quote from Wuest’s word studies with out giving its source to other Christians only to have them shocked and say I was speaking heresy. Well, I know it isn’t, the Greek language clearly says it as Wuest bring out. So, to my understanding from this, the stress is on THE NAME, and what that Name represents. We need to get more into this then debating the correct spelling and pronunciation of any name of Jesus or God.

CHAPTER NINETEEN

THE NUMBER THREE IN SCRIPTURE:

( From “Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics”....by J.Edwin Hartill, D.D.)

With “Three” we come to the number of union, approval, approbation, co-ordination, completeness, and perfection. It is the number of the Trinity; THREE persons in One God-THREE Members of Divine perfection.

In Isaiah 6, the Seraphim’s in praising God said, “Holy, Holy, Holy.” It is significant that they stopped at THREE. Four “Holy’s” might have made it more majestic, but these Beings were declaring the tri-unity of God. We speak often of distinctions in the Godhead, but perhaps we should say that there is a threefold personality.

Truly there are only THREE definitions of God. God is love! His love surpasses illustration, defies comparison, and beggars description. God is light! What light is in the material world, God, the source of material light, is in the spiritual? God is Spirit! The Father of love gave His Son to light a world dark in sin; and the Holy Spirit glorified the light of the world along with His work of reproving the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

The resurrection of our Lord on the THIRD day speaks of divine power. Human power could not accomplish it. Jonah was THREE days and THREE nights in the great fish as a sign of Christ’s burial and resurrection. Christ was crucified at the “THIRD” hour. He hung on the cross six hours - THREE in darkness and THREE in light. At noon God threw a funeral pall over the cross; it was the darkest moment in all of history. The Father turned His face from the Son. Christ’s tormentors could no longer see the agony of His face. The inscription over His head was written in THREE languages suggesting the completeness of man’s rejection of Christ, but on the THIRD day, after the burial, He arose victorious; thus the divine completeness of number in study.

THREE persons were raised from the dead by Christ; Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son, and Lazarus. Here is completeness of divine power in every human stage of existence, for the daughter of Jairus was twelve years old, just a girl; the widow’s son at Nain was of adult age, a young man; Lazarus was full grown an elderly man.

There are THREE offices of Christ, showing His perfection. He was Prophet, Priest, and King. The completeness of His Shepherd care is seen in His THREE titles - the Good, the Chief, and the Great Shepherd.

The perfection of Christ in His temptation is shown in His THREE-fold use of, “It is written.”

Now the completeness of sin is seen in this manner. There is the THREE- fold testing of man, which was also the complete testing of Christ- lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and the pride of life. These temptations led to the fall of Eve. She saw that the fruit was good for food, pleasant to the eye, and desirable to make one wise. In the wilderness Satan tempted Christ: “change the stones to bread - lust of the flesh; view the kingdom - lust of the eye; cast thyself down - pride of life.

There are THREE enemies of man; world, flesh, and the devil. There were THREE great apostates: Cain, Balaam, and Korah. Consummation of sin is reached in Revelation when we come to the, THREE unclean spirits - the unholy trinity of evil. Thus we discover that Satan is the great “ape” of God. He delights in mocking the Holy One. But God’s grace puts the “Prince of darkness” in the shadows, even as we glance through the Old Testament.

There was the tabernacle with its THREE divisions - the Outer Court, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies. In its construction, THREE metals are used - gold, silver, and brass. Here is Deity clothed in humanity to free us from judgment. THREE colors are mentioned - blue, purple, and scarlet. The Heavenly One, rejected as King, gives His life a ransom for many. There were THREE entrances - the gate, the door, and the vail. THREE feasts in particular - the Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles, give us the atoning sacrifice of the Saviour at His first coming, the Holy Spirit’s coming, and the Millennial reign of Christ.

THREE times the Father spoke from Heaven to His Son, showing His pleasure in the Son’s obedience and the completeness in carrying out the mission for which He came- Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 12:28.

Have you ever had your attention called to the trinity of persons linked together in Scripture? There is divine perfection here in God’s over-ruling of the world’s history. We suggest a few: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; Gershom, Kohath, and Merari; Saul, David, and Solomon; Hananiah,

Mishael, and Azariah; Peter, James, and John.

The perfect nature of the Promised Land might be suggested if one notices that the returning spies carried THREE things; grapes, pomegranates, and figs.

A beautiful picture of complete consecration is given us as we study the healing of the leper or the consecration of a priest. Blood and then oil were used in the anointing. The blood was placed on the tip of the right ear, on the thumb of the right hand, and on the toe of the right foot. Thus, THREE-fold consecration: to hear God, to serve God, and to walk with God.

The little book of Jude is filled with the number THREE: three-fold salutation; three-fold meditation; three-fold example of Divine retribution; three-fold expression of sin; three types of apostates; three classes of evil workers; and a three-fold doxology.

For your meditation we give God’s THREE great gifts of grace; faith, hope, and love. Faith speaks of our own dependence; hope speaks of our own lack; love speaks to us of God. Faith is an imitation of God; hope is the aspiration to God; love is the manifestation of God. Faith and hope acquire blessing, but love bestows blessing. Before hope and faith, love said, “I am.” Love was before the world. Love is the nature and whole of God.

CHAPTER TWENTY

THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE TRINITY

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

^Ignatius^{Bishop of Antioch died about 110 A.D. he was a
disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about the lords 2nd coming, "Look for
him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible".
Only God is without time , eternal and invisible. In numerous other places in
his letter to Polycarp he states "Jesus is God", "God
incarnate"}

^{"Be deaf, therefore, when any
would speak to you apart from (at variance with) JESUS CHRIST [the Son of God],
who was descended from the family of David, born of Mary, who truly was born
[both of God and of the Virgin ... truly took a body; for the Word became flesh
and dwelt among us without sin}

^{Ignatius of Antioch… "In Christ
Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the
Holy Spirit forever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).}

^{"We have also as a Physician the
Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time
began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For the Word was
made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in
a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became
subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption,
and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with
ungodliness and wicked lusts." ( The ante-nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, Vol. 1, p. 52 .)}

^{"For our God Jesus Christ, was,
according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed
of David, but by the Holy Ghost."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
4:9)}

^{"...God Himself appearing in the
form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life."( Epistle of Ignatius to
the Ephesians 4:13)}

^{"Continue inseparable from Jesus
Christ our God."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians 2:4)}

^{"For even our God, Jesus Christ,
now that He is in the Father".( Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans 1:13)}

^{Clement of Rome (Philipians
4:3)}^{"For Christ is with those who
are humble, not with those exalt themselves over his flock. The majestic
scepter of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with the pomp of arrogance
or pride (though He could have done so), but in humility, just as the Holy
Spirit spoke concerning Him." (1 Clement 16:1-2)}

^{"Brethren, we ought so to think
of Jesus Christ as of God : as of the judge of the living and the
dead".(2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)}

^{Justin Martyr ( 140 A.D.)
"the word of wisdom, who is himself
God begotten of the Father of all things, and word, and wisdom, and
power, and the glory of the begetter, will bear evidence to me".(Dialogue
with Tropho Ch.61)}

^{"God speaks in the creation of
man with the very same design, in the following words: 'Let us make man after
our image and likeness' . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses
himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone
numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this
Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father
before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with
Trypho the Jew 62).}

^{"For Christ is King, and Priest,
and God and Lord..."(Dialogue With Trypho, 34)}

^{"...He preexisted as the Son of
theCreator of things, being God, and that He was born a man by the
Virgin." (Dialogue With Trypho, 48 )}

^{"We will prove that we worship
him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself,
that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they
accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place
second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they
are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6).}

^{Polycarp (70-160). Bishop of
Smyrna.A disciple of John the Apostle. "O Lord God almighty...I bless you
and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your
beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both
now and forever"}

^{"Now may the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest Himself, the God Jesus Christ,
build you up in the faith..."( The Epistle of Polycarp to the Church at
Philippi, 12}

^{Iranaeus Iranaeus
(120-202) "In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior,
and King..."(Irenaeus Against Heresies, 1.10.1)}

^{180 A.D. "But he Jesus is
himself in his own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, and king
eternal, and the incarnate word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles}^Y^{The Scriptures would not have borne
witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone else, He were mere
man." (Against Heresies
3:19.1-2)}

^{"For with Him were always
present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom,
freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying,
'Let us make man after our image and likeness'".( Against Heresies, 4:10)}

^{Iranaeus gave the Church two
statements which have continued in its creeds: (1) Filius dei filius hominis
factus, "The Son of God [has] become a son of man, (Earl Cairns Christianity Through the Centuries,
Zondervan, 1981, pg.110) Jesus Christus vere homo, vere deus, "Jesus
Christ, true man and true God." (Harold Brown Heresies, Zondervan, 1989, pg.84)}

^{Irenaeus gave three forms of
the statement of faith in three different contexts in This is showing the variety of ways that the
faith could be expressed in his day:)}

^{Third Form: IN ONE GOD ALMIGHTY, from
whom are all things; and IN THE SON OF GOD, JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, by whom are
all things, and in his dispensations, through which the Son of God became man;
the firm -persuasion also IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD, who furnishes us with a
knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and
the Son, in virtue of which he dwells in every generation of men, according to
the will of the Father (IV. xxiii. 7).(God
in three persons C.Beisner) this is long before the council of Niacea.}

^{Diogneteus Diogneteus to
Mathetes (written 130 A.D.) "as a king sends his Son, who is also king, so
sent he him, as God (1) he sent him; as men he sent him; as savior he sent him,}^Y^{" Chpt.7 says "God"
(1) which refers to the person sent.}

^{Theophilus (115-181)
Bishop of Antioch (To Autolycus 2:22
,160 A.D.) "For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that
he had heard the voice but what else is this voice but the word of God, who is
also his Son."}

^{Tatian the Syrian (170 AD )
"Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and
is Himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon
matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in
matter. He is invisible and untouchable, being Himself the Father of both
sensible and invisible things. This we know by the evidence of what He has
created; and we perceive His invisible power by His works".(Tatian,
Address to the Greeks , 4)}

^{"We are not playing the fool,
you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form
of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21).}

^{Melito of Sardis (177 AD )The
activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave
indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being
God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures:
of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his
baptism}^Y^{he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the
true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai's, The
Guide 13).}

^{Athenagoras (160 AD.) Speaks
of "one God, the uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible,
incomprehensible, uncontainable, comprehended only by mindand reason, clothed
in light and beauty and spirit and powerindescribable, by whom the totality has
come to be."(suppl. 10.1)}

^Y^{"the Son being in the Father and
the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of Spirit, the understanding, and
reason of the Father is the Son of God." (Ante Nicene Fathers vol.2 p.133 a plea for Christians)}

^{"For Christ is the God over
all".(Refutation of All Heresies 10.34)}

^{Athenagoras identifies the Word as
the Son of God, says 'although the word is God}⁼^{s offspring, he never came into
being. Rather, having been with God and in God eternally he issued forth at a
point in time."( A plea for the
Christians 12.20) "God the Word came down from heaven...He came
forth into the world and...showed Himself to be God".( Against the Heresy
of a Certain Noetus, 17)}

^{speaking of what the church believes,
"they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and
declare their union and their distinction in order."(A plea for the Christians.10.3)}

^{"Who, then, would not be
astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their distinction
in rank?"( Intercession on Behalf of the Saints, 10)}

^{Clement of Alexandria (190
AD) "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient
beginning, for he was in God, and of our well-being. And now this same Word has
appeared as man. He alone. is both God and man, and the source of all our good
things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1).}

^{Tertullian (converted around
193 AD)(215 AD) "The origins of both his substances display him as man and
as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of
Christ 5:6-7).}

^{"God alone is without sin. The
only man without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God."(The Soul 41.3)}

^{We find that it was the ones who did
not understand the trinity that were looked upon as divisive. Tetullians
theological writings consisted mostly in response to what the Oneness (modalists)
believes. (God is singular in person) When he debated Praxeas of which he
wrote. "thus the connection of the Father in the Son the Son in the
paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from
another. These three are one essence, not one person, as it is said, "I
and my Father are one," in respect of unity of substance, not singularity
of number."( Ante-Nicene fathers
vol.3,p.621, against Praxeas.)
He went on to say "Yet we have never given vent to the phrases}^>^{two Gods}⁼^{, or}^>^{two Lords}⁼^{: not that it is untrue the Father is
God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, each is God." (ibid 13)}

^{Tetullian developed his arguments and
refined his belief of which the third form of his rule of faith became this.
"We believe there is but one God, and no other besides the maker of the
world, who produced the universe out of nothing, by his word sent forth first
of all, that this word, called his Son,
was seen in the name of God in various ways by the patriarchs, was always heard
in the prophets, at last sent down,
from the spirit and power of God the
Father, into the virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and born of
her, lived as Jesus Christ...".}

^{Not only is he careful in his
explanation but throughout all his writings he defines three persons and one
substance who are the one God. ."That this one and only God has a Son, his
word, who proceeded from himself, by whom all things were made, and without
whom nothing was made. him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the
virgin, and to have been born of her- being both man and God, the Son of man,
and the Son of God, and to have been called the name of Jesus Christ;" (against Praxeas vol.3, p.598)}

^{Novatian (235 AD. )"For
Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as
man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also
described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be
the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of
man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that
being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the
other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man
who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to
be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the
Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the
Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11).}

^{Novatian "The rule of truth demands that, first of all, we believe in
GOD THE FATHER and Almighty Lord, that is, the most perfect Maker of all
things. . .' The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father,
also in the SON OF GOD, CHRIST JESUS, our Lord God, but the Son of God....
Moreover, the order of reason and the authority of faith, in due consideration
of the words and Scriptures of the Lord ', admonishes us, after this, to
believe also in the HOLY GHOST, promised of old to the Church, but granted in
the appointed and fitting time.}

^{The church did not have non-Trinitarians. The Gnostics,
Arians, Oneness and others were considered to be praching heresy and were
excluded from the church universal. (This is not my words but the Churches)
This did not stop them from going out and starting their own movements and
church}⁼^{s. These were the first cultic movements and many today have
aligned themselves with their teachings , some have synthesized several of them
together to make something altogether new.}

^{Hippolytus 190 A.D. (Against
the heresy of one Noetus "a Oneness promoter" ch.14, ) After quoting
part of Jn.1:1 "If then the word was with God and was also God what
follows ? Would one say that he speaks of two God}⁼^{s ? I shall not speak of two Gods but
of one; of two persons however and of a third economy, the grace of the Holy
Ghost. For the Father is indeed one but there are two persons because there is
also the son; and there is the third the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the
word executes and the son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed
on. The economy of the harmony is led back to the one God, for God is one. It
is the father who commands and the son who obeys and the Holy Spirit who gives
understanding; The Father is above all the son is through all and the holy
Spirit who is in all. And we cannot think of one God, but by believing in truth
in Father and Son and Holy Spirit".}

^{"God, subsisting alone, and
having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the
world....Beside Him there was nothing; but
He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality....And thus there
appeared another beside Himself. But
when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods....Thus,
then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit
that one God made all things....For
Christ is the God above all.....He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly,
'All things are delivered unto me of my Father.' He who is over all, God
blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever....And well has he named Christ the Almighty.
"(Hippolytus " The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225)}

^{In another of his writings "This
is the order of the rule of our faith...God the Father, not made, not material,
invisible; One God, the creator of all things; this is the first point of our
faith. the second point is this; the word of God, Son of God, Christ
Jesus our Lord who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of
their prophesying and according to the method of the fathers dispensation, through
whom all things were made."}

^{Gregory the Wonder-worker
(262 AD) "But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they
confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea
of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius,
who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person] . . . We forswear
this, because we believe that three persons--namely, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit--are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing
itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the
nature" (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8).}

^{"But if they say, 'How can there
be three Persons, and how but one Divinity?' we shall make this reply: That
there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the
Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that
there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the
Trinity" (A Sectional Confession of Faith, 14)}

^{Dionysius (262 AD
)"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and
divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father almighty; and in
Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to
the God of the Universe. `For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and `I am
in the Father, and the Father in me'" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria,
3)}

^{Methodius (305 AD) "For
the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as
their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the
same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without
beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor}^Y^{. For nothing of the Trinity will
suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of
sovereignty" (Oration on the Psalms 5).}

^{Arnobius (305 AD)
"'Well, then,' some raging, angry, and excited man will say, 'Is that
Christ your God?' 'God indeed,' we shall answer, 'and God of the hidden
powers'" (Against the Pagans 1:42).}

^{Athanasius (290 -370)
"[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner
of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as
the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all.
And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true
being." (Letters to Serapion 1:28).}

^{"United without confusion,
distinguished without separation. Indivisible and without degrees."
(Sermon on Lk.10:22)}

^{If One examines carefully the
writings of the early church writers their language and theology reflects their
understanding of the Trinity. They contended from Scripture not from Greek
philosophy or paganism as is charged from anti-Trinitarian opponents.
Trinitarianism certainly was not developed in the 4th century but was part of
the theology of the early church. Those who oppose it today, are not part of
the Church just as they were not part of the Church in the beginning.}

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

ELOHIM

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

In the Bible the word for God in the Hebrew that is most often used is Elohim. It is a plural noun. Today it is popular to say it means plural of majesty. However the form of the word, Eloh-im, is plural. The word for God in the singular sense is El which is used most often in describing Gods characteristics or attributes. El Eyon, El Shaddai, In the Hebrew when Elohim is when used of the true God it is used singular, as a composite unity, when it is used of false gods it is used in the plural. (ex. you shall have no other Gods Elohim before me.") Is God calling the false Gods majesties. God is not this nice to impostors who cause people to rebel and forsake him.

When looking at its usage it always refers to persons in the plural, there is no passage I've come across that it is used in the sense they claim.

For example in Gen 1:24-31 "Let us make man in OUR image is an appeal to self; Not to God and the angels. God is speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plural number. Some say this is a reference to the fullness of the divine power and attributes He possesses. This only part of it as God’s Divine Being is more than His powers and attributes for within contains persons. He would not be speaking to his attributes but to that which can respond.I sa 40:13-14 “Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him...”

The preface im (masculine in gender) at the end of a word makes the word into a plural form. For example the angels called seraph or cherub are in the singular but when they are Seraphim or Cherubim they mean more than one.

The word for heavens is shamayim Gen.1:2 Again in the plural. Could we ever interpret this as a plural of majesty.

we find from the scriptures all the attributes of God belong to Elohim, they also belong to the three persons who are the Elohim. The word Elohim can also be used for one person of the godhead or all three since they all share in the commonality of that eternal essence of deity. Each person the Father, Son and Spirit are 100% deity so when they appear singularly there is no division of that deity since God is indivisible. The same rule would be for the word God theos, in the N.T. . Such as in Jn.1:1 the word was with God and was God as sharing in the same essence.

Even the ancient Rabbis recognized this word as related to more than one. In the Midrash Rabbah on Genesis Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says "And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness," Moses said, Master of the Universe why do you herewith an excuse to the sectarians (Who believe in the Triunity of God), God answered Moses, You write and whoever wants to err let him err."In other words God had Moses write down what is correct, and we are to study to understand it. Selah

Elohim can be used as a general term for God in the O.T.. For example Samuel was called a Elohim when he came up from the dead (1 Sam.28:13-14) In Ex. 7:1 Moses was made an Elohim to Pharaoh. Jesus call the rulers in Israel Elohim, "Gods" ? (Jn. 10:34) After the Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he being a man claimed to be God he answers "Is it not written in your law I said 'You are Gods" citing Ps.82:6: " This was addressed to the judges of Israel they were called Gods not because they were divine but because they represented God when they judged the people and were misrepresenting God. Jesus’ point," is intended to show that the idea of a communication of the divine majesty to human nature was by no means foreign to the revelations of the O.T." ( New Commentary on the whole Bible,Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown) So this title can be bestowed on those who are not by nature God. However they were never called Yahweh or I Am.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 states "For even if there are so-called Gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords) yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." The Mormons use this scripture to promote their view of polytheism. Paul is speaking to the Corinthians who had a background of worshipping the Greek pagan gods and idols. He was writing in context before this about the idols they once worshipped. These were not God by nature even though they called them God. Look at how Paul clarifies this" but to us there is one God and includes both the Father and the Son."

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Jesus' Miracles, what do they mean?

(SOURCE UNKNOWN)

There are many who disbelieve in the supernatural. The bible is a book of supernatural events. From the beginning the universe was made supernaturally. If one disbelieves the supernatural miracles of Jesus they will not be able to accept the creation account nor many of the ways God provided or lead his people throughout history.

Some will always look for a natural explanation for some things that have none. Others will attribute a supernatural explanation when is none also. We need to look carefully at the events of Scripture to see when it is the hand of God intervening in the affairs of man.

The word miracle is used in two different ways in Scripture. It is used to describe an unusual or natural event that occurs at a decisive time without depending on man. This can be an answer to prayer or by the grace of God to intervene. The miracle is in the timingCnot necessarily the event itself. There are examples of this type of miracle in the gospels.

There is another type of miracle performed by God. This kind of miracle cannot be explained in a natural way, it is supernatural.

Jesus Himself appealed to miracles he caused as a testimony to His Divine character.

All the miracles of Jesus pointed to him as the Messiah. Jesus did not just heal the sick and raise the dead for the express purpose to take suffering away, but to produce the credentials of his kingdom. Yet he did have compassion on the people and felt their suffering enough to relieve them by showing his concern through love.

From the beginning we find Jesus ministry having miracles. From changing the water to wine for the celebration of a marriage to increasing the amount of food from the sparse amount they already had.

Jesus life ministry was to physically heal so that they would know from these healings he was their Messiah. Christ performed miracles in every facet of life, in the natural and the supernatural. Mt.8 he healed a leper which was unheard of in his day.

The four gospels records about thirty-five separate miracles Jesus performed. These were not the only ones he did, but the specific ones the writers picked out under the guidance of the holy Spirit to represent his ministry. At the end of Johns gospel he says the books of the world would be filled with his miracle accounts if they wrote it all down. Only two of His miracles are found in all four gospels. The feeding of the five thousand and the resurrection.

Matt. 4:23 healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people just touching the fringe of His cloak; and as many as touched it were being cured (Mark 6:56).And all the multitude were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all (Luke 6:19). He did all kinds of miracles and various different illnesses were healed. These include: leprosy, blindness from birth, deafness, paralysis, fever, shriveled limbs, an amputated ear, muteness, and blood hemorrhaging.

Matthew 8:10,13 He healed a centurion servant without even being present. He healed near by touch and from a distance demonstrating that He is Lord of space and time.

He had control over nature by calming the seas. Matthew 8:25-27: "A great storm arose on the Sea of Galilee covering their boat with waves. Then His disciples came to Him and awoke Him, saying, >Lord, save us! We are perishing!= But He said to them, >Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?= Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea. And there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, “Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” Even his disciples who were living with him could not understand how this was possible they too were in awe of a man who could control natures rage by a word. Jesus displayed complete authority over the forces of nature. It was the same word that created all things in the book of Genesis. He did not fail once.

Christ proved he was lord over space and time not subject to either. All the miracles were defying natural laws.

Jesus would be a prophet like unto Moses-Just as Moses fed the people supernaturally so did the Messiah He fed 3,000 and 5,000 people fulfilling the prophecy that he would be like Moses. When he walked on water it was similar to Moses parting the waters and walking through without getting wet; a spiritual picture of types. All miracles are pictures of spiritual truths such as his being the resurrection. Whenever Jesus performed a miracle, it was always done for a specific purpose.

Able to forgive Sins Mark 2:3-12 “Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men. And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, "Why do you reason about these things in your hearts, which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise, take up your bed and walk'? "But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"-- He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go your way to your house." Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" (also found in Matthew 9:1-8.)

The Pharisees objected saying He was speaking blasphemies Aonly God can forgive sins,(Mt.9:6) and they were right. To dispense a legal pardon could only be done through a sacrifice and from God. To show He as the Son of man had authority and that He was God, He healed the man of his palsy. He healed what the could see, proving he was able to forgive His sins that they couldn’t see.

There are three main basic miracles that would help the Jewish people recognize who the messiah is when he came.

1) Healing of a Jewish leper- from the time of Moses and the completing of the mosaic law no leper had been healed in Israel. No Jewish man was healed of leprosy; Mariam and Nathan were not Jews. Mt.8:2-4 Lk.5:12-16 Mk.1:40-45 2) Healing and casting out a dumb demon- showing he had power over the visible and invisible realm 3) the healing of a blind man from birth Jn.9:1-32 Only the messiah could heal someone that was blind.

Jesus demonstrated His authority was over life and death. While He spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped Him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live.” . . . And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and saw the flute players and the noisy crowd wailing, He said to them, “Make room, for the girl is not dead, but sleeping.” And they laughed Him to scorn. But when the crowd was put outside, He went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose (Matthew 9:18, 23-25).

Even death was subject to His authority; on three occasions where He raised someone from the dead. Jairus’ daughter who had just died (Matthew 9:18-26), the widow of Nain’s son who was in the coffin (Luke 7:11-15), and Lazarus Jn.11. Lazarus was left dead for 4 days as the ultimate proof that he could raise one whose corpse started to rot.

Many say that the followers made legends out of him and invented supernatural stories. One of the factors is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus' miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. It was insufficient for the development of miracle legends. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Corinthians 15:6).

One needs to acknowledge the character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example) and reported it. Such men had no intention of lying exaggerating or to misrepresent

Jesus said in Jn.10:3: "If they don't believe him for his words (who he says he is) at least believe his works. They would vindicate his personhood. He knew if they considered these it should lead them to the only conclusion that he was indeed who he claimed to be, their creator.

The miracles were DONE PUBLICLY

The Apostle Paul said in Acts 26:25,26 I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner.

On the day of Pentecost Peter stood up and boldly claimed "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know (Acts 2:22). this would have been debunked if it were not true, they would have laughed him out of town.

No one, in the early centuries, ever denied His miraculous power.

Jesus and prophecy

Jesus predicted that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed. Forty years before it occurred, Jesus gave specifics to its destruction:

For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground (Luke 19:43,44).

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near (Luke 21:20).

Jesus spoke of the temple being destroyed and the manner of its destruction. Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, >Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down= (Matthew 24:1,2).Just as he predicted the Romans came in stripped the gold off the glorious temple and tore down the stones.

After this he prophesied that they would be led away until a certain time "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

Jesus spoke of his coming death prophetically. Herein lies an enormous amount of prophecy which was beyond human capability to control. 30 of the OT prophecies were fulfilled in one day.

Jesus also predicted the circumstances surrounding His death and by whom would be involved.

The LAST sign to Israel

From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed (Matthew 16:21).

Jesus also predicted the timing of His death would occur during the Passover celebration, and how it would occur by would be by means of crucifixion.

You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified (Matthew 26:2).

Hebrew text of Jonah 2:1 actually reads "great fish" not a "whale." Despite those who claim this is not possible we do find proof it is.

There are sea creatures with the capability of swallowing a human being whole. Sperm whales have been known to swallow unusually large objects, including a fifteen-foot long shark! (Frank T. Bullen, “Cruise of the Cachalot Round the World After Sperm Whales,” London: Smith, 1898 documents this). Both the whale shark, and the blue whale, that are located in this part of the world are able of swallowing a man whole. There are incidents like Jonah's known to occur. Two documented reports of men that have been swallowed by large sea creatures lived to tell about it.

In 1771 Marshall Jenkins, was swallowed alive by a sperm whale and survived. Another was James Bartley. In 1891, Bartley was swallowed by a sperm whale that his whaling crew had harpooned. The whale got away, but was found and killed shortly afterwards. Bartley was found alive, but unconscious, in the stomach of the whale. He was revived and regained his health in a few short weeks (Ambrose James Wilson, Princeton Theological Revue, October, 1928).

Jesus used the historicity of Jonah's account to confirmed his own death and resurrection. Jesus told the religious leaders of His day that the sign of Jonah was going to be the last sign, one of his resurrection:

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39,40).

Its not that Jonah lived three days and nights in the fish but that he actually died and resurrected. The Bible teaches that Jesus was literally dead and then resurrected from the dead. The resurrection of Christ is treated as a historical fact just as the account of Jonah is.

Where are the prophecies and miracles of Mohammed in the Koran? Or Joseph Smith of the Mormons who gave the book of Mormon. Baha'u'llah, Buddha. you name the famous religious person and what they will lack is predictive prophecy from the past fulfilled and prophecy from their own mouths far in the future coming to pass.

It is quite clear there never was or will be anyone like Jesus.

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

WHAT WE BELIEVE TODAY

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

In the Evangelical church there is agreement for the most part on how we explain Gods nature. We believe there is one God whose essence is Spirit, who has revealed himself in 3 persons. That the Father is God unbegotten. That Christ Jesus is God begotten of the father. Being the Son of God (the word) from eternity. Who took on human flesh by his virgin birth. He died and rose in the same body and sits at the right hand of the Father until he returns. That the H. Spirit is God just as the Father and Son are. All are different personalities which share in the same essence of uncreated Spirit. Those who claim a contradiction that one cannot be three, do not take the time to hear what we are saying. What we are not saying is that they are one and three in the same exact sense. We are saying God is one in a certain sense and is three in another.

When we say that they are all personal, we distinguish that there are necessary elements that constitute personality in each one. Each has a will, intellect and emotions, besides different titles and names they function in that express their attributes and abilities. All this makes them different personalities. These distinctions do not take away from their unity as one God. For example, It is the Son who died for all mankind, the Father and the Spirit did not. The Son came in human flesh, and still is in the flesh, while the other two never came in the flesh.

Each person has a different position and function yet none act on their own but in unity. There is never more than 3 mentioned as God. All 3 are involved in creation and redemption of man. The Trinity that anti-Trinitarians most often represent is 1+1+1=3 Gods, this is not what we believe. Three persons in one nature; All three are the one God. All of these persons are eternal, co-equal in power and majesty, and as God, deserve our worship.

The view that God is numerically one person only undermines the doctrine God. This has one deny two others who are clearly called God. Those that hold this view claim that the triune nature of God is incompatible with a faith that says there is only one God. Although it appears harmless, it cuts at the very nature of God. They misrepresent what the history of the church taught. They put blame on the Roman Catholic Church, claiming that it taught a Christianized paganism. They have not taken the time to understand why we have come to the Biblical conclusion on the Trinity.

The overall evangelical Church today (with some exceptions) holds to the scriptural interpretation and the historic belief that was delivered in the early church from the apostles. The same men that preserved and protected the Bible sometimes giving their lives, also defended the triune nature from other’s who denied the deity of Christ, and other Christological errors. It is for this reason that Christianity has classified the denial of Jesus Christ's deity and the triune nature of God as the common denominator of all cults. If there is no eternal Son then there is no eternal Father. This phrase very well become the battle cry for the Trinitarian position today.

All Three are called God

The Father is God

Gal.1:1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;")

Phil.1:2 "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord"

Eph.1:3, 17; 3:14 ;4:6; 5:20; 1Thess.1:1; 3:11; 2 Thess.1:2; 2:16; Titus 1:4, 1 Pt.1:2-3

The Son is God God Jn.1:1... "and the Word was with God and the word was God."

1 Jn. 5:20..., and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Isa.7:14; 9:6, Mt.1:23, Jn.20:28; Rom. 9:5 Col.2:9, Heb. 1:8-9; 1 Jn.5:11,12,21

The Holy Spirit is God Gen. 1:2, Acts 5:3-4, 1Cor.2:11, 1 Cor.6:19, 1 Cor.3:17 To have the Spirit in you makes one

the temple of God. .."Now the Lord (Yahweh) is that Spirit" Isa. 11:2 The Spirit of the Lord. Rom.8:9-16

All three Are Eternal simultaneously existing

the Father is eternal James 1:17

the Son is eternal Hebrews 13:8 " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." Micah 5:2 " speaking of Jesus-whose goings forth are from old (ancient times) from everlasting (eternity)"

the Holy Spirit is eternal Heb. 9:14 "God is spirit" Jn.4:24

All three were responsible for creation.

the Father was involved in the creation; ( Eph. 3:14, Mal 2:10)

the Son was involved in the creation ( Jn.1:3, Heb. 1:2 Col. 1:16 )All things were made through him.

the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation ( Ps. 104:30, Job 26:13 "By his Spirit he made the heavens Job33:4

Actually we shouldn’t be surprised if another movement comes along and says the Son alone existed and the Father wasn't there. They would have just as much scripture to twist for their beliefs. The truth of the matter is if the Bible attributes eternality and participation to all three then we should believe it and not be unbelieving.

Since they all are eternal and present in all the acts of God, responsible for the same activities. All three are the one Elohim, three in unity acting as the One God.

The maker of the universe, creator of all that exists. He is worshipped by all the intelligent creatures made, both angels and men. He is called the only Lord and God.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR

THE WORD PERSONS

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

Using the word person is an accommodation to our human language to show individual identity. The term "person" was chosen to convey the concept that the Father, Son and Spirit each have their own consciousness. The three have always been and will be together in union as the one "being" called God. When we hear such statement=s as, the Bible never says they are three persons, it is an appeal to ignorance. There are many words that are not found in the Scripture that are used to describe doctrines. The word Bible is not found in the Bible! Should we dispense with that too?

When we use the word person we are trying to distinguish between who is who in personality. We are sure that Abraham, Moses, John and Peter were not only persons but different persons, yet no where does it specifically say they are persons. When we read of angels such as Michael or Gabriel we know they are individual persons, just as we know Satan who is a Spirit is a person. We know this because they have personalities. Yet the Bible never says they are persons. The term "person" should not be restricted to human beings only, since angels are personal subjects also.

The titles Father and Son are descriptive of persons not roles. They are relationship terms, one cannot be a Father without having a Son nor vice versa. If God is a personal being, (not a human in origin of course) than the Father is a person, so is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore if all three are called God separately and together, and are three persons, they are one God. The problem many anti -Trinitarians are finding is that they interpret the word person incorrectly. They think they are separated forms that look human. This is not what the early church or what the church today believes or teaches. Once this misunderstood barrier is overcome they can grasp what is explained in the scripture.

Even the way image of God is used is in reference to a person. the penalty for murder in Gen.9:6 was on the basis that the victim was made in the image of God. When it says Jesus is the exact image of God should we not think of him as a person? And in whose image is he exactly like? Another who is a person; if the image is a person so is the one he is the image of, God is not some nebulous Spirit nor is he physical like a man. He is a personal uncreated Spirit.

The term for the Son of God was always there, the term Lord Jesus Christ was given to the Son after his resurrection by his Father Acts 2:36, Phil.2:11.

The term "Son of God" describes Christ's position and his true deity. The term "Son of Man" describes His true humanity. Therefore, the Son of God refers to the order of eternity, and the Son of Man refers to the order of time. In Judaism, for one to be called the Son of meant that he had the same nature as his Father. To call Jesus Christ is equal to him being the Son Acts 9:22."As Paul preached he is the Christ, the Son of God".

"He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." Because Christ is the revealer of the Father, no man can reveal God in such a perfect and pure manner as the Son does.

CHAPTER 25

Christ is Lord of all or He is not Lord AT ALL

(From “Let Us Reason Ministries, P.O BX. 860683 Wahiawa, HI 96786-0683)

Today's new spirituality and religion includes Jesus, but he is not the Jesus of Scripture. He is another Jesus who is appreciated by mystics, Gnostics and all the world’s religions. He is accepted as a prophet a great teacher, an even an enlightened spiritual master. By the liberals he is an ideal man who had some important things to say about God. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that He needs to be made into something everyone can accept and get along with. He needs to be lowered to be in reach of modern man.

Why all the various opinion of who Jesus is? Why is there confusion even among those who carry a bible?

Paul wrote to the Church in 2 Cor. 11:3 "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-- you may well put up with it. (you will have to endure it, or you wear it beautifully, and some do).

It is clear that Paul said Another Jesus is being preached, but what did Paul mean by “another Jesus?”

Jn.3:31: “He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth.

Jesus has already established He is from heaven and came to earth, He also says God has sent Him. Since he is not a man or angel coming from heaven who is He?

Paul writes in 1 Cor.15:47: “the first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second man is the Lord from heaven.” Here again shows the origin of the Son and His coming from above.

Christ is Lord of all or He is not Lord AT ALL.

In Isa.41:4 the Lord says He is the first and last. Isa.44:6 clarifies it further, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.” The Lord and His redeemer are together in this declaration and Scripture makes it clear that the first and the last is God. Again in Isa.48:12: “Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last.” In Rev.1:8 Jesus says of himself, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,” says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come the Almighty.” The Greek phrase that precedes the almighty [ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos] “the one being and the one that was and the one coming, i.e. the Eternal.” The title alpha and omega means he is the beginner and end of all things. The alpha signifies he is eternal, He pre-existed and is before all things as in Jn.1:2 “He was in the beginning” (Col.1:15-17) with God. To be called the Omega means he controls the end, He is the Father of eternity (Isa.9:6) the source of all. As the Alpha and Omega He began all things and will complete them, in Him all things consist. Throughout the Revelation the word “was”, is in reference to Christ pointing back to his death. Rev.1:18 says of Jesus “I am He who lives and was dead, and behold I Am alive forever more.” Rev.2:8 affirms the first and the last as one “who was dead and came back to life.” The same is mentioned in Rev.4:8-9 “who was and is and is to come.” This phrase through the book correlates to this fact. Rev.22:12 tells us the one who is coming is the alpha and omega. Rev.1:17-18 shows John fell at the feet of “the first and last,” as the one “who lives and was dead and is alive forever more.”

Christ cannot be Savior unless he is Lord (Yahweh), the Son of God.

Rom. 10:8-10 “But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (a quote from Deut 30:14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.)

Believing in Christ, is to believe in God. To call on the name of the Lord Jesus is the same as to call on the Lord himself. The word "name" is repeatedly used in this manner. This is why people in cults cannot be saved, they do not acknowledge Him for who He is, LORD.

Christ is Lord of all or He is not Lord AT ALL.

If you believe the testimony of the Scriptures believe and accept Him today for your forgiveness of Sins, there is no other way.

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

FORUM DEBATES

This last chapter will be devoted to some forum debates I had and responses I gave. You will get to see the BATTLE and hours of sharing the truth that I and others have put in over the years to bring those on the web to the truth. I also will add in the future any answer to questions that other might have after reading my compiled notes on the TRINTY. Here is one particular response in which I leave out the personal name and names of the MONITOR of that web site along with others to whom I addressed with e-mails answering questions they had of my various posts on that site. A lot that you find in these complied notes were posted to that web site that attacked the Trinity. Here are those responses:

SARCASTIC, SARCASM

Definition: to bite the lip in rage. A mocking or contemptuously ironic remark intended to wound another.

Syn. Caustic, bitter, cutting and contemptuously derisive esp. in expression. Sneering critic.

IRONY: Use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. A type of literature employing ironic contrast for rhetorical or humorous effects. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually happens. “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland copying the nation she most hated.” Here is what came out of this definition:

The irony of it all, how The Monitor of this forum copies many times that which he hates; he disliked the thread of Zeitqueist, shooting it down, yet uses the same attack employed in that movie to attack the Trinity, calling the Trinity a product of myth. In the movie, Zeiguest, they not only attacked the Trinity but also attacked the gospel message saying it all was nothing more than the Jews and Christians plagiarizing ancient pagan myth to come up with what is in the Bible, “WHICH WE ALL KNOW ISN’T TRUE.” The Monitor would agree that the Bible and Gospel message isn’t based in pagan thought, yet turns around and says because the Trinity is falsely seen in pagan thought and art, proves it is pagan, thus not the truth. Sure pagans had a distorted idea of the Trinity which really “proves” this idea of a Trinity was once there though now distorted. It would do him well to trace beyond distorted myth of the Trinity and discover that the idea that the Christians conveyed of a Triune God was an unraveling what ancient myths distorted.

In the Father, Son, and Spirit thread it was going well with those involved seeing things as they may have never seen before or was able to see the idea of the Trinity expressed in words they could not express. With the flick of a finger from The Monitor, everything received so well is dismissed, debunked, saying the original Greek text was no longer accepted by many (I wonder why…I believe as you read the entries in that posting from Wuest, you can see why The Monitor would have to shoot it down and say we haven’t done our home work searching “the sites” he researched which if you did, why then, you would just see that what addfire was offering is no longer accepted.) Then he goes on to out and out, with his so-called matured knowledge, say that there isn’t a verse in the NT where Jesus claimed to be God.

I believe, unless one is blind or can’t read, that there was enough text, with more that could be offered that explains why Jesus never stood on a platform as those in the New Age movement do and scream “I’m God”. The stress of the MODE in which He freely chose explained that with more explanation available “IF” this monkey wrench was not thrown into this thread, which also goes off topic which violated The Monitor’s own created rule. If he wanted to get into attacking the Greek New Testament, there was clearly a thread made for this. (end of e-mail)

God, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit…as entered in the forum:

My first post:

I want to contribute to this thread, yet hesitate knowing many time it follows a quote I once heard..."To explain something simply, one must come to understand it deeply."

The hard part is that I have studied this matter for years and have come to this matter of simplicity; I have come to this place, yet I know the process of coming to this simple answer is hard to explain to those who have not gone through the process. To explain the simple answer and how I have arrived at this point would take hundreds of posts. So, I am asking the Father to assist me in getting others to see how I have, via a long process, come to the simple answer I have arrived at....YET, do it in the shortest fashion without losing the process that is required. Make sense?

So, as I get a starting point on this I will start posting hoping I can get the point across in the shortest fashion.

My starting point isn't the usual one you may have seen in various links. It does require Biblical text...but, what I have found is that you can proof text things to death and get nowhere. I have reached for some living words on this matter that bring these proof texts alive. As I've said, I will do this in the best fashion as it is given to me. I'll try to keep it in short posts, having those post link one another...of course with others thoughts and questions in between. The good point about this forum, you know a thread will be kept on topic. I have been in forums, where right in the middle of a good thread someone would go off and start talking about their vacation etc. disrupting the flow of the subject matter at hand.

So, I am going to ask, Father....how this should be best presented. I know the controversy of this matter of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and have in the past gotten involved in debates that lead nowhere. I do not want to go there again, so, where I begin is to Ask You. Speak to us all, Thank You for Your response....Through what Your Son accomplished...Amen

My Response to First response:

Point by point....(named individual)...you said that you believe God created the Son, thus the "first" spiritual Son. So, I'm assuming that your idea of it is that this son was non-existent before God created him? Now I'll be up front and say, what I now am asking are leading questions, because I do have answers, I just would be interested in your response before I share what I have. Here are the questions:

Before, as you say, God created this spiritual son, there were no other created creatures, angels etc. Then going on, before He created the son, who did He fellowship with, have joy with? In other words, in His creation did He need to create? And if He did need to create in order to have fellowship, joy, communications, wouldn't He be placed in the strange position of needing His creation as much as they need Him? So the final question would be, was God ever lonely? Maybe you have answers to these questions that might cause me to see things differently to the answers I have? Am I setting you up? No, not really, just questions...share what you believe. It would be interesting to hear your replies...

I don't know if I can convey what it is that I have come to see without it getting chopped up and totally misunderstood or, even in this thread that is supposed to develop this matter and not get off track, bringing you all to see that this matter of the Trinity isn't something pagan, or what some have mistakenly misrepresented saying the church and early fathers said this or said that. That is half the battle; finding out just what it was they were saying, and how others have misrepresented what it was they were saying.

I have read enough in this forum to know the bad experiences many of you had with the Institutional Church and its doctrines. I share your understanding, yet have expressed how we can throw out the bad waters of that experience, but not throwing out the baby with the bath water in the process. We need "fresh" clean waters that has been promised to us all, expressed in this fashion, "He that believes on Me, as the Scriptures have said, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of Living Water." I pray for this living Water in this thread. John 7:38 Amen

From my own personal research I have found that a lot of what they were saying on this matter of the Trinity is twisted beyond belief. There are many links on this matter of the Trinity on the web. You can search it for yourself to find out if what I am about to share is true or not. I won't give you those links.

I know what the standard institution stance is. I know they were not implying a three headed god as the pagan world offered; nor 3 gods, which would be polytheism.

I have started sharing in two threads in this forum, matters that get us to think beyond our limited 3 dimensional views and perspectives; such limited views are the reason behind the confusing on the nature and character of God. Just one example is in a text in Phil. 2:6 where it says of Jesus the Christ, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men...etc."

The Greek word for "FORM'... in the English translation implies shape, which in the Greek it does not. I know that many of you in here have no understanding of the Greek language or all that is involved with translating it to English. I once had two years study in it, and still find it hard to understand, all it tenses and grammar laws etc. I could give you from Greek scholars that which in the past was give to me, yet know it would be over your head...it was that for me as well.

Yet, what little I did understand assisted me in coming to see that which many times was attacked and misrepresented by all these links you could find on the web.

I see where what I could enter here could also fit what I am sharing in "Dimensional Ovelays" and "The NOW." So, I will share what fits here but also continue what may fit into these two other threads I have mentioned. I will end on that note, get what I have to share together, allowing others to continue sharing their insights in this thread.

Response by (named individual):

I thought that Christ (God’s only begotten Son) was not created but just that…begotten..

MY RESPONSE:

There is a lot to this matter of Christ being "Begotten." It is an old English term we no longer use. Once again, in its translation from Greek to English, or any other language as a matter of fact, has their limitation. I will share a rather long post to assist our understanding of this term, Begotten. I wished I could condense it and express it in a short fashion, yet wouldn't want to do this, lest it take away what needs to be heard. Some things can't be explained simply and requires these long posts. I understand it deeply and could express it simply, yet, without that which I had to go through to gain this simple expression required hours of asking and receiving. Here is the simple express which comes out of this long post to follow:

"That which God the Father begets, is Eternal, thus always was begotten."

Here is that long post:

"Begotten"

"One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God "begotten not created"; and it adds "begotten by His Father before all worlds." Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin. We are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth. We are thinking about something that happen before Nature was created at all, before time began. "Before all worlds" Christ is begotten, not created. What does it mean?

We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breath or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.

A statue has the shape of a man but it is not alive. In the same way, man has (in a sense I am going to explain) the "shape" or likeness of God, but he has not got the kind of life God has. Let us take the first point (man's resemblance of God) first.

Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness; not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God's, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms. Matter is like God in having energy; though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is a live, and He is the "living God." But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God; it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it. When we come on to the animals, we find other kinds of resemblance in addition to biological life. The intense activity and fertility of the insects, for example, is a first dim resemblance to the unceasing activity and creativeness of God. In the higher mammals we get the beginnings of instinctive affection.

(I will be sharing in "Dimensional Overlays" things I have written that take this piece from C.S. Lewis further... that deal with our three dimensions of time, space and the material and how it related to the nature of God.)

Reading on:

That is not the same thing as the love that exists in God: but it is like it- rather in the way that a picture drawn on a flat piece of paper can nevertheless be "like" a landscape. When we come to man, the highest of the animals, we get the complete resemblance to God which we know of. (There may be creatures in other worlds who are more like God than man is, but we do not know about them.) Man not only lives, but loves and reasons: biological life reaches its highest known level in him.

But what man, in his natural condition, has not got, is Spiritual life- the higher and different sort of life that exists in God. We use the same word life for both: but if you thought that both must therefore be the same sort of thing, that would be like thinking that the "greatness" of space and the "greatness" of God were the same sort of greatness. In reality, the difference between Biological life and spiritual life is so important that I am going to give them two distinct names. The Biological sort which comes to us through Nature, and which (like everything else in Nature) is always tending to run down and decay so that it can only be kept up by incessant subsidies from Nature in the form of air, water, food, etc., is Bios.

The Spiritual life which is in God from all eternity, and which made the whole natural universe, is Zoe. Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of resemblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as a statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.

And that is precisely what Christianity is about. This world is a great sculptor's shop. We are the statues and there is a rumor going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come alive.

From..."Mere Christianity" by
C.S. Lewis…pages 122-124

Response from one individual:

Hi Addfire,

I found your explanation to be an excellent help to my understanding.
Thank you for sharing this.

Response from another individual:

Praise God! Addfire, that's the best explanation I have heard! I am an artist. I create drawings of many things, but they are not like me. But I also have children and a grandchild...they were begotten. They are like me.

And I love that CS Lewis quote at the end. I read his book a long time ago. I need to read it again.

My response:

Thank you both, and thanks to C.S. Lewis who years ago assisted me in seeing this matter clearer; yet above even this, I thank God for the Holy Spirit, who has been the Wind Beneath our wings; He who speaks not of Himself, but of Christ who leads us all to the Father.

I have a special Photo Story dedicated to this "Beautiful Face without a name" as the song I sang says so well. It is a dedication to Him, the Holy Spirit for leading me to the Truth. Hope you all enjoy it. Paul (addfire)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b27TcNkFKWQ

Response from yet another individual:

Addfire, that was beautiful. Thank you for sharing with us. Your sister in Christ,

Response from another:

Addfire, Thank you for sharing that with us. That was absolutely beautiful! Love,

My Response:

We are the statues and there is a rumor going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come alive.

It always reminds me of the Disney character Pinocchio; the wooden little boy who came alive. I have felt like that wooden little boy most of my life UNTIL one day I came ALIVE....strange, on my job I was given a nick name...Woody.

From another individual:

Let’s not forget the most important point is that He is the Messiah, our only door to the Father and that he died and was resurrected so we can have our sin washed clean. That aside, it's a good question, one that I'm sure can be answered by going back and studying the original languages. But from just the surface text it would indicate Yeshua left his divinity to come here to live in flesh. Just to clarify, Greek is the best language to use when studying the New Covenant. Aramaic translations are good but it was originally writen in Greek. Your brother in Christ__________.

MY RESPONSE:

Your last two sentences; Interesting, I just finished what you requested and was considering entering it here. This is rather long, which it has to be, to say what needs to be said. This opening Expanded Greek translation of Phil. 2:6-8 could be consider the essence of what is explained if that is all you can read. For those that desire to see its depth, read the total post with Wuest's notes in a separate post revealing how the Greek tenses and grammar reveal what is said...enjoy....

THE MIND OF CHRIST

Phil. 2:6-8 (Wuest expanded Greek text translation)

“(This is the mind) which is also in Christ Jesus, who has always been and at present continues to subsist in the MODE of being in which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of absolute deity, which expression comes from and is truly representative of His inner being (that of absolute deity), and who did not after weighting the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, this being on an equality with deity (in the divine essence), but Himself He emptied, Himself made void, having taken the outward expression of a bondslave, which expression comes from and truly representative of His nature (as deity), entering into a new state of existence, that of mankind. And being found to be in outward obedient (to God the Father) to the extent of death, even such a death as that upon a cross.”

Further expansion of this text: “ but Himself He emptied, Himself made void, having taken the outward expression of a bond slave, in other words, He sets aside the independent use of this eternal attribute of deity, by a willful decision before the foundations of the world, truly coming in the Mode we see Him in while in a body, that of man and thus, by choice, subservient to God the Father. He at no point empties of this fact of being deity, only its independent use. Thus He truly was Liken to us. Yet He always possessed this attribute of deity before, during and after His resurrection. Only during this Mode of being a bond slave did He set its independent use aside. If at any time He were to exercise this attribute of deity while in this mode of being a bond servant, His mission would ended and what He and the Father had established before the foundations of this would have failed. He had to be the God/man. It was mankind who had failed, thus it required a man to atone for this fall. Yet no human being could have appeased God. It took the pure Son of God incarnate into a body, becoming a man, yet still retaining deity, yet not using that attribute, to qualify as a true man yet God in flesh.

Link this to Heb. 12: 2 “Looking off and away to Jesus, the originator and perfector of this aforementioned faith, who instead of the JOY then present with Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

The phrase, “who for the joy present with Him” in the Greek text clearly describes this as a pre-incarnate JOY; a joy expressed between God the Father and God the Son, two persons of the Godhead. It was this joy to which He did not consider to be reason enough to stop His decision to come and do what we all know He did, to retriever those who ever lost. Even when considering the cross and it humiliation and shame, it did not stop His decision to step down from His position being in the essence of God, thus deity along with the God the Father, stooping low becoming a bond slave (free will decision, not forced). So the phrase “despising the shame” is saying that it never even crossed His mind to not come if the need did arise. And we know that it did arise, thus in this pre-incarnate decision, Christ was slain before the foundations of this world. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit held this mystery between them until the day it was accomplished, so much so, the world didn’t know this was the plan before the foundation of the world; the angels, the prophets even the Son while in the mode of being a man, knew only as it unfolded and finally was declared “Finished” on the cross. It is written, “had they known, they would not have crucified the Son of God.” Paul after the fact now reveals “the mystery Hidden” now revealed. God beats the Devil once again!!

The notes on "The Form of God" are in the following post. Be forewarned, they are rather long and deep subject matter. Read it over and over as I had to do to begin to comprehend the depth of the Greek text and Kenneth Wuest devotion to Greek studies…enjoy.
The notes on "The Joy" will be posted in a future post. Still working on them.

Here are the notes that go with the last post:

BEING IN THE FORM OF GOD

I’d like to begin this study by giving you several pages from Kenneth
Wuest Greek Word Studies from Philippians; we will begin with Phil. 2:6 The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say:

“We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character....As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences: but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.

This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it as its nature and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being unfolds, as light from fire.”

Thus the Greek word for “form” refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: I went to a tennis match yesterday. The inning player’s form was excellent. We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.

Our Lord was in the form of God. The word “God” is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord’s outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word “form” speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God.

The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the Man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated “being” informs his Greek readers that our Lord’s possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming Man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippians’ epistle was being written. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word “form,” comes from one’s inmost nature.

This word alone is enough to refute the claim of Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man.

This expression of the essence of His Deity which our Lord gave in His pre-incarnate state, was given through a spiritual medium to spiritual intelligences, the angels. Human beings in their present state of being cannot receive such impressions, since they are not equipped with the spiritual sense of perception which the angels have. What Peter, James, and John saw on the Mount of Transfiguration was an outward expression of the essence of Deity, but given through a medium by which physical senses of the disciples could receive the expression given. But when believers receive their bodies of glory, they will be equipped to receive the expression of Deity which the angels receive, and through a like spiritual medium.

Now, at this time, in the eternity before the universe was created, Paul says that our Lord “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The word translated “thought” refers to a judgment based upon facts. The word “God” is used again without the article. Had the article preceded it, the meaning would be “equal with God the Father.” The word “God” here refers to Deity, not seen in the three Persons of the Godhead, but to Deity seen in its essence. Equality with God does not refer here to the equality of the Lord Jesus with the other Persons of the Trinity. Nor does it refer to His equality with them in the possession of the divine essence. Possession of the divine essence is not spoken of here, but the expression of the divine essence is referred to, although possession is implied by the expression. Equality with God here refers to our Lord’s co-participation with the other members of the Trinity in the expression of the divine essence. This is a very important point, for when we come to consider the fact that our Lord laid aside something; we will see that it was not the possession but the expression of the divine essence.

We must now consider carefully the word “robbery.” The Greek word has two distinct meanings, “a thing unlawfully seized,” and “a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards.” When a Greek word has more than one meaning, the rule of interpretation is to take the one which agrees with the context in which it is found. The passage which we are studying is the illustration of the virtues mentioned in Phil. 2:2-4, namely, humility, and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. If our Lord did not consider it a thing to be unlawfully seized to be equal with God in the expression of the divine essence, then He would be asserting His rights to that expression. He would be declaring His rightful ownership of that prerogative. But to assert one’s right to a thing does not partake of an attitude of humility and self-abnegation. Therefore, the meaning of the word will not do here. If our Lord did not consider the expression of His divine essence such a treasure that it should be retained at all hazards, that would mean that He was willing to waive His rights to that expression if the necessity arose. This is the essence of humility and self-abnegation. Thus, our second meaning is the one to be used here. Translation:

Who has always been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which he gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of Deity, and who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, to be equal with Deity (in the expression of the divine essence); Phil 2:7

We now consider the words, “made himself of no reputation.” Instead of asserting His rights to the expression of the essence of Deity, our Lord waived His rights to that expression, being willing to relinquish them if necessary. He did not consider the exercise of that expression such a treasure that it would keep Him from setting that expression aside, and making Himself of now reputation. The words “made himself of no reputation” are the translation of two Greek words which literally translated mean, “emptied Himself.” Before we discuss the question as to what our Lord emptied Himself of, we must examine the words, “and took upon him the form of a servant.”

The word “form” is from the same Greek word that we studied in verse six. The word “servant’ is the translation of the Greek word Paul used in 1:1 to describe himself, a bondslave. The word “and” is not in the Greek text, but was supplied by the translators. The word “took” is an aorist participle. A rule of Greek grammar says that the action of an aorist participle precedes the action of the leading verb. The leading verb here is “emptied.” That means that the act of taking upon Himself the form of a servant preceded and was the cause of the emptying. The translation so far could read, “emptied Himself, having taken the form of a bondslave.”

What do the words mean, “having taken the form of a bondslave?”
The word “form,” you remember, referred to the outward expression one gives of his inward being. The words “form of a bondslave” therefore means that our Lord gave outward expression to His inmost nature, the outward expression being that of a bondslave. The words “having taken” tell us that that expression was not true of Him before, although the desire to serve others was part of His nature as Deity. When expressing Himself as a bondslave come to serve, He necessarily exchanged one form of expression for another. In verse six He was in His pre-incarnate state expressing Himself as Deity. In verse seven He expresses Himself in incarnation as a bondslave. This is the direct opposite of what took place at the Transfiguration. There we have the same word “form” used, but with a prefixed preposition signifying change. We could translate “and the mode of His outward expression was changed before them, and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light.” (Matt. 17:2) Our Lord usual mode of expression while on earth previous to His resurrection was that of a servant. He said, “The son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Matt. 20:28

But now, His outward expression as a servant ceased, and He gave outward expression of the glory of His Deity. In our Philippians passage, the change of expression is reversed. Instead of giving outward expression of His Deity to the angels in His pre-incarnate glory, He gave outward expression of His humility in becoming the servant of mankind. The one expression was set aside so that the other could become a fact.

Vincent says in this connection: “This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This from of God, Christ laid aside in His incarnation.” Both expressions came from our Lord’s nature, His act of glorifying Himself and His act of humbling Himself. Both are constituent elements of the essence possessed by the Triune God.

But in exchanging one form of expression for another, He emptied Himself. The question arises, “Of what did He empty Himself?” He did not empty Himself of His Deity, since Paul says that expression of His Deity was a fact after His incarnation, that expression implying the possession of the essence of Deity. He set aside the outward expression of His Deity when expressing Himself as a bondslave. It was the outward expression of the essence of His Deity which our Lord emptied Himself of during the time He was giving outward expression of Himself as a bondslave. But the emptying Himself of the expression of Deity is more implied by the context than stated specifically by the verb “emptied.” When our Lord set aside the expression of Deity in order that He might express Himself as a bondslave, He was setting aside His legitimate and nature desires and prerogatives as Deity. The basic, natural desire and prerogative of Deity is that of being glorified. But when Deity sets these aside, it sets its desires aside, and setting its desires aside, it sets Self aside. The pronoun “Himself” is in the accusative case. The action of the verb terminates in the thing expressed by that case. The act of emptying terminated in the self life of the Son of God. Out Lord emptied Himself of self. This agrees perfectly with the context which is an example of humility and self-abnegation for the benefit of others. This setting of self by the Son of God was the example that Paul held before the saints at Philippi. If each one would set self aside, then unity would prevail.

Individual’s response:

So if I read all that correctly, according the Greek he is God.

My response:

Your question gives me the impression that you still aren't sure or you would not be asking it. So, let me continue with what I have, and typed up today, which I have called:

Expressions of the Son of God, declaring God the Father.

John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the FATHER, He hath declared Him.

In John 1:18 many only quote the first portion of this text to give you the idea that “no man has seen God” and never go on with the rest of the text that clearly reveals that the Son of God has “declared God.” Notice it also uses the word “time.” In our carnal experience of time up to the moment where Jesus does declare God, no man had a clear idea of God. Now understand God has always been who He is; like a mystery hidden now is being revealed by the Son of God who was always in the bosom of God the Father. See “in the bosom” as about as close as one could get without being absorbed and lose Individualization. Those in Eastern thought imply that you get absorbed into their idea of god, thus becoming non-existent losing your unique personality. The Son remains the Son and the Father remains the Father in a very close relationship in an eternal embrace in the Essence of that which we call God.

So, if we are ever to see God we have to see what it is that Jesus declared about God. In this text we know that In God is the Father with the Son Embraced, separate, yet ONE in the total essence of what we call God. Not, at this point, two separate Gods but two distinct personalities and later as we shall discover a third personality with does not speak of Himself, the Holy Spirit, but speaks of the Son through whom the Holy Spirit reveals God the Father. In this declaration we thus see God as He has always been now manifested.

John 3:35-36 “The FATHER loves the Son, and has given all things into His hands. He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Going on we discover Intellect, Emotions and Will expressed by the God the Father and God the Son. We see that the Father loves the Son. To love requires an object of that love or there could be no love or meaning behind it. In this UNITY of Diversity of Father and Son you can understand that God never had to create to meet any loneliness; throughout Eternity the Godhead had Love between the Father and Son with the added personality of the Holy Spirit to love Father and Son. Thus His creating was not out of loneliness as some have suggested. If you throw out what has just been said, you place God in the position of having to create to ease His loneliness thus He would be as dependent on His creation as that creation is on Him.

We see an act of the Free will and Intellectual decision on the part of God the Father to give all things into the hands of the Son. This being the case, if you don’t believe that your eternal destiny is in the hands of what God the Father is about to accomplish through the Son of God, then for you the wrath of God still abides. What the Son accomplished was to “REMOVE” this impending wrath against your being born through the fallen loins of Adam. The word “life” in this text is “ZOE”…the kind of life that only God can offer. If the Father or the Son were not in this LIFE, Essence of God, they could not have offered it.

The intellect, emotions and will of the Son is expressed by “saying” that day, what we now are reading. You can understand what Jesus meant when He said in John 3:34 “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God (in the case of John 3:35-36 …the words of GOD the Father)... for God gives not the Spirit by measure unto Him (the Holy Spirit is involved in the speaking of these words). You see it later in this expression by Jesus, John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh, opinions, carnal views, human words… profits nothing; THE WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE (ZOE).”

If our carnal limited ideas of Father or Son replace what Jesus was demonstrating that day of who God IS; God the Father and God the Son is lost in our limited views; and the God you are declaring is not the God that the Son of God that day was revealing. You can see the warning Jesus expressed in Matt. 23:9 “and call no man your Father upon the earth; for ONE is your Father which is in Heaven.” This is half the battle with our coming to see and understand God the Father. Our limited experience of that word father blocks anything that Jesus was declaring that day.

One more point, remember the illustration in my piece posted in Dimensional Overlay about how time is future, present, past and that this isn’t something that time DOES, IT IS WHAT IT “IS”. The same applies to the Father, Son, Spirit…it is not something that God does, it is something that GOD “IS” and was what Jesus was declaring that day.

Thinking alone these lines, concerning this matter of declaring; reflecting again on the piece offered to you all in dimensional overlays, what I have just said is “Liken unto” the objects of space declaring space which would remain invisible if it were not for the objects of space declaring it. As for the Father, had the Son not declared that day what He declared, would remain invisible; thus you can understand what Jesus was saying when He said, “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father; which would be like my saying if you see the sun, moon and stars of this universe you have seen space, which without these objects declaring it, we could not say we have seen space.

This other individual’s Response:

Sorry, I didn't phrase that right. It wasn't really a question. I just wanted to make the point that in the original language, it does in fact say Yeshua is God.

My Response:

Amen! Here is something more which I just finished typing that I am sure you will enjoy. I have called it:

EXPRESSIONS OF THE SON OF GOD IN THE “MODE” OF BONDSLAVE

Before I begin, I feel I must define some words that will be used. The first word is this word “mode.” It is defined: A particular form or variety; Style; a distinctive method of expression. The means or procedures used in attaining an end; the way in which one exists or shows existence or is given distinctive character; the prevailing or accepted custom.

When we read how Kenneth Wuest in his Greek studies uses this word “mode,” we see that he uses it to describe a “distinctive method of expression” that the Son of God gave while incarnated in a body; which we know as Jesus; while in this body He was in the Mode of expression of a bondslave.

This word Bondslave is the second word that needs defining. A bondslave was one who had chose to be in the position of a servant by choice and not forced. The Son of God chose to come into this Mode of being, thus while in this mode of being, set aside any mode which He was before coming in a body as man; which has already been dealt with in my other posts. What I would now like to do is reveal these expressions that the Son of God gave while in the Mode of a servant, which many use to confuse the issue not knowing what mode the Son of God was in when saying what He said. Here is the first example:

John 5:19-20 “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for what things soever He does these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel.”

This whole chapter is spoken as Jesus in the MODE of bondslave. John 5:27 gives the expression clearly using the Son of God in comparison to The Son of man. Hear it…

“And has given Him (Son of God) authority to execute judgment also, BECAUSE He is he Son of Man:”…in other words it is saying, Because of the Son of God’s decision to come in this mode of a servant to save mankind, and accomplish what He would accomplish, He, the Son of God would have the Authority and right to execute judgment because of what He did coming as the Son of man giving Him that right….the God/man. He placed Himself in a position, becoming a Son of man, putting aside His own attributes of deity as the Son of God, thus experiencing what an un-fallen Adam would have and should have experienced being dependent upon God the Father while in this mode. You can we why He is called the Second Adam.

“IF”…Jesus ever exercised the attributes of His pre-incarnate place as Son of God, while being the Son of man, it would have disqualified Him as a man paying for the sin of man. You hear Him express this when He says, “which of you convince (accuse) Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe Me? John 8:46 In other words, “which of You can accuse Me of acting independent from Hearing My Father’s voice, and in the place of hearing the Father’s voice using the voice of My being a bondslave, in the flesh, which would only be words derived from the flesh or my up-bring coming from My culture, creeds and views and opinions of men? (think of these texts in light of this…Matt. 15:3, 6, Mark 7:3, 5, 8,9, 13, ….Jesus was not quoting their traditions but was quoting THE WORDS OF THE FATHER. So, He is saying, “You can attack me for not following your traditions of men, “BUT” you can NOT accuse Me of not following the Voice of My Father.” And in this Mode of being, that was the way it would be. But there comes the time when this Son of man will be glorified; “THEN” you will see Him manifest as THE SON OF GOD!! Do not reject this!!

OBJECTIONS BY ADMIN OF THIS SITE:

(He is addressing this other individual not me directly. Note, he goes around addressing me directly. Later on, which you will read here, he does react and addresses me personally, yet reveals something of his bitterness towards anything the reeks with traditional ideas of the church. If you know anything about “Armstrongism” you see that the Monitor was raised up in the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. You can research Armstrong’s teaching on the web and rebuttals to is all, I won’t do that here. Armstrongism attacks institutional Christianity and many matters especially this matter of the Trinity. The Monitor of this site admited this, yet gave the impression that he left that sect; which he teachings reveal that he did not. So read on to what he, myself and others had to add to this matter of the Trinity.)

MONITOR’S RESPONSE:

(Name of this other individual), the old assumption that the NT was originally in Greek is a questionable theory these days. The research of the past decades confirms what several Church Fathers mentioned: that the original language of much of the NT was Semitic, perhaps a Semitic Oral Tradition just as the Talmud was originally transmitted. Here's just one example of much free research online to help you investigate this yourself: www.ancient-hebrew.org/49_home.html

As far as Jesus being God, there is no verse that plainly says this, even John 1:1 even in the Greek (the Word was divine, not god). Many ambiguous verses seem to say this or support this, but they easily can mean something else that does not. So much like the "original Greek" theory, it is a highly debatable teaching.

INDIVIDUAL’S Response:

In other words he could do nothing on His own while in the flesh since he left His divinity while on this planet. That's where I think people get confused about Him actually being Divine.

MONITOR’S response:

You missed my point. I'm saying the Word was not God either, not just Yeshua. No plain verse in the Greek or Semitic texts teaches either were God, although some of our English Bible versions have a Christian translation bias that makes them say "the Word was God". So, I'm saying the original Bible only teaches that Yeshua was special even divine but not God, both as the Word in Heaven and the Word made flesh (which is a good thing given all the plain verses in the Old and New Testaments that this Jesus/triune God theory would break).

If you don't want to investigate this yourself that's fine. No need to keep restating or defending the old mainstream theories here. Anyone can go to another forum to be taught those theories. Here we try to offer better explanations that do not have a verse that easily breaks them.

INDIVIDUAL’S Response:

(Name of the Monitor_________) I do investigate things myself and I think there is some confusion and a lag on the board. I was responding to Addfire’s posts. Yours weren't up when I got on here today. I was just stating an opinion and not trying to reinforce anything old or new. I'm sorry to offend.

MONITOR’S RESPONSE:

Glad to hear it. Yes, I thought you were replying to me. But no, was not offended. Thankfully, you have to do much more than continue to disagree to do that. =)

There is not lag, but there definitely is cross-posting. Someone can be composing a long entry and post it while someone finishes a short entry and posts right after, both to the same post. I think in the future this can be helped by always addressing who you are responding to with their name,.

MY RESPONSE TO THEM:

Whether it was written in Greek or Chinese ready doesn't matter to me. It was brought up, and I addressed his desires. If there is a Holy Spirit, meaning a Personified Intelligent Being, which was to lead us into all truth, which I believe and have experienced, He is there and does assist; then it is to Him that each of us now must turn to.

We could read the opinions of scholars and search all the links pro and con on this matter of the Trinity till the end of time, it will come down to hearing from the only One who would know the truth. Yet if we do not believe what the Son of God promised, the Holy Spirit, if we do not believe that He is the finally authority of what was without a doubt given to us, the Word of God or the Bible as we call it, then your "opinion or my opinion of this" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

I stress the importance of not allowing the devil's scarecrow to keep us out of God's corn field, (another thread I started in this forum) which implies what I am saying, if you cannot hear from God on this matter or any other matter that deals with God and what His Word is saying, and feel you are left to human reasoning alone to come to some kind of conclusion of all these matters, then you will be tossed to and fro as knowledge increases even more, to the point you will be over whelmed with ever increasing conflict and differences that will shut the human mind down. It is called a reprobate mind, meaning humanity using this instrument of the mind in a way God never intended. Thus forever learning never coming to the truth God had originally intended that we come to.

I could have approached this subject matter of the Trinity by simply saying I asked God and He told me about Himself. I can imagine the reaction I would have gotten in this forum or any forum saying such a thing. So, at risk of getting an expected reaction, I have done just that. The answer given was satisfying. All that I have entered into this thread are simply human expressions attempting to convey just what it was that He had said in a personal one on One relationship He and I enjoy.

I would have preferred to have said, as I have done in the past to some I have encountered who asked about the Nature of God and who He is; I simply said to them..."Ask Him." I will leave you all with just that, and will let this be my last entry into this particular thread. If others desire to hear more of what I was told, I will communicate with you on it as The Monitor has suggested outside this forum. It is his forum and he is the admin and he has expressed his view of this matter of the Trinity. I don't feel I could convince him that what I have shared isn't from the traditional Institution view of this matter, having left that Institution 20 years ago, after going through its schools and services for 15 years of my life prior to my leaving it. I have felt as many in here and the Monitor himself has expressed, being totally turn off to what they taught. I at one point threw it all out, only now to come full circle to some things which I once rejected; for one, this matter of the Trinity. I don't want to go through all the links on the web I had to go through, which I am sure The Monito has researched. I don't want to get into trying to "prove" to anyone here or anywhere that what I am saying is true. The Father and I know, and this is enough for me. Paul (addfire)

Blacklotus’ response to me:

Amen

MONITOR’S RESPONSE:

This question of Jesus' divinity or a trinity, I just want to remind people is possibly even less important than getting your sex right. Jesus never made a clear statement on it nor placed any emphasis on his nature unlike he did for his role (Messiah, Lamb of God, etc.) and purpose (teach the Gospel, overcome the devil and sin, etc.). The question seems to bring way too much offense and division among believers for the minimal importance the Scripture places on it. I think the thread is aptly titled "can of worms".

One thing that should be clear to anyone, is that the "spirit leading us into all truth" (John 16:13) is not happening today. Unlike the apostles who had the teaching of Jesus and the spirit given to them (he blew on them and said to receive it), today we have a multiple of teachings, denominations, confusion and division instead. My conclusion is that the promise of the spirit being that active in that way (as a whole) was only for those Jesus addressed it to. They actually had something more than the baptism of John, they had the baptism of the spirit.

You can see someone just like us today in Acts. Apollos was mightily teaching what he knew from studying the OT and without the baptism of the spirit until Aquila and Priscilla found him. It says they had to correct him on points. And then when Apollos came to Corinth, Paul found him and asked if he received the baptism of the spirit and he replied that they never even heard of it! They had only John's baptism, the baptism of repentance. So Paul immediately baptized him and laid hands on him and filled him with the spirit. He spoke in tongues and even prophesied immediately after (Acts 18:24-19:7).

My point is, today we are just like Apollos before he met people taught by the apostles who had "more perfect" understanding and before he met Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit. We only get wet and show our repentance publicly when anyone we can find today baptizes us. Also we have the errors like Apollos (myself included) and need to study the Scripture and find people with better understanding to gain more truth. We cannot expect the spirit to prophesy through us and teach us in that way (not that it cannot happen, just that there is no promise given to us today that it will). That's for prophets and those filled with the spirit (remember how even King Saul prophesied when he was anointed and filled). We have the written Scripture to study. We are not going to get many answers popping into our head by asking God directly when they are already there waiting for us to study and find in the Bible and through others he uses to teach us and answer our questions we make in prayer.

I know in the Churches many verses like that one are misquoted and miss taught all the time. So I'm not here to chastise anyone for propagating those ideas. I'm here to point out the problems with these ideas and show better explanations when I can. Hope this helps and is taken in the humble helpful spirit intended.

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE TO THE MONITOR:

May I ask Who guides you to truth as you read and study your bible? Is it not the Holy Spirit? How else can the Word be truly interpreted? Certainly man cannot correctly reveal inner truths on his own.

Humbly asking,
_________

YET ANOTHER RESPONSE TO THE MONITOR:

I am glad you clarified your position by saying "...not that it cannot happen" with regard to the Holy Spirit. He does teach me. I believe He does teach us, we just don't always have our eyes and ears open. One way He teaches is through the Word, but I also hear Him. Sometimes in my heart and occassionally out loud. I don't think I am any different than anyone else because God is no respecter of persons. I believe My spiritual hearing is better because I do read His Word a lot and I pray a lot. I fast some. I should do this more. In our country Bible study and prayer seem to be rare, but in poorer countries more miracles occur because people turn to God with their whole heart. They don't have the luxury of doctors and insurance like we do. Sadly, many here are ladocian...luke warm. We have not because we ask not. Our relationship to God is like our muscles, flabby if we don't exercise it. I am starting to work on my physical muscles too.

P.S. I test the spirits too and I know when it's authentic because His Word affirms.

MONITOR’S RESPONSE TO THEM:

I can answer your question on how to come to the truth from the Bible, but first I must understand what you mean by "reveal inner truths"...is that the same thing as truths, just the more difficult ones like mysteries? Or do you mean truths that are not there on the plain simple level through piecing literal verses together but are ones that are only hinted at on a typological or dual fulfillment level? An example of this would be: Matthew 2:15 - "Out of Egypt I called my son." This is a quote from Hosea 11:1 that Matthew is applying to Yeshua. If we stuck to a literal meaning only and researched the quote, we would have to accuse Matthew of improperly using Scripture, as Hosea is clearly speaking of the nation of Israel, and not the Messiah. Matthew however, is hinting at the relationship between Israel and the Messiah, in this and other verses he uses. Either the HS or Jesus told Matthew this application of the OT that he wrote down in the NT because there is no way to prove this application or arrive at it from that verse. These hinted truths of course require the Holy Spirit and we find that many of those who had the Holy Spirit ended up writing the Bible!

INDIVIDUAL’S RESPONSE TO THE MONITOR:

Thanks for responding. I'm not sure why I said "inner" truths. I mean ones like your example, hinted truths. How do you know when the bible is literal or not or for which age.

I admit, I have not been studying to show myself approved. I'm trying to change that.

MONITOR’S RESPONSE:

The Bible should be assumed to be literal unless the passage has clues that it is not such as using language of a parable (like Lazarus and the Rich Man does) . As well it will usually make no literal sense literally. Yet, too many people assume the Bible is usually not literal and the minute they cannot make sense of what it plainly says (which is often!), they are off to the races to come up with some allegorical meaning. However, no such interpretation can breaks plain Scripture (John 10:35).

This is just one of several principles that guide me as I study the Bible to find what it means. These principles must be primary, not inspiration or "words of knowledge". The HS indeed is required to inspire and cause the words of God to be written. But once they are written in human language and terms, anyone who understands and follows the rules of language should be able to make sense of what is written to come to its intent. In other words, the HS is not a secret decoder ring required to understand the Bible. If the HS were such a prerequisite to understanding then the Bible would not be rational and coherent to the human mind without it. If that is true then no one can use the Bible to prove anything or convict anyone because most people do not have the HS, certainly not non-believers you want to reach or prove something to.

So the HS may indeed guide us today to a limited extent compared to the apostles who were filled with it and promised it would lead them to ALL truth. Yet it's unfortunately not as simple as asking God to tell you something and blinding trusting it will come to your head or even "proof-texting" it from the bible. You may receive an inspiration but most likely you will come across a person or teaching that answers your question. In either case you have to then be a good Berean (Acts 17:11) and search the Scriptures to prove it. If it is not there supported by the plain text, then you must reject it. Most of time that I test a teaching that people claim the HS or God told them I find that for me it fails this test (e.g. pretrib rapture, the trinity, Jesus is God, a lunar sabbath, someone is a prophet, etc.). Today in a time when prophets are rare if not non-existent, and when the written word is ubiquitous, Scripture must be our authority and benchmark for truth and help us to determine when God is really inspiring us with answers or if it is just our own imagination. One thing that humans are very good at is deceiving themselves.

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE:

Sorry this took so long, but after several hours of study, what I wrote to you last week got deleted because I hadn't logged back in but had simply backed up to a previous page after being off line. When something like that takes place I have to wonder if HaShem was slowing me down, to consider better what my response should be. I thank Him for any time He would have me study more, Bless God!

As to your question, I have found some interesting material. In reading the Hebrew Bible (Tanach), Is. 9:6 reads, "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on His shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called His name Prince of Peace...".

This is compared with the more known version, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Shalom".

So how can there be such a difference in translation I asked? Understanding the evolution of Hebrew helps some. Did you know that the vowel points telling which and where the vowels go was, historically speaking, done only around 1000 years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqqud

In translating this verse myself, I quickly came to some interesting questions. When I start on a verse, I first don't use the vowel points and try to use the word roots and see how they fit. An easy one should be AL or EL, which is assumed to mean God. It, however, can mean God, mighty, strong, shoulder; or unto, against, by, toward, for, from, or within. Another one is SHAM or SHEM, which is assumed to mean NAME. It's root can also mean fame, renown, report; or there, there-in, in it, or thense. The word AB or AV meaning FATHER can also mean chief, principle or desire. With the yod after it, I would think it was 'My Father is-My Desire is', because of the breakdown of Hebrew names like -AVIDAN- 'My Father is Judge".

Already from this, I could read this verse as,"...a son is given to us; and government is on His shoulder; there-in is called Mighty counseling the mighty, Son of Eternity (My Father is Forever), Prince of Peace...".

My point here is not to confuse but to show the importance of corollating all of Scripture together to get to eventual Truth. It's interesting also that the word GIBOR meaning MIGHTY, as stated; it is from the root GEBER which can mean every one, man and man-child. To me this is an important note because I don't believe HaShem used any words casually, but had something to be learned from each.

In the overall search as to whether Yeshua was God on Earth or not, I see Yeshua sitting on the right hand of the Father and in whom the Father will put the nations under His feet. We can explain why He says, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'. Yeshua LIVED the Divine Word which is a living testament to and of the Father, giving us a picture of who He is and what pleases Him. How could we not see Him in Yeshua's life?

Once again I'm sorry this took so long but we also are trying to grasp new concepts that we already thought we understood. My wife and I Bless God that He is not done with us yet.

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE TO THIS:

Thank you for all that research. That does help. Yes, there is much we need to understand and I am still learning. This forum is a great place to learn.

__________________
1 Timothy 1:5
Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
Psalm 122:2
Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem.

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE TO THE MONITOR:

Thanks. Sorry for the delay in response. I have been out of town. I guess in this case we have to agree to disagree. Why would Jesus not leave the "comforter"/Holy Spirit beyond the apostles? He did not say He would take it back after the apostles died.

Your sister in Christ,

RESPONSE FROM THE MONITOR:

Why would he not leave it? Because everyone would become a Christian =)

Did you read in Acts how the church grew and had favor with all the people? That was because of the spirit's power and influence bringing miracles, authority and keeping unity. This is nothing like we see with Christianity today with no power, no authority, and division. Something is missing to cause this change. What is it and why?

Well, God says in the Bible he does not want to convince and save everyone now ("turn and be healed"). He wants a 6000 year plan of man being left to follow his own free will and try his governments. This would not happen if the church was growing continually due to the spirit's power. Instead, those who had the spirit wrote down what they received and left us a NT to study. So we don't need the HS in that way to know God's words and be convicted and follow him. But most won't bother to read and study it and they won't be convicted. By the way, Moses and the other prophets of the OT did the same thing. We notice that the same thing happened when they were done writing it down. The spirit stopped flowing in men like this and it was a dry period with hardly any prophets until John the Baptist and Jesus (and a few others called to prepare the way).

So Jesus did not have to say "by the way this is only for you guys and after that no one else will have it for a while". We can see this from the precedents and from the evidence today. (And again, the Bible was made to be hard on purpose, not to make all these mysteries readily understandable without knowing and understanding the whole Bible). There is no one seen today who can do what the apostles did: baptize you and lay hands on you and cause you to come out of the water and speak in tongues and start doing miracles. Nor today is anyone seen who just lays hands to heal all the sick around them all the time (who is not later shown to be a fraud). There is no evidence I see that the baptism of the HS or the "comforting" level of HS is with us today as the apostles had it or Moses and the prophets had it.

I understand that this is not a "comforting" thought at all and therefore why you would want to disagree with me. Yet may I ask based on what evidence do you conclude I am wrong? Do you see the same HS today that we can read about in the OT and NT among the prophets and apostles, respectively? Also may I politely ask you if you have you read the entire Bible? This is not a challenge and please don't be offended that I ask this. I ask this because most people have not done so. Not doing so makes you miss the context needed to understand the promise of the comforter given to the apostles. The apostles did not have anything new, technically, as it would seem from just reading the gospels alone. They had something that was already given and taken away once before among God's called out ones, once the information the HS needed to get out was written down.

Give it some thought and if you still disagree then that's OK. Thanks for your question and hope this helped.

My RESPONSE: (I am addressing the Monitor’s claim that the NT wasn’t written in Greek)

Always two sides to a coin. Since it came up in this thread, this matter of what language the Bible was written in, here is a thread that show the other side of the coin.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_wr...tm#Chapter_Two

HERE IS WHAT THAT LINK REVEALED:

Chapter Two --

Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak Greek?

Several sects and churches claim that Jesus Christ and
the apostles only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, and that
the original monographs of the New Testament were all
written in Hebrew, and later translated into Greek. They
consider Greek to be a pagan language. What is the real
truth of the matter? Did Jesus speak Greek?

The September-October 1992 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review contains several fascinating articles which bear heavily on the questions posed for this article. For centuries, scholars have believed -- assumed -- that very few Jews of the first century spoke Greek. They have believed, and taught, that ancient Judea was a "backwater" area of the Roman Empire, and the people were ignorant as a whole of the Greek language, although it is admitted that Greek was the "lingua franca" and "language of commerce" throughout the Roman Empire.

Today, however, new archaeological discoveries have undermined the speculations of scholars and brought into clear light the fact that Greek was well known among the Jews, especially the priesthood, leadership class, and the merchant class. In particular, Greek was well understood in "Galilee of the Gentiles," the region where Jesus Christ of Nazareth was raised, and grew up as a young lad. There is no doubt, therefore, that Jesus and the original apostles all spoke Greek -- commonly, as a "second language."

Evidence from Caiaphas' Tomb

First, let us explore the recent findings in Jerusalem of the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Christ. Astonishing as it seems, the burial cave of the Caiaphas family was found, in Jerusalem, by "accident" -- the family of one of the priests who presided at the trial of Jesus. Workers building a water park in 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave, underneath what is now a stretch of road in Jerusalem's Peace Forest. The surrounding area was used as an ancient necropolis during the late Second Temple period (first century B.C.- first century A.D.).

In the burial cave, archaeologists found twelve ossuaries, including one decorated with two six-petaled rosettes within concentric circles. The bone box displays a fluted column on a stepped base and topped by an Ionic capital. Inscriptions on two of the ossuaries found here indicate that this was the burial chamber of the Caiaphas family, and one of the ossuaries may well have contained the bones of the high priest who handed Jesus Christ over to the Romans and Pontius Pilate, after interrogating Him (see Matt.26:57-68).

Writes Zvi Grenhut, archaeologist involved in the discovery and identification of the site, "Reburial in ossuaries appears mainly at the end of the first century B.C.E. and in the first century C.E. Reburial in an ossuary was rare in Jewish tombs after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E." The archaeologist continues:

"But the most exceptional and significant finds were the two ossuaries that, for the first time in an archaeological context, contained a form of the name Qafa', or Caiaphas, a name known to us from both the New Testament and from the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus . . . Suffice it to say that the form(s) of the name Caiaphas inscribed on these ossuaries is probably the same as that of the well-known family of high priests, one of whom presided at Jesus' trial" ("Burial Cave of the Caiaphas Family," BAR, Sept.-Oct. 1992, p.32-35).

One of the ossuaries is simply inscribed "Qafa" (ka-FA). On one the name is more complete -- "Yehosef bar Qayafa" and "Yehosef bar Qafa" (Joseph son of Caiaphas). The ossuary with the more complete forms of the name is the most beautiful one, decorated with a rare and intricate pattern. Says Greenhut:

"There is no doubt that this ossuary is special. Its elaborate decoration must have something to do with the name(s) inscribed on it. Could this be the ossuary of the high priest who presided at Jesus' trial?

"Inside this ossuary, we found bones from six different people: two infants, a child between two and five, a young boy between 13 and 18, an adult woman -- and a male of about 60 years!" (ibid., p.35).

Very few of the people mentioned in the pages of the Bible have been proved to have existed by means of archaeological evidence. Therefore, the discovery of the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who lived in Jesus' time, is of astonishing and paramount importance. It verifies a vital element of the story of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ -- the very existence of the high priest who was the head of the Sanhedrin at that very time. Though the New Testament refers to the high priest by the single name "Caiaphas," the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus refers to him as "Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood." "

A person named Joseph with the nickname Caiaphas was the high priest in Jerusalem between 18 and 36 C.E.," writes Ronny Reich, in a companion article in the same issue of BAR (see "Caiaphas Name Inscribed on Bone Boxes," p.41). In the New Testament he is simply called "Caiaphas" (Matt.26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49, 18:13-14,24,28; Acts 4:6).

Most Jewish Funerary Inscriptions in GREEK!

In the next article in the same issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, the author, Pieter W. Van Der Horst, points out that no less than 1,600 Jewish epitaphs -- funerary inscriptions -- are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. The geographical spread of these inscriptions reveal that Jews were living all over the world at that time, especially the Roman period. In other words, when Jesus' brother James said in Acts 15, "Moses has been preached in every city for generations past and is read in the synagogues on every sabbath" (v.21), he was simply stating the truth. Peter, in his first sermon, enumerates a list of the countries from which Jews came to worship on that first Pentecost of the newly formed Christian Church (Acts 2:9-11).

Van Der Horst goes on:

"One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK -- approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.

"These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately TWO-THIRDS of these inscriptions are in GREEK.

"APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.

"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).

These are shocking statements to all who have believed, and taught, that the Jews as a whole were ignorant of Greek during the time of Christ! Obviously, Judea was not a "backwater" and "boorish" part of the Roman Empire, but a most sophisticated and cultivated part. In fact, the Jewish Temple was acknowledged to be the finest building structure throughout the whole Empire! The Jewish people, because of their widespread dispersion in the Empire, for business and commercial purposes, mainly, spoke Greek rather fluently -- and this knowledge and usage of Greek was also common throughout Judea, as this new "funerary inscription" evidence attests!

This really should not be surprising at all. The Greek influence in Judea had grown very significantly since the days of Alexander the Great, circa 330 B.C. By the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 168-165 B.C., Hellenism had become very strong, and many of the high priests had become "Hellenists," leading to the Maccabean revolt. In successive generations, the Greek influence never abated, particularly among the business, commercial and priestly crowd. Many of the priests, being Sadducees, were greatly influenced by Greek culture and contact.

Writes Van Der Horst further:

"The great rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah (a collection of Jewish oral law) in about 200 C.E., was buried in Beth She-arim; the majority of pious Jews who wanted to be buried with him at Beth She-arim had their funerary inscriptions written in Greek.

"This is not to say Hebrew and Aramaic ever died out completely as languages for the Jews. Especially in the eastern Diaspora, Jews continued to speak a Semitic language. But IN THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES OF THE COMMON ERA, exactly the period when rabbinic literature was being written in Hebrew and Aramaic, A MAJORITY OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE and the western Diaspora SPOKE GREEK" (ibid., p.48-54).

All of this is very interesting, of course. But what about Jesus Christ, and the disciples? Did Jesus also use Greek, commonly, in speaking to the people of Judea? For centuries, theologians and scholars have assumed that He only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. However, this assumption now seems to be far off the mark!

Jesus and the Disciples Spoke Greek!

Another article in the very same issue of BAR discusses this very issue. The author, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, points out that there is no doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic. He shows that although a form of Aramaic was "the dominant language, it was not the only language spoken in Palestine at that time." He continues:

"The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that a TRILINGUALISM EXISTED IN PALESTINE in the first and second century of the Christian era. In addition to Aramaic, some Jews also spoke Hebrew or Greek -- or both. Different levels of Jewish society, different kinds of religious training and other factors may have determined who spoke what" ("Did Jesus Speak Greek?", same issue of BAR, p.58).

During the Babylonian captivity, many Jews came to use Aramaic as their first language, a sister language closely akin to Hebrew. Although Hebrew continued in use in the Temple, and the emerging synagogues, Aramaic was the common language of the people during the time of Christ. The majority of the people apparently did not fully understand Hebrew, for the custom arose to have an Aramaic translation read of the Hebrew Scriptures, following the reading in Hebrew, in all the synagogues. These readings and interpretations were done by a person called the meturgeman. In time, they were written down and were called targumin.

But what about Greek? Says Fitzmyer:

"Greek, of course, was in widespread use in the Roman empire at this time. Even the Romans spoke Greek, as inscriptions in Rome and elsewhere attest. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that THAT GREEK WAS ALSO IN COMMON USE AMONG THE JEWS OF PALESTINE. The Hellenization of Palestine began even before the fourth-century B.C. conquest by Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture among the Jews of Palestine spread more quickly after Alexander's conquest, especially when the country was ruled by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century B.C.), and later under certain Jewish Hasmonean and Herodian kings" (p.59).

A reference to Greek-speaking Jews is found clearly in the book of Acts. In Acts 6:1 certain early Christians in Jerusalem are spoken of as being "Hellenists." The King James Version says, "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians (Hellenistai) against the Hebrews (Hebraioi), because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration" (Acts 6:1). Who were these Hellenists or "Greeks"? The term applies to Greek-speaking Jews, in whose synagogues Greek was spoken, and where undoubtedly the Septuagint Scriptures were commonly used. This is verified in Acts 9:29 where we read: "And he (Saul, whose name was later changed to Paul) spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians . . ." The "Grecians" or "Hellenists" were the Greek-speaking Jews, who had their own synagogues, even in Jerusalem.

Says Fitzmyer:

"Such Hellenistai may have spoken very little, if any, Hebrew or Aramaic. This is suggested by a reference in Philippians 3:5 where Paul stoutly refers to himself as 'a Hebrew of the Hebrews.' Paul also spoke Greek. Thus Hellinistai as C. F. D. Moule has suggested probably is the designation of those Jerusalem Jews or Jewish Christians who habitually spoke only Greek (and for that reason were more affected by Hellenistic culture), whereas Hebraioi designated those Greek-speaking Jews and Jewish Christians who also spoke a Semitic language, probably Aramaic, which they normally used" (ibid., p.60).

What about Jesus Christ, and the apostles? Did they, too, commonly speak Greek as a "second language"?

"The answer is almost certainly yes. The more difficult question, however, is whether he taught in Greek. Are any of the sayings of Jesus that are preserved for us only in Greek nevertheless in the original language in which he uttered them?

"That Aramaic was the language Jesus normally used for both conversation and teaching seems clear. Most New Testament scholars would agree with this. But did he also speak Greek? The evidence already recounted for the use of Greek in first-century Palestine provides the background for an answer to this question. But there are more specific indi- cations in the Gospels themselves.

"All four Gospels depict Jesus conversing with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, at the time of his trial (Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38). Even if we allow for obvious literary embellishment of these accounts, there can be little doubt that Jesus and Pilate did engage in some kind of conversation . . . In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that JESUS SPOKE GREEK at his trial before Pilate" (p.61).

Similarly, when Jesus conversed with the Roman centurion, a commander of a troop of Roman soldiers, the centurion most likely did not speak Aramaic or Hebrew. It is most likely that Jesus conversed with him in Greek, the common language of the time throughout the Roman empire (see Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10; John 4:46-53). A royal official of Rome, in the service of Herod Antipas, a Gentile, would most likely spoken with Jesus in Greek.

In addition, we find that Jesus journeyed to the pagan area of Tyre and Sidon, where He spoke with a Syro-Phoenician woman. The Gospel of Mark identifies this woman as Hellenes, meaning a "Greek" (Mark 7:26). The probability is, therefore, that Jesus spoke to her in Greek.

Even more remarkable, however, is the account in John 12, where we are told: "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:20-21). These men were Greeks, and most likely spoke Greek, which Philip evidently understood, having grown up in the region of Galilee, not the back-water region many have assumed, but "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matt.4:15) -- a place of commerce and international trade, where Greek would have been the normal language of business.

Having grown up in Galilee, it is evident that Jesus and His disciples must have spoken Greek, whenever it suited their purpose to do so. Declares Fitzmyer:

"Moreover, these specific instances in which Jesus apparently spoke Greek are consistent with his Galilean background. In Matthew 4;15, this area is referred to as 'Galilee of the Gentiles.' Growing up and living in this area, Jesus would have had to speak some Greek. Nazareth was a mere hour's walk to Sepphoris and in the vicinity of other cities of the Decapolis. Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee, was built by Herod Antipas; the population there, too, was far more bilingual than in Jerusalem.

"Coming from such an area, JESUS would NO DOUBT HAVE SHARED THIS DOUBLE LINGUISTIC HERITAGE. Reared in an area where many inhabitants were GREEK- SPEAKING GENTILES, Jesus, the 'carpenter' (tekon, Mark 6:3), like Joseph, his foster- father (Matthew 13:55), would have had to deal with them in GREEK. Jesus was not an illiterate peasant and did not come from the lowest stratum of Palestinian society; he was a skilled craftsman. He is said to have had a house in Capernaum (Mark 2:15). He would naturally have conducted business in Greek with gentiles in Nazareth and neighboring Sepphoris" (ibid.).

Did Jesus also, therefore, teach in Greek? Were many of His parables and saying actually uttered in the Greek language?

If the answer is yes, as A. W. Argyle says, "We may have direct access to the original utterances of our Lord and not only to a translation of them."

The Language of Jesus

In the time of Christ, three languages figured prominently in the lives of the people of Judaea -- the common language of Aramaic, the language of Hebrew, used in the synagogues, and the Greek language -- which was commonly spoken and understood throughout the Roman Empire.

Some Aramaic words and expressions are preserved in the Gospels, such as Talitha cum, which means, "Little girl, get up!" (Mark 5:41). Also, Abba ("Father"; Mark 14:36; Gal.4:6; Rom.8:15); Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"; Mark 15:34); Cephas ("Peter"; John 1:42); Mammon ("Wealth"; Matt.6:24, RSV); Raca ("Fool"; Matt.5:22, RSV). In fact, we can be specific and say that Jesus spoke a Galilean version of "western Aramaic," which differed from that which was spoken in Jerusalem (Matt.26:73; compare Acts 2:7).

Jesus could also read and speak Hebrew. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has proved that Hebrew was used quite extensively in certain circles, especially for religious purposes. Jesus stood up and read the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:16-20), showing He could also read and speak Hebrew. Some Hebrew words are also preserved in the gospels, such as, Ephphatha ("Be opened"; Mark 7:34); Amen ("Amen": Matt.5:26; Mark 14:30, RSV).

Writes Robert H. Stein, in Jesus The Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ:

"The third major language spoken in Palestine was Greek. The impact of Alexander the Great's conquests in the fourth century B.C. resulted in the Mediterranean's being a 'Greek sea' in Jesus' day. In the third century Jews in Egypt could no longer read the Scriptures in Hebrew, so they began to translated them into Greek. This famous translation became known as the Septuagint (LXX). Jesus, who was reared in 'Galilee, of the Gentiles,' lived only three or four miles from the thriving Greek city of Sepphoris. There may even have been times when he and his father worked in this rapidly grow- ing metropolitan city, which served as the capital city of Herod Antipas until A.D. 26, when he moved the capital to Tiberias" (Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ, Robert H. Stein, InterVarsity Press,, 1996, p.87).

Stein further tells us that the existence of "Hellenists" in the early Church (Acts 6:1-6) implies that from the beginning of the Church, there were Greek speaking Jewish Christians in the Church. The term "Hellenists" suggests their language was Greek, rather than their cultural or philosophical outlook. Remember, these were Jewish Christians whose primary language was Greek -- they were not Greek philosophers or their followers, but followers of Christ Jesus.

Stein goes on to explain, further:

"Two of Jesus' disciples were even known by their Greek names: Andrew and Philip. In addition, there are several incidents in Jesus' ministry when he spoke to people who knew neither Aramaic nor Hebrew. Thus unless a translator was present (though none is ever mentioned), their conversations probably took place in the Greek language. Probably Jesus spoke Greek during the following occasions: the visit to Tyre, Sidon and the Decapolis (Mark 7:31ff), the conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30; compare especially 7?26) and the trial before Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:2-15; compare also Jesus' conversation with the 'Greeks' in John 12:20-36)" (p.87, emphasis all mine).

The fact that Jesus Christ and the disciples all knew and spoke Greek, as a "third language," in addition to Aramaic and Hebrew, is also indicated and supported by the fact that all the gospels and epistles of the New Testament are written and preserved in the Greek language.

Stop and think! It is very significant that no early Christian documents are extant in Aramaic! ALL the earliest New Testament documents and fragments are in Greek! Papias, a second-century bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor stated that Matthew had put together the "sayings" of Jesus in the Hebrew dialect, Aramaic. But no one has ever seen them. All we have are GREEK manuscripts, and as far back as we go, GREEK is the language of the New Testament! Strange, isn't it, that not one manuscript in Aramaic or Hebrew predates the Greek?

Earliest New Testament Fragments in GREEK!

Scholars have long denied the veracity of the New Testament Scriptures, claiming that the earliest gospels were not eye-witness accounts of Christ and His life, but were written some one hundred years afterward, or about the middle of the second century, and were based on hearsay, myth, fable, and oral stories which had been passed down. Thus many scholars have regarded the very words of Christ, as recorded in the gospels, as "suspect."

Astonishing as it may seem, however, bits of papyrus in an Oxford University library puts the lie to the cherished theories of unbelieving, skeptical scholars! Three scraps of text of the gospel of Matthew, inscribed in Greek, have traditionally been believed to have been written in the late second century. But German papyrus expert Carsten Thiede has published a paper arguing that these fragments kept at Oxford's Magdalen College very likely represent an actual EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT of the life of Jesus!

The London Times reported that the evidence on an early form of writing paper was a potentially "important breakthrough in biblical scholarship, on a level with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947" (Los Angeles Times, Dec.25, 1994, "Gospel Fragments in Britain May Be Contemporary Account of Life of Jesus Christ, p.A42).

Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of the New Testament as historical, believing that the earliest texts were written long after the actual events described. However, careful new analysis by Professor Thiede has dated the fragments to the middle of the first century, thereby indicating that they are evidence that the Matthew Gospel was written only a generation after the crucifixion, or even earlier! Says William Tuohy of the Los Angeles Times, "Parts of the New Testament may have been written by men who actually knew Christ, rather than authors recounting a 2nd-Century version of an oral tradition."

The Magdalen fragments have been at the Oxford college since 1901. Little work has been done on them since 1953 when they were last edited by biblical scholars. But earlier this year, Thiede visited Oxford and inspected the papyrus. He concluded,

"The Magdalen fragment now appears to belong to a style of handwriting that was current in the 1st Century A.D., and that slowly petered out around the mid-1st Century. Even a hesitant approach to questions of dating would therefore seem to justify a date in the 1st Century, about 100 years earlier than previously thought."

The lines on the fragments are from Matthew 26 and include the oldest written reference to Mary Magdalene and the betrayal of Christ by Judas. This fragment, written soon after the death of Christ, in the first century, is written in the Greek language, putting in the trash compacter once and for all the notion that the apostles did not speak or write Greek!

This new discovery by Professor Carsten Thiede, a papyrus expert, will provoke controversy among scholars, if not even dismay and consternation on the part of disbelievers and skeptics. His discovery is strong evidence that the gospel accounts regarding the life of Jesus Christ are accurate, and reliable historical documents.

The Magdalene fragment from the Gospel of Matthew has been identified as coming from a document dated to the middle of the first century A.D. -- during the very lives of the apostles! This fragment is written in GREEK, and could even be a fragment from an original monograph written by the apostle Matthew himself! This amazing new discovery is powerful evidence, obviously, that the writer, evidently the apostle Matthew, was very familiar with the Greek language and was capable of writing intelligently in it.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that some of the disciples of Christ had Greek names -- Andrew, Philip, Simon (a Grecized form of the Hebrew Sim on), Levi/Matthew, a tax collector. It is possible that many Greek terms preserved in the New Testament may be there because they were originally uttered in Greek. One such word is "Sanhedron," which comes from the Greek synedrion. It is of Greek, not Hebrew, derivation, and was the common term used for the Jewish high court.

A word often used by Jesus, "hypocrite," in describing the Pharisees and Sadducees, comes from the Greek word hypokrites, a compound word with the Greek preposition hypo for "under" and krites, meaning "judgment." This form is wholly lacking in Semitic languages. The word hypokrites basically means, "one who answers" (i.e., one who always has an answer, or excuse), but came to mean over time not only "expounder" or "interpreter," but "orator," "actor," stage actor, or one who spoke from behind a dramatic mask on stage. From this it came to mean "pretender," "dissembler." But this Greek word, so familiar in the denunciations of Christ, has no counterpart in Hebrew or Aramaic.

What Difference Does It Make?

What difference does it make, anyway, what language Jesus and His disciples spoke? The answer becomes clear when we realize that there are churches, sects and cults today which make a great issue over the subject of "holy names." These churches will not use ANY name for God or Christ in ANY language except what they call the original "Hebrew" names for God and the Messiah.

According to these people, it is a SIN to mention on one's lips the word Adonai in Hebrew, translated "Lord" in the Old Testament! According to them, the word "Adonai" is a name for Baal the sun-god, and so "Lord" is a title for Baal, the sun-god! It does not seem to matter to them that the Scriptures themselves use this very word repeatedly in reference to the True God of Israel! Similarly, they condemn the use of the Hebrew name El, Elohim, Eloah, and all its derivatives as being PAGAN terms, used of the pagan gods of antiquity. They condemn the use of such words, including any and all translations from them, such as "God," "Most High God," etc. Any titles used for pagan gods they forbid to be used of the True God! Yet the Scriptures themselves repeatedly refer to the true God as El, Elohim, Eloah, etc., in the Old Testament, which translates into English as "God" (Gen.1:1, etc.).

Of course, the fact that God preserved the entirely of the New Testament in the Greek language seems to give these people "fits." They claim Greek is another pagan language, and that such terms as Iesous translated "Jesus," and Theos translated "God" are also pagan names and must not be used. They claim that a vast, overriding "conspiracy" in the first century destroyed all the "missing" Hebrew original documents, and that the New Testament we have today is essentially a forgery -- at least where the names of God are involved!

Proof or evidence of this conspiracy? There is none. Does God Almighty have the power to preserve His name in whatever language He chooses? Of course He does! And it is patently obvious that He choose to preserve the New Testament Scriptures in Greek -- not Hebrew! The fact that Jesus and the apostles all spoke Greek is another nail in the coffin of these "language-worshippers" and conspiracy addicts.

We need not worry about ancient conspiracies to destroy the word, or "name" of God. As Christ said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17); "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Peter wrote that the word of God "liveth and abideth for ever" (I Pet.1:23). The word of God, which He inspired to be preserved, is in all essential and crucial respects, inspired and correctly preserved, to all generations. As Paul wrote to Timothy, "ALL SCRIPTURE" -- and that includes the NAMES AND TITLES USED FOR GOD, in both the Old and New Testaments -- "IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD [Greek, "God-breathed"], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (II Tim.3:16).

Wouldn't it seem awfully strange that if God only intended all mankind to use only the Hebrew names of God and the Messiah, that He Himself divided all mankind into many language groups at the tower of Babel? Wouldn't it also seem strange that this same God, who created mankind, and later gave him different languages (Gen.11), required that in order to receive salvation one would have to know, and pronounce "correctly," the Hebrew name of God and Christ -- and that ONLY THE HEBREW PRONUNCIATION WOULD SAVE ANYBODY?

What kind of God would that be? Generations of man have come and gone, and even the Jews say today that they have forgotten exactly how to pronounce the YHVH or Tetragrammaton of the Old Testament name of God! "Jehovah" is obviously in error, yet many use that name today. "Yahweh" is the more recently "scholarly" pronunciation suggested by many; yet historical evidence indicates that is just an "approximation" of the divine name, and "Yahveh" would be closer to the truth.

Others claim "Yahuveh" is more accurate. And on and on the argument goes -- where it will stop, nobody knows! Some claim "Christ" is a pagan (Greek) term, and that "Jesus" comes from the Greek god "Zeus." Both claims are patently false. "Christ" is merely the English form of the Greek word Christos, which merely means "Anointed" (just as the Hebrew word Moshiach literally means "Messiah"). The name "Jesus" comes from the Greek Iesous, and means "Saviour," just as does the Hebrew original Yeshua.

The important thing in God's sight is not whether we pronounce the syllables and consonants of His name in some precise manner directed by heaven. But rather, whether we love Him with all our heart, mind and soul, and love our neighbor as ourselves. As Jesus Christ said: "For this is the (whole) law and the prophets."

If you would like to study this subject further, then write for our article, A New Look at the Divine Name.

Chapter Three --

Was the New Testament Originally Written in Hebrew?

In what language was the New Testament originally written?
Greek? or Hebrew? or Aramaic? Does it make any difference?
Is our modern Greek New Testament a forgery and a fraud,
foisted upon an unsuspecting world by clever and devious religious
charlatans of the fourth and fifth centuries? Why is our modern
New Testament written in Greek, anyway?

Some today teach that that the Greek names for God, found in the New Testament, are PAGAN! And, furthermore, they claim that the names for God in the various languages around the world are all pagan and idolatrous! To them, only the original Hebrew name is right!

What is the truth? Is the name "Jesus" -- Iesou in the Greek language -- derived from the name of the pagan god "Zeus"? Is the Greek name for God -- Theos -- merely another name for "Baal" and pagan in origin? Is it wrong to use the Greek names for God?

These questions cut to the very heart of the controversy over the "divine names" sects and churches who insist that the names of God in all other languages are pagan in origin and blasphemous to use. Such sects claim that the New Testament itself was originally written in the Hebrew language, and that the Greek manuscripts are frauds -- deliberate attempts by apostates to corrupt the names of God and change the teachings of Christ.

What Is the Evidence?

Is there any evidence to back up such sensational claims? Is the New Testament, as we have it today, a trustworthy document -- or a compilation of lies and forgeries, foisted upon the world by Catholic theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries?

What is the truth? If the Greek New Testament is a fraud, then we need to know it! Our salvation could be at stake -- and certainly it is, if we have believed a "lie"!

The fact is, there is no Biblical evidence that God must be called only by His Hebrew names and titles. There is no Biblical or linguistic evidence that prohibits the use of English names and titles for God.

If Almighty God only wanted us to use the HEBREW names for God, then we would expect that the writers of the New Testament would have inserted the Hebrew names for God whenever they mentioned Him! But they do not do so. Instead, throughout the New Testament they use the Greek forms of God's names and titles. They call God "Theos" instead of "Elohim."

The Evidence of Preservation Itself

Furthermore, even if some parts of the New Testament were written in Hebrew (such as the gospel of Matthew), as some suggest, isn't it amazing that God did not preserve those manuscripts -- instead He chose to preserve His New Testament Scriptures in the GREEK LANGUAGE, with the Greek forms of His name and titles!

Not one book of the New Testament has been preserved in Hebrew -- only in Greek. This is prima facie evidence that one language is not necessarily any "holier" than another, and that it is NOT wrong to use the forms of God's name as they would translate from the Hebrew or Greek.

Those who insist on using only the Hebrew names of God are straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel! Nowhere does the Bible tell us that it is wrong to use the names of God in Aramaic, Greek, or any other language of the earth.

Since Almighty God has preserved the New Testament Scriptures in the Greek language, and many if not all of them were originally written in Greek, it is obvious that God Himself INSPIRED the usage of Greek to write and to maintain and preserve HIS HOLY WORD! Therefore, it is self-evident that the Greek forms of God's names and titles are perfectly all right for us to use, and translations of those forms and names into other languages, including English.

Luke the Beloved Physician

Luke the physician, who wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, was a highly trained physician who evidently was trained in his craft at Alexandria, Egypt. He addresses his gospel to the "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3), as he does also the book of Acts (Acts 1:1). Theophilus, from his name, was undoubtedly a Greek. The gospel of Luke and book of Acts were undoubtedly written by Luke in the Greek language.

Says the New Bible Dictionary: "It is generally admitted that Luke is the most literary author of the New Testament. His prologue proves that he was able to write in irreproachable, pure, literary Greek" (p.758). He was a Gentile. Says this same source, "From the literary style of Luke and Acts, and from the character of the contents of the books, it is clear that Luke was a well-educated Greek."

This evidence, of course, provides further proof that God does not take exception to the Greek forms of His name and titles. He inspired Luke to use the Greek language! And Luke was writing primarily for the Greek-speaking, Gentile world!

The apostle Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He spoke Greek fluently, and used it continually as he went throughout the Roman world preaching the gospel. Only when he was in Judea, and Jerusalem, did he generally use Hebrew (Acts 22:2). In writing his epistles to the churches throughout the region -- Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi -- undoubtedly he also wrote in the Greek language. There is no evidence whatsoever that he originally used Hebrew names for God instead of the Greek forms, as they have been preserved through the centuries.

The Language of the New Testament

Did God Himself inspire the New Testament to be written and preserved in the Greek language, instead of Hebrew? What was the original language of the books of the New Testament?

The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, by Eusebius, provides us with greater insight into the writing of the New Testament. Eusebius records that after Peter first went to Rome, and preached the gospel there, that the people were so enthusiastic that they wanted a written record of the gospel he preached. Writes Eusebius:

"So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in WRITING a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go until they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark" (p.88).

This occurred in Rome. The request was made by Romans. The language Mark wrote in was Greek, which was commonly understood by all learned Romans, as Greek was the universal language of that time.

Eusebius tells us more about the original writing of the gospels. "Matthew," he records, "had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel tow riting IN HIS NATIVE TONGUE, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote. And when Mark and Luke had published their gospels, John, we are told, who hitherto had relied entirely on the spoken word, finally took to writing for the following reason.The three gospels already written were in general circulation and copies had come into John's hands. He welcomed them, we are told, and confirmed their accuracy, but remarked that the narrative only lacked the story of what Christ had done first of all at the beginning of His mission" (p.132).

It is obvious that Mark, Luke and John, therefore, were written in Greek. John's headquarters, at this time, was undoubtedly Ephesus, where he finally died. Ephesus was in the middle of a Greek-speaking region, and John was writing for the entire Church, not just the Jews at Jerusalem.

Eusebius quotes Irenaeus also concerning the writing of the gospels, as follows:

"Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and INTERPRETER of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by him. Lastly, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leant back on His breast, once more set forth the gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia" (p.211).

Obviously these three gospels were written in Greek, as their audience was Greek-speaking, and only the gospel of Matthew is singled out as having been written in Hebrew!

Irenaeus is also quoted concerning the writing of the book of Revelation, and the mysterious number "666," the number of the Antichrist. Irenaeus writes:

"Such then is the case: this number is found in all good and early copies and confirmed by the very people who was John face to face, and reason teaches us that the number of the Beast's name is shown according to GREEK numerical usage by the letters in it. . . ." (p.211).

Again, here is further evidence that even the book of Revelation was originally written in Greek.

The Books and the Parchments

The distinguished scholar F. F. Bruce, in The Books and the Parchments, tells us that Greek was undoubtedly the language of the New Testament. He asserts, "Although Aramaci appears to have been the common language of our Lord and of the earliest Christians, it is not the language of the New Testament. . . .

"The language most appropriate for the propagation of this message would naturally be one that was most widely known throughout all the nations, and this language lay ready to hand. It was the Greek language, which, at the time when the gospel began to be proclaimed among all the nations, was a THOROUGHLY INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE, spoken not only around the Aegean shores but all over the Eastern Mediterranean and in other areas too. Greek was no strange tongue to the apostolic church even in the days when it was confined to Jerusalem, for the membership of the primitive Jerusalem church included Greek-speaking Jews as well as Aramaic-speaking Jews. These Greek-speaking Jewish Christians (or Hellenists) are mentioned in Acts 6:1, where we read that they complained of the unequal attention paid to the widows of their group by contrast with those of the Hebrews or Aramaic-speaking Jews. To remedy this situation seven men were appointed to take charge of it, and it is noteworthy that (to judge by their names) all seven were Greek-speaking" (p.49).

Bruce discusses the differences in style of writing in the Greek language that are found in the New Testament books. He declares:

"Paul, we may say, comes roughly half-way between the vernacular and more literary styles. The Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of Peter are true literary works, and much of their vocabulary is to be understood by the aid of a classical lexicon rather than one which draws upon non-literary sources. The Gospels contain more really vernacular Greek, as we might expect, since they report so much conversation by ordinary people. This is true even of Luke's Gospel. Luke himself was master of a fine literary literary style, as appears from the first four verses of his Gospel, but in both Gospel and Acts he adapts his style to the characters and scenes that he portrays" (p.55-56).

All scholars of repute, today, admit that the original language of the New Testament was Greek, although the writers sometimes drew upon Hebraisms to be translated into the Greek.

Says the New Bible Dictionary: "The language in which the New Testament documents have been preserved is the 'common Greek' (koine),which was the lingua franca of the Near Eastern andMediterranean lands in Roman times" (p.713).

This same authoritative source adds the following information:

"Having thus summarized the general characteristics of New Testament Greek, we may give a brief characterization of each individual author. Mark is written in the Greek of the common man. . . . Matthew and Luke each utilize the Markan text, but each corrects his solecisims, and prunes his style . . . Matthew's own style is less distinguished than that of Luke -- he writes a grammatical Greek, sober but cultivated, yet with some marked Septuagintalisms; Luke is capable of achieving momentarily great heights of style in the Attic tradition, but lacks the power to sustain these; he lapses at length back to the style of his sources or to a very humble koine. . . .

"Paul writes a forceful Greek,with noticeable developments in style between his earliest andhis latest Epistles . . . . James and I Peter both show close acquaintance with classical style, although in the former some very 'Jewish' Greek may also be seen.The Johannine Epistles are closely similar to the Gospels in language. . . Jude and II Peter both display a highly tortuous an involved Greek. . . The Apo- calypse, as we have indicated, is sui generis in language and style: its vigour, power, and success, though a tour de force, cannot be denied" (p.715-716).

There is no evidence at all to suppose that the New Testament was originally written in anything but ancient Greek! Concludes the New Bible Dictionary, "In summary, we may state that the Greek of the New Testament is known to us today as a language 'understanded of the people,' and that it was used with varying degrees of stylistic attainment, but with one impetus and vigour, to express in these documents a message which at any rate for its preachers was continuous with that of the Old Testament Scriptures -- a message of a living God, concerned for man's right relation with Himself, providing of Himself the means of reconciliation."

Now consider this.

The evidence all shows that Almighty God INSPIRED Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the rest of the writers of the New Testament -- even including Peter and James -- of having written their gospels and epistles IN GREEK! Only Matthew's gospel was apparently written first in Hebrew or Aramaic. The other New Testament writers, in using the Greek language, also used the GREEK FORMS of God's name, and the name of Jesus Christ, repeatedly and consistently! Clearly, therefore, God Himself does not disapprove of His name being translated into different human languages!

It is a spurious, specious argument to claim that the New Testament had to have been written in Hebrew, and had to contain only the Hebrew names for God. All the evidence of the manuscripts points otherwise.

Those who deny that the Old Testament faithfully preserves the knowledge of God's name, and who claim the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, utilizing the Hebrew names for God, have no evidence or proof whatsoever to back up their claims. Should we believe them when they have no evidence, but only a "theory"? Should we take their speculations as "fact"? Of course not!

The apostle Paul cautions true Christians, "PROVE ALL THINGS; hold fast that which is good" (I Thess.5;21). We must not allow men to wrap us around their little fingers, and make mincemeat of us, just because they sound convincing and positive in their writings and arguments. The truth is, they don't know what they are talking about. They don't have a leg to stand on. They have placed their personal theological beliefs before the record of history. They have denied the facts in order to keep their own cherished beliefs.

Those who claim that the original manuscripts were not properly preserved in the language in which they were written, seem to think that God Almighty is UNABLE or UNWILLING to faithfully preserve and protect HIS WORD from the corruption and perversion of men!

God is not prejudiced against the Greek language, or Russian, Italian, German, Chinese, Spanish, French, or English. But, as Peter declared: "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34-35). Amen to that!

RESPONSE TO THE FORUM FROM “CW”:

Free will & God's promises

God bless this forum where we have right to agree to disagree .
When Jesus walked & taught , even with all the miracles and the "Living Word" of truth being spoken without being distorted, the high priests & others were out to kill him. How many of the multitude ate of the 2 fishes and 5 loaves and heard the discourse from Jesus and walked away unconvinced & laughing. Free will & faith! Why,(after over 70 years or more) didn't the holy spirit when it could be passed on by the laying on of the hands, convert all the the House of Israel? FREE WILL and Faith is why? They were blinded by the prince of this world just as the people of today.

Because everyone would become a Christian =) I see the smiley face so surely you meant that as a joke. Free will & Faith. If you don't believe the HS is here today to lead you to all truth, then back to college to learn it Again by man, in the flesh where they teach such things. These teachings are why people will not put faith in the truth that "The holy Spirit will lead you to all truth". This is why ye must be born again of the Spirit because the intellect of this world is at enmity with the spirit of God.They war against one another.The ego (flesh) and the spirit cannot understand one another. For this reason you must be born again of the Spirit is why you must come to our Heavenly Father like a Child and He will verify the truth. How many times in scripture does God our Father give such an invitation and promise the results? Only a Child will buy into this because through our intelligence we have studied the "word" taught to us by man, and we have been lied to all our lives.It now becomes clear & is very easy to understand why we are tossed to & fro with every wind of doctrine. We are so CONFUSED by Satan , that only the Holy Spirit of God can straighten us out & lead us unto the truth.

Most people would trade the Holy Spirit for a ham sandwich and a beer today and not even be hungry or thirsty. This is man's intelligent way of thinking about spiritual matters.

How about the mockers on the day of Pentecost who claimed the 12 & others were full of wine and that was why they were speaking in the mockers own native tongue. Why didn't the mockers convert that day & why didn't they become believers. Free will & Faith! They were full of wine, hee haw, what a brilliant deduction for such a miracle.

This world today is in such an Anti Christ moral decline, it is just like a snowball headed to hell. All we need is one more generation of "If it feels good, do it! One more generation of Beatnik & free love hippies (it's the third generation now) in the millennium & even with Satan being bound would prove to be a small harvest of fruit during the millennium, don't you think ? Free will & Faith! This is when Joel says the spirit will be poured out on all flesh, and will every one become a Christian? Look at why it is high time this salvation period has to come to and end. Even the believers don't believe.

You can believe this & take it to the bank: It will not be long until it is against the law to talk about Jesus Christ the Son of God or the Holy Spirit of God.You will loose your head while all others are cheering the be headers.

The answer is: Free will & faith. If you believe the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles and that day, then even if it did manifest itself to such a person they would explain it away with an intelligent worldly answer, maybe even similar to the one given on the day of Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit is here and available to the ones that truly believe God does not change & is the same today and truly desire to be guided to all truth. The truth is that almost all believers today will not take God at his word and just will not accept the invitation of the father. To come as a Child to Him, To knock and he will answer, to ask for our daily bread and not receive a stone. We might sincerely ask but we will NOT stop and be quiet and listen. No, we would rather go to a mans school for our truth, listen to old & new worn out commentaries and get our intelligent mind tossed to & fro with every wind of doctrine! Then we can say "Wow" that man sure is intelligent & knows a lot about the bible and has all the answers. He is a great teacher and gifted, BUT I just don't know if he is correct about this!!!!!!

This is A challenge to all members of the forum.
Please show me how many times in scripture that our Father promises to answer when we knock, to answer our questions, to seek the truth so we will be made free, to reward those that diligently seek him, to ask and receive?
The Holy Spirit does not have dry periods , but the bride of Christ does & is almost dead and headed back to dust right now, because no one will drink of the living waters flowing from inside. They would rather listen to commentaries taught by man.
2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
If you want to be a Baptist minister, I suggest you don't go to Oral Roberts University or Brigham Young University, where I am sure their commentaries on the "Word" will differ .
My $2.00 and 2 cents worth,
Your friend in Christ, CW.

RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL:

Assuming I am thinking the same way ______ and CW are thinking, we have some assurance from 1Cor3:16. Also, before I became a Christian, I had happiness, fun and pleasure, but I do not believe I had, Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control. The message of the cross was foolishness to me when I was perishing. Now it is not foolishness to me. I assumed the Holy Spirit did some work in me. Hope my two cents worth is helpful to someone.

RESPONSE FROM THE MONITOR:

To clarify, I did not say the HS is not here today. That would be like saying God is not here today. No, the HS is working today in us all. When we pray for something, I'm sure the HS inspires us to actions to help what we pray for come about.

What is not here is the baptism of the HS (BHS). It is the BHS that makes for all readily available power, miracles, healings, resurrections, etc. we see in the OT and NT among the prophets and apostles. It is the lack of the BHS that makes it necessary to pray fervently today for all these supernatural blessings. This is what makes them that much less common. It's not just a matter of laying on hands, but requires the prayer of faith of multiple elders at times as James 5 instructs for healing.

Also the suggestion that he must give the BHS because God said to ask, seek and knock (A.S.K.) for everything is forgetting something: You can A.S.K. for the kingdom to come today, or the rapture to happen, or God to put Satan in prison today and you will not get it! There is a time in his plan for everything and we must A.S.K. according to his will.

CW, if you have the B.H.S. then I would be pleased to fly you down here to lay hands on me and my family so we can all be healed of our ailments and also walk in that power ourselves. If you cannot do this as the apostles could, then I suggest that you have only have the HS working with you as I do, but you do not have the BHS that we are discussing in this thread.

Let's not make this another endless debate on the HS. You've stated your disagreement and position on this topic before in many other threads. There is no need for you or anyone to jump in this thread with the standard view you hold here as I'm not trying to convince anyone of a lie here or hurt anyone. I was only answering questions to newer people on this topic who want me to explain my position.

As far as the Greek NT, I think the same thing applies. The status quo is that the NT is Greek. _______ made an assertion based on that assumption which I wanted to point out is a highly debatable assertion these days. No need to keep trying to prove what most people believe to counter what I say. I'm only sharing things to help us all come to truth, not to convince anyone of my position. The best evidence to use for determining the language of the NT is the NT itself. The internal evidence is very strong for a Semitic origin. That article posted used lots of external evidences that do nothing to negate the internal evidences in the text itself.

If people have proof that one of my evidences or points I make is in error, that I would be more interested to hear than just more disagreement or arguments for other conclusions about the BHS or origin of NT.

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE:

There is no one seen today who can do what the apostles did: baptize you and lay hands on you and cause you to come out of the water and speak in tongues and start doing miracles

I don't think I understand what this means about tongues. Does this mean they came out of the water and spoke different languages? If that were true, then yes the Bible could have been written in any language.

I don't know if this is true about being the oldest written Bible but they are claiming it is. Why was it separated and kept out of circulation for so many years is what I wonder. They still don't have the English translation

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Why does the Codex Sinaiticus contain all this info but the Codex Vaticanus did not? Codex Sinaiticus was handwritten by four scribes.

Quote:

On the Codex parchment leaves is written around half of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, the whole of the New Testament and two early Christian texts not found in modern Bibles. Most of the first part of the Bible manuscript — containing most of the so-called historical books, from Genesis to 1 Chronicles — is missing and presumed to be lost.

Quote:

The 4th-century book, written in Greek, has been digitally reunited in a project involving groups from Britain, Germany, Russia and Egypt, which each possessed parts of the 1,600-year-old manuscript.

RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL OFF TOPIC:

Wind Beneath Our Wings

Addfire,

I wanted to thank you again for sharing your special photo story.
I said in my first post that it was beautiful, but it is much more than just that.
It is another one that brings tears of joy to my eyes, goes very deep and touches my spirit.

RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL TO MONITOR’S REMARKS:

I DID think you were saying the HS is not here today. I had raised eyebrows and dropped jaw but refrained from expressing it.

Thanks for clarifying that very important point. In answer to your question, I have read the NT several times, parts of it many times. I have read about 2/3 of the OT and some of it several times. I realize the more I read and study and pray about it, the more will be revealed. I also believe the HS will guide me to these truths. I had attended a family member's funeral a few days ago and the HS was there as the comforter. If it isn't the HS, what/who is it that gives us this peace, this inner comfort when we mourn and are sad?

Your sister in Christ,

RESPONSE FROM THE MONITOR:

Great, making progress!

Comfort comes in many ways to us in those situations. Usually it is our own mind or other's words we remember and sometimes yes the HS inspires us with comforting thoughts. In the same way, our mind, and friends, along with the HS, guide us to truth as we make the effort.

But we are not the group specifically addressed by Jesus in John 16 and promised to have "The Comforter" sent to them after he left and guiding them into ALL truth. We cannot rightly reference this promise and claim it without the evidences they had after they received it as Acts records. The apostles were trained and sent on a mission to evangelize and spread the words the Comforter directly gave them which ended up in the NT.

Yet, this does not mean the HS is not around and does not comfort and guide us, just that it is not seen today to the same degree.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE:

You stated the Holy Spirit is not seen today to the same degree. This is true. The Holy Spirit is not SEEN today in the same degree, but He is here 100%. I can't explain it better than Charles Wade's statement, "The Holy Spirit does not have dry periods , but the bride of Christ does & is almost dead and headed back to dust right now, because no one will drink of the living waters flowing from inside." We are a double minded people and quench the Holy Spirit and I am guilty.

I'm trying to change that.

Your sister in Christ,

RESPONSE FROM THE MONITOR:

Yes the HS is always here just as God is. Charles is right on that about the bride being lukewarm (Laodicean). But I don't care how much you don't quench the HS today, you still are not going to be moving around like Peter or Paul causing people to be healed with just your shadow passing over them. So if the HS at 100% among believers is defined as what we see in Acts, then we are maybe at 3% today =).

RESPONSE FROM THIS INDIVIDUAL DIRECTED TO ANOTHER IN THE FORUM:

another can of worms

“Q”, you started this. Where are you anyway? Just teasing. We all know there are many theories and doctrines out there on this subject as well. It's hard not to include it in this thread. As a former Laodicean I sure don't have the answer. Again I quote “Q”, this is a "can of worms..." .

Your sister in Christ,

ps I know this is serious, but I do not have any answers. I must study to show myself approved (or something like that).

ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE:

I know that it is difficult on the computer to bring across our feelings, and it is very easy to be misunderstood. Nevertheless, Now that we are of one mind, and all agreed that the Holy Spirit still is with us today. I would also like to say something about this. If I had any doubt that the Holy Spirit was not here today leading me, then I would rather not be alive.

I do understand what The Monitor is saying. He is right when he says that kind of baptism in the Holy Spirit is not around today. I agree fully. If it were, we would be seeing great revivals. I agree that the Prophets and Apostles in acts where a select group, to receive all of the gifts of the Spirit. Having said that, I also believe that since that time, others have, and others will, receive the same baptism as them. I believe that it is there for all of us, when we are ready, willing, and able to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the same manner that they did. Until that time comes, we shall have to keep growing in the measure of the Spirit, which He is giving us. 1Cor.12:3 Wherefore, I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God: calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit. He is filling our cup daily, and we must persevere until it overflows. For the moment although we all have the desire to receive more, we will have to make do with 1Corinthians 12: where we read that not everyone has ALL the gifts, until the Father is ready to use us in such a way. Tim you have a wonderful gift of the spirit. You are doing a great work for the Lord; if that is not a gift then I will eat my hat. All of the work that you have put into your book and this forum has meant so much to many people. Who can deny that it is the work of the Holy Spirit? One day your Father shall say: Well done my son.

I was born in Wales in a small mining village; my grandfather was a mineworker. My father and all of his brothers had to go into the mine when they were 12 years old. My father ran away from home and joined the Army, so that he could study medicine. His desire was to help others. My Grandparents saw the Holy Spirit fall on Wales in 1904. Of course, I only know these things from stories told. Some say that the revival in Wales was even bigger than at Pentecost in the time of Jesus. Wales was going through a very dark time; many had turned away from God. A few labored fervently in prayer for revival. God answered their prayers and chose a very humble young man, to bring about this revival. Evan Roberts was not an experienced Evangelist, not even a good preacher, just a humble young man with a desire to follow the Lord. The revival was so great that even the donkeys in the mines were confused. (See the link below), there you can read for yourselves what God still can do today.

Marilyn we are all in the same place, we have the gifts of the first fruits of the spirit, and now we are longing for more. The more I learn the things of the Lord, even more I realize that I know so little. The Bible is a Spirit filled, never ending well of information. If we had to do things in our own strength, then we soon would be lost. I often feel weak, and guilty that I do not do more. Luckily, we also have each other to help us on our journey with the Lord. I am so thankful for all of the information on this forum. And all of you brothers and sisters who are helping me on my way. I pray that the Lord will bless each one of us, and that we will be prepared to receive a great outpouring of his Spirit.

Love to you all.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk...shrevival.html

RESPONSE FROM ME:

Matt. 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hyocrites; for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in."

Great text, one which is still going on today. In what way are "we" barring that which should be going on even today, "if" it appears we in this forum, so far, are in agreement with, that no doubt, the Holy Spirit defineity is still with us. Then why isn't the Holy Spirit through us working at this 100% level that has been mentioned; why are we only at a 3% level?

We can blame the Institutional church, which again, we all to some degree would agree. "YET"...getting over our bitterness towards this past experience, why aren't we now at a great capasity of expression of the Holy Spirit working through our lives?

I have had to face this; at one time I had asked this question and got an answer as to why I wasn't anywhere near where these "special" men in the past were. First I had to get past the old religious idea that they were any more special then we are. My old Baptist demonination threw me out for even thinking such a thing...what?....that I could entertain having this same Holy Spirit manifesting anything these did and greater. I used to argue that it wasn't me saying this but the Son of God, who, without a doubt did say that the things He did we would do and greater. They gave me the same answer suggested in this forum..."they were special and I was not."

Well, in what I have called "my experiment"...I sought to see if what they were saying, that I wasn't "special," was true or not. I keep this experiment to myself now, because over the years I have thought to share it in other forum and got the laughs, rejections and usual comments coming from a secular and religious world of those who either do not believe it possible or thought it was only for these "special" people mentioned in the Bible.

I remember asking, "What are the greater works?" We know Jesus walked on water, what could be greater than that? Imagine someone doing that today...we can't, other than David Copperfield, and we know, that this is just an illusion. So, what are we looking for? What "signs" would people today accept as credentials that you are baptize in the Spirit? We all laugh at what we see on T.V. these evangelists and all. Forget them for the moment, and ask yourself, what signs are you looking for? Proof?? If the Holy Spirit did desire to use us, would we accept it, or would our embittered minds against others bar Him from working what I am sure He desires to do even in this generation.

Can I, personally, say that this isn't happening...my barring the Holy Spirit from working in my life? I can't answer that for anyone in this forum; I can only take a look at my personal life and discover that. Have I? As I said, I keep it to myself. You won't find me up on a platform showing off with T.V. camera running. Think!! Did those of old, who had the Spirit working through them, want the attention of the public? Think...when they did get a message to share from the Spirit, they would usually run into the town, drop their message then get out of Dodge...why? You know the answer, Matt. "wherefore you be witnesses unto yourselves, that you are the children of them which killed the prophets."

I have come to know that if you don't want to get killed in one form or another...you go in, do what you are told to do, then get the hell out of dodge. Don't hang around to find out if what you are saying is well received; 9 out of 10 times it won't be. This for me has been the usual experience of asking for this Holy Spirit to use me. Just saying this in a forum could get you killed in this day and age. You get labeled with all the wack-a-doos that are out there. All the "devil's scarecrows" to keep you and anyone from ever manifesting what God desires to do through His Holy Spirit in this generation.

So, I will go on as I have been doing over the years, saying what I feel has to be said, then getting out of dodge. You can kind of understand why these "special" people lived outside the city walls. Well, I go a step further, I live outside the box. Addfire








Brief comment: What CW just shared is right on and my personal experience. I see that slowly what the Spirit desires to share with us all is coming out in the above comments. As for my part in this thread and this forum, I feel it is coming to a close and not because it says I have 47 days to subscribe. I have avoided areas of debate concerning end times. Do I agree with all that is said of THE MONITOR in his book and this forum...No. Am I lead to give different views? Not at this moment. I have been lead, whether agreed on or not, to share the importance of Hearing the Voice of God through His Holy Spirit and stressed, as in this particular thread, the view of who the Son of Man was while in this experience, the Son of God. To me, this is no longer a debatable area, it either is, or it is not. These are foundational areas, if removed, throw out as I have illustrated of throwing out the Baby with the bath water, if removed the whole structure of God's word falls. So, I will continue to share as lead, than leave when told to leave. Addfire

RESPONSE FROM THE MONIOR: (Here is where he directs his thought to me.)

Thank you, (NAME OF INDIVIDUAL) for your comments. It's tough to stand alone.

Addfire, if the confusion and division in Christianity tells us anything, it tells us that what is "foundational to our faith" is highly debatable! You and much of Christianity say that the nature of Jesus (as God) and being "spirit-filled" is "foundational". I say you cannot find either of these two stressed in the consensus of Scripture. Prophets and apostles had the BHS, but we are not them and their promises and commissions are not ours.

At this point, I won't tell you to leave. I do ask you to pray about and consider putting your spirit-gained ideas in the back seat and put the whole Scripture in the front seat. That is actually the mission statement of this forum. Why? Scripture tells us to do this!

Quote:

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

In other words, we can't trust the thoughts in our head as from God but must confirm every word by Scripture, the whole Scripture. This does not just mean proof-texting from selected NT verses. It means using only doctrine that fits all 66 books, with no clear literal verse breaking them.

When we throw out ideas that do not fit Scripture we do not break the whole structure of Scripture, we actually uphold God's truth. Of course you think your idea fit Scripture. So does most of Christianity. I don't mind that. I do mind when you suggest that my opinions are throwing out the word of God. There is no need for insults like that. If we disagree let's disagree without suggesting the other is apostate and accept they too are following God with a clear conscience to the best of their knowledge as well. OK?

MY RESPONSE TO THE MONITOR:

(Name of another individual) does make some good points where he reveals how just posting in a written forum things can get misunderstood. I have experienced this many times, then sought to resolve it by phones calls where one could express feelings behind their comments. We have smiley face etc, yet they are limited in this area.

So, still attempting using words, I will attempt to go a little deeper to let what appears as my "personal" judgments of you The Monitor or anyone else in this forum revealing that this isn't the case.

(I'm really smiling)

If I were upset, I would express as best as I could in words here, saying that what others were saying was upsetting me. I have spent many years as you The Monitor have done in searching the totality of scriptures to find what is the truth beyond what I was taught in the years in the institutional church setting. I don't know if I can convince you that I have done this, or you to me. I can't, so to speak, walk in your shoes or you mine. We just have to at one point at least give one another the credit that this is what has happen. I believe you have done this. Where you are in this is revealed in your book and post in this forum. I personally haven't even scratched the surface of where I have been and seen, and feel that this is probably where it could end up.

I have mentioned that I have come Full Circle and at present believe certain matters and will not go around again, or debate these matters further. You all have at least some ideas of my view of just one matter,that of the Trinity shared in this thread. I only gave highlights of this matter. If it appears that I have gone full circle, meaning left something to only come back to the same conclusion, then you would be correct. Yet if you think I have not gone this full circle and really never left it, thus still a victim of Institutional church teaching, you would be wrong. I can't prove this any further without you personally knowing me beyond this forum, anymore then I can say I know you The Monitor personally beyond this forum.

As for what you said:

I do ask you to pray about and consider putting your spirit-gained ideas in the back seat and put the whole Scripture in the front seat. That is actually the mission statement of this forum. Why? Scripture tells us to do this!

I have been doing just that. You give the idea that what I am claiming to be "Spirit-gained ideas" is something like those in groups like the Mormon, where they have a new book which clearly does break all scriptures which we all would agree. I have not been offering such a thing. I have, to the best of my abilities attempted to show how what I have gained, these Spirit-gained ideas, do fit with what is written in scriptures, which you personally do not agree with. Putting aside the subject matter of this thread, other matters I have been sharing in no way breaks with scriptures as far as I am concerned. Again, I know you personally do not agree with matters like hearing God speak to us today in the way that I have expressed it in the thread, "The Devil's Scarecrow." In the section called "Dimensional overlays" and "The Now" I don't recall you commenting at all. At least both of these two thread in no way break with scriptures as I revealed.

So, where do I go from here? If, what I have posted does not line up with what your guide lines of this forum states, then you as its Monitor have the right, in that sense, to delete them all. If this is the case, then do just that. No hard feelings on my part. I will then simply go on as I know I will do when lead as I know I am lead to do. Paul (addfire)

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE:

What I Believe

Yes, I had to state what I believe, just as CW stated what he believes.
I believe he is right on - and with all due respect to you The Monitor, I do not mean that as an offense to you; I know you also state what you believe, which is what all of us feel we must do.

__________________

Quote:

Jam 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER:

Can we agree that we are argueing over things that we all view through a glass darkly? No matter how much we think we know the answer, the chances are that we are all a bit out on our accuracy on the truth (some more out than others... which doesn’t matter because we are all SEEKING the truth in earnest).

To quote Dylan...'The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind... the answer is blowing in the wind'.

RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER:

No argument intended - That is one thing I try to avoid at all costs.
I don't know if I could sleep nights if I, or at least at times, did not state what I believe. That's just me
Love,

__________________

Quote:

Jam 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER:

I am not arguing either, just posting my own thoughts. I am sorry If I have offended anyone, it is not my intention. I think I shall never understand everything until the Lord returns.
I don't think it is important if we care what the other believes, but it is nice to share what we believe, I think that way we can learn from each other.

Addfire,

I am a girl, well an older girl, but still a girl

Love you all

RESPONSE FROM CW:

Faith as in a grain of the Mustard seed

TO THE MONITOR:, I don't think we are not that far apart on this issue.
It takes great faith to do healing. That is why for the second time I refuse your offer for the plane tickets. To my recollection , I have never in any of my post brought up the subject or claimed the baptism by the spirit. You always interject that in some way and offer me a ticket to Costa Rica to perform healing s. BUT there are some that have that faith. Just as reading (name of individual) post and link. No ,I have never seen it, but that doesn't mean that all reports just like (name of individual) link are LIES.
BTW here before the Disciples were empowered with the HS they did not always heal either as you can see by Jesus reply to why they had not healed this person.Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
This is the same reason I can not heal. My faith is like the grain of a mustard seed. Do you know any body that has the faith to remove mountains. Well, me neither.
Do you discount all things as lies like people being raised from the dead to day and do you discount this link about What happened in Wales that (name of individual) has posted.
Well I believe some of the reports and believe that this happened in Whales also.
So ,you see ,we are not that far apart on this issue,if apart at all.
You look farther than this forum and you just might get a taker for those plane tickets, if your faith is great enough to actually send the tickets. You have to play a role in the healing also and IMHO just offering plane tickets sounds more like a sarcastic remark or a challenge to prove some one wrong to me and not a display of faith.
The gift of this power is here today and waiting for an occupant that has the faith to take the ball and run with it and I am sure that is what we are trying to agree on.
Your friend in Christ, CW.

MONITOR’S RESPONSE:

No argument was happening here. Oops, I guess I'm arguing with you about arguing...

CW….no sarcasm intended. I'm serious. I'd pay for anyone with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to come and heal my household and lay hands on me. The point is the reason you are not getting that offer and my ticket money is unclaimed is because nobody is seen with it today, sadly enough.

MY RESPONSE TO ALL:

TO THE MONITOR... all joking aside, you don't need to fly anyone to you, someone is already coming to Anoint you there in Costa Rica. Would you welcome him? Here is his link...don't laugh, you asked for it. They are calling it his FIRE CONFERENCE. Put him to the test.... Addfire.

http://www.bennyhinn.org/events/even...ls.cfm/eid/836

MONITOR’S RESPONSE TO ME:

My response is: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY

(Seriously, he has been put to the test by thousands already and been exposed as a fraud. Have you not researched him online? I sure wish you were joking...)

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE:

The few times I've accidentally seen parts of Benny Hinn, I had to laugh. There were often people supposedly being overcome with the Spirit, yet the camera crew always seemed to be immune. I suppose that they may have been overcome with a spirit, but not THE SPIRIT. "Fire Conference" may actually be a pretty good name after all....

__________________
"The only difference between mediocrity and excellence is Effort!" Mike Walton

MY RESPONSE:

But seriously, if God could perform through Baalm's ass, He just might surprise Benny Hinn and do something "for real" and give The Monitor what he would pay someone to perform, saving him the expense of plane tickets. Benny Hinn could use the wake up as we all know. Research him? You don't have to look far to see through his act. So, I was serious, it would shock Benny Hinn as I am sure it would The Monitor. The question would be as CW asked The Monitor, are you serious. If so, don't get picky over the vessel. Remember even King Saul got shocked when he went to investigated the prophets and he, of all people, prophesied among the prophets. I Sam. 10

ANOTHER’S RESPONSE TO ME:

Addfire,

Oh, thank goodness!
I thought I was about to insert my foot into my mouth - I did not know if you were serious or kidding

MY RESPONSE:

Oh, I was serious, just not as it may have appeared. Strange that Benny Hinn will be in Tim's area in Aug 2009. I would go just for the entertain and see it God might do what I am sure He could do...it would shock everyone...even the camera men

One more comment before I call it a night. We all know what we share about this man Benny Hinn bears truth. I didn't share what I shared as a personal judgment of the man. We all know we are commanded to not judge before the time and also that God is able to up root the like of these. We have seen it done with other T.V Evangelists...they had their day. As it says, some men’s sins precede them, others will follow after. Wood, hay and stubble or gold, silver or precious stones...the focus is on the Foundation not necessary what may or may not be built on this foundation. We all in this case stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Not meaning eternal damnation, but meaning rewards or lost. It always ends with the Holy Spirit's call on the matter and our being able to discern what He is saying.

FINAL RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL:

I'm still laughing at what Addfire said about God ministering through Balam's ass. That is one ministry I havnt heard of or come across before!!

I know about his donkey (Ass) rebuking him for beating him up.

Sorry if me laughing at this offends anyone... but it was funny (I think God thinks so too).

Well, needless to say, that was my last entry into this particular forum, which is a sad ending. The Monitor of that site never saw what was being offered. About 5 others did see and left the site with me. We keep in touch and go on with the leading of the Holy Spirit in our live.

This gives you some idea of what you are up against sharing the truth on the web. I spent months of this site and to say that it didn’t hurt to have not reached more would be a lie. That’s the price of sharing the truth. I would have it no other way. Paul C. Woodward

CHAPTER 27

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

Here are some concluding remarks which I never entered into this forum mentioned in chapter 26.

IN RESPONSE TO THE REMARK, “JESUS NEVER SAID HE WAS GOD.”

The question isn’t expression, but possession; something the Greek text clearly says numerous times, that Jesus possessed Deity, yet in the Mode of the Son of Man, set aside the independent expression of this possession of Deity. Doing so became the needed man to satisfy God’s demand that man pay for his rebellion. One man got us into this mess, thus and injustice; one man gets us out via an equally unjust act, “He who knew no sin became sin that we might become the righteousness of God.”

If Jesus, in this Mode of bondslave, were ever to use that which He clearly possessed, Deity, if He used this independent from God the Father, His position as a man would have ended and the needed sacrifice stopped. He clearly had to be “man,” yet in His possessing Deity, part of the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thus the term the God/man.

Taking this further, notice this; If Jesus ever did express His possession of Deity, it would not have been His expression or words, but the Father’s words describing the Son through the Son. Jesus of His own accord never did this, yet the Father did it over and over again, voicing this through the Son. You see it when Jesus said over and over again, “the words I speak, they are not my words but my Father’s. Again Jesus expressed in this way, “If you cannot accept me, accept the works I do, for these are my Father’s works. So, not only the words but also His works were not His but those of His Father from whom Jesus never acted independent from; thus truly a man “liken to us.” You clearly see Jesus stick to the Mode of being as bondslave, meaning that it was something He chose to be, and doing this for the deliverance of us all.

Could Jesus have acted of His own accord using that which The Father expressed that the Son possessed, Deity? Yes, He could have, yet, as I’ve said before, if He did He would have left this Mode of being a man, thus what was to be accomplished would have failed. Did He ever express a desire to leave this Mode as a man? Yes; in these words, “How long do I have to be with you oh faithless generation!” Also seen in the Garden, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass; never the less, NOT MY WILL, but YOUR WILL BE DONE. (Remain in the mode of man, taking the judgment for one man “ADAM” who caused us “ALL” to be under the wrath of God, thus the Son of Man took that wrath upon Himself for us all.)

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO THE REMARKS THAT THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW AND NOT GREEK.

The Monitor’s link, referring to Rabbinic Scholars who make the claim that the original New Testament was not in Greek but Hebrew, makes you wonder why they would make such a claim on so little evidence. If you could see through their argument and see the real reason they “have to” say this, you would understand. The few references I shared in the forum were only the tip of the iceberg of evidence from in the Greek New Testament that clearly brings out who Jesus really was and what He possessed, Deity.

If one were a Greek Scholar, they would have to agree, whether or not they wanted to or not, that the Greek grammar and rules of that govern translation from Greek to English clearly reveal that Jesus, expressing the words of God the Father, reveal Him to be the Son of God, in possession of Deity as a man, yet not expressing it while in the Mode of a bondslave. They may not believe what is rightfully translated, but would at least have to admit, that what Jesus was saying the Father said of Him was just that, Deity.

These so-called scholars making the claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew are only seeking to find a way around this, thus have to come up with things that attempt to say that the original language wasn’t Greek. If they cannot, then what the Greek New Testament claims “STANDS” and Jesus did possess Deity.

CHAPER 28

THE JESUS ONLY CULT DOESN’T TEACH THE TRINITY

The following article gives a clear view of what “The Jesus Only” cult teaches. It also goes by the name of the “Oneness Pentecostal Denominations.” This article comes from “CRI Christian Research Institute, Box 500, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693.”

The "Jesus Only" or "Oneness" Pentecostal Movement

One of the most subtle forms of doctrinal deviation ever to infiltrate the Christian Church was known as Sabellianism (named after Sabellius, a Latin theologian of the third century). Sabellius taught that God was one Person, not three, and that He appeared in "modes" or "manifestations" - as the Father, as the Son, or as the Holy Spirit. For Sabelluis, however, the Father alone was truly God, the Son and the Spirit being repetitions of Himself in other "modes" or "manifestations." Sabellius was condemned for his views, his modalistic theology refuted, and the heresy that he spawned was rejected by the early Christian Church.¹

REBIRTH OF AN OLD HERESY
In 1913, a new form of Sabellianism or modalism was born during a "world-wide" Pentecostal camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, just outside Los Angeles, California. R. E. McAlister, a Canadian evangelist, exhorted during a baptismal service that the apostles baptized not in the Triune formula (i.e., in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), but in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. John G. Scheppe was so inspired by this exhortation that he spent the night in prayer. "In the early hours of the morning he ran through the camp, shouting that the Lord had shown him the truth on Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ."² Scheppe's "revelation" became the impetus for McAlister and Frank Ewart, a Pentecostal pastor at the camp meeting, to discuss Matthew 28: 19 and Acts 2:38 in great detail. After studying these and other passages (such as Matthew 17 :8; John 10:30, 14: 13; Philippians 2:9; Colossians 3:17, etc.), Scheppe and his followers adopted the modalistic interpretation of the Godhead, which, unlike Sabellius, made Jesus, instead of the Father, the one God. To them, Jesus was the one who manifested Himself as the Father, as the Son, or as the Holy Spirit. Thus, the historic Trinitarian theology was repudiated as unbiblical.

David A. Reed makes this comment concerning the impact of this "revelation" in his doctoral dissertation on "Oneness" Pentecostalism.

The new teaching had caught the fragile Pentecostal movement by surprise. It was spreading fast. With an openness to "new truth" already established by the revival, it was difficult to turn it away immediately.³

Thus, the early leaders of this " Jesus Only" movement (Scheppe, McAlister, Ewart, Glenn A. Cook, and Garfield T. Haywood), within a short period of time, had enough proselytes and churches to start new denominations such as the United Pentecostal Church and The Church of Jesus Christ (for a more complete list, see our "Oneness" Pentecostal Denominations in the United States appendix). The leading apologists for the movement were C. Haskell Yadon, John Paterson, A. Mclain, and Nathaniel A. Urshan.

ONE PERSON IN THE DEITY?
Nathaniel A. Urshan, a speaker on the "Harvestime" radio program of the United Pentecostal Church, enunciates the doctrine of the unipersonality of God in his booklet entitled, Consider Him, as follows:

My friend, many of those who do not understand the interpretation of what we are representing, make a terrible misake when they say we deny the Fatherhood of God. They do not understand the great truths we are trying to resurrect in this hour. I want to tell you what that great truth is. We do not believe in three separate personalities in the Godhead, but we believe in three offices which are filled by one person.

The most serious weakness in the modalistic system of the " Jesus Only" movement is its failure to recognize the subject-object relationship among the members of the Godhead. All reality in the realm of personality is based upon this commonly-accepted fact. For, if there is no object in a given conversation, then there is no meaningful dialogue. One is merely talking to oneself!

If Jesus alone is God, and the Father and the Holy Spirit are only "manifestations" of Jesus, many passages of Scripture are meaningless and even deceptive. Did Jesus imitate His Father's voice in Matthew 3:17, or the Spirit's command in Acts 13:2? Who said, "Thou art my (subject) beloved Son (object), in whom I (subject) am well pleased" in Mark 1.11? Where, might we ask, was the Son when the Father said, "Listen to Him" (Matthew 17:5 NIV)? Where was the Father when the Son said, "I (subject) have brought you (object) glory" (John 17 :4 NIV)? The very existence of an "I" - "you" relationship denotes personality; and the followers of the "Jesus Only" movement must either ignore or pervert these, and many other passages, to destroy the personal Ego of the members of the Holy Trinity. Our Lord's great plea upon the cross, "Father, forgive them:' becomes a hollow sham; His resignation to the Father's will, an illusion - "Yet not as I will, but as you will" (Matthew 26:39 NIV); and His final words to His Father on the cross, "into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46 NIV), a pathetic fraud, if there is not a genuine Person known as the Father, distinct from the Person of the Son.

The same can be said of the Person of the Holy Spirit, who exhibits every attribute of deity and personality, and of whom Jesus said:

Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. When He comes, He will convict the world... But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me... John 16:7-8, 13-14, NIV

The multiple references of the Holy Spirit in Scriptures in a subject-object relationship to the Persons of the Father and the Son (John 14:16, 26) are positive proof that the Holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Persons of the Father and the Son. Furthermore, Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4), and that He is no phantom, "mode," or "manifestation" of Jesus Christ, as the "Jesus Only" or "Oneness" Pentecostal movement maintains.

THE THREE PERSONS
Therefore, it is untenable to maintain the Christology of the "Jesus Only" movement when the testimony of the Scriptures is so clear. There is, according to the Scriptures, a Person (or Ego) who is called "the Father" and who is designated as God (John 5.17-24). There is also a Person (Ego) who is called "the Son" and who is designated as God (John 1 :1, 14). There is a Person (Ego) who is called "the Holy Spirit" and who is designated as God (Acts 5:3-4). All three Persons are co-existent, and, in the unity of the Deity, are termed "one God" (I Timothy 2:5). Furthermore, when we compare the word translated "one" from the Hebrew (Deuteronomy 6:4) with other instances of its usage (e.g., Genesis 2:24; 34:16; Numbers 13:23), we find that the composite unity, not absolute unity, is intended. The term "one" can then mean either composite or absolute unity. Thus, it is no proof text at all for the " Jesus Only" adherents.

The argument that John 10:30 identifies Jesus as the only Person of the Deity by virtue of His "oneness" with the Father, is exploded by the simple fact that the word translated "one" from the Greek (en) in this passage is neuter, not masculine, and refers to one in essence or nature, not one in person.⁴ Therefore, within the one essence or nature there exists three Persons of the Deity, each of whom is designated a Person (i.e., Ego).

Additional verses which underscore plurality of Persons in the Deity (Trinity) can be found in Genesis 1 :26, 3:22; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16-17; and Zechariah 12:10.

WHICH BAPTISMAL FORMULA?
In the closing words of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus gives the following command to His disciples:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... Matthew 28:19 NIV

However, in the early part of Acts we read:

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be for- given. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38 NIV

The "Jesus Only" movement interprets this apparent discrepancy to support their non-Trinitarian position. They believe the Matthaean pronouncement sets forth the three names of the Christ who is thereby designated the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, they contend that the proper baptismal formula is to be found in such accounts as Acts 2:38.

Granted, such passages as Acts 2:38 do give a description of how the Lord's disciples fulfilled His command. However, what of the Lord's command itself? Had we ourselves been in Jesus' presence at His ascension, what words would we have heard? Clearly, the words of Matthew 28:19. How, then, can this apparent discrepancy be handled?

Some have suggested that the Triune formula of the Matthaean account should be applied to the "disciples of all nations" (i.e., Gentiles); whereas the Acts 2:38 formula should be applied to Jewish converts. However, this view does not harmonize with the accounts of Samaritans (Acts 8:16) and Gentiles (Acts 10:48) being "baptized in the name of Jesus." Furthermore, Matthew's gospel is considered by most scholars to be primarily addressed to a Jewish audience.

THE TRIUNE FORMULA
A very plausible answer is that when the narrative in Acts indicates a baptism "in the name of Jesus:' it is tantamount to saying, "by the authority of Jesus Christ" (see Acts 3:6 and 16:18 where Jesus' authority, "in the name of Jesus," is invoked for healing and exorcism). It is not the formula which accomplishes these things, since in Acts 19:13, the invoking of "in the name of Jesus" by the Jewish exorcists meant nothing because those who invoked it did not have the authority of Jesus Christ. In other words, baptism was enjoined and carried out under the divine command of the Son. The words employed in the actual rite came from the Matthaean pronouncement.

Church history also sheds light upon this problem. A first century document, the Didache, states that only those who have been baptized "in the name of Jesus" may partake of the Eucharist.⁵ However, this was not meant to be a baptismal formula, for in the section on baptism it states, "Thus shall you baptize... in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."⁶

Furthermore, Luke records an incident which seems to indicate the use of the Triune formula. In Acts 19:2, certain disciples of John state that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Immediately, the Apostle Paul asked them, "Then what baptism did you receive?" (Acts 19:3 NIV) since the baptismal formula of the Matthaean pronouncement would have made them aware of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, it is apparent that we are instructed to use the Triune formula in baptism by the authority of Jesus Christ's pronouncement in Matthew 28:18-19. Peter, understanding this, commanded baptism on the day of Pentecost by the authority (or in the name) of Jesus (Acts 2:38), precisely as Christ had commanded. The baptismal formula was not in the name of Jesus only. It was by His authority, or literally, "in the name of Jesus."

1 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp 580-583.
2 David A Reed, Origins and Development of the Theology of "Oneness" Pentecostalism in the United States, (Ann Arbor, Mich: University Microfilms International, 1980), p 99.
3 Ibid., p.108.
4 AT Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, (Nashville: Broadman, 1932), pp 186-187.
5 "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Vol. VII, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p 380.
6 Ibid., p 379.

APPENDIX
"ONENESS" PENTECOSTAL DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The following list of "Oneness" Pentecostal denominations is derived from volume III of Arthur C. Piepkorn's Profiles in Belief, which is published by Harper and Row.

Apostolic Church of Jesus - 12 churches, membership 300
The Apostolic Faith Church - 5 churches, membership unknown
Apostolic Gospel Church of Jesus Christ (Bible Apostolic Churches) - 5 churches, membership 540
Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, Incorporated - 300 churches, membership 75,000
Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ - 120 churches, membership 6,300
Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ - 400 ministers, membership unknown
The Associated Brotherhood of Christians - 40 churches, membership 2,000
The Bible Way Churches of Our Lord Jesus Christ World Wide, Incorporated - 300 Churches, membership 25,000
The Church of Jesus Christ - 500 ministers, membership 37,500
The Church of Jesus Christ of Georgia - 2 churches, membership 100
Church of Jesus Christ, Incorporated - 12 ministers, membership 500
The Church of Jesus Christ Ministerial Alliance - 85 churches, membership 6,000
The Church of the Little Children - 8 churches, membership unknown
Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith - 92 churches, membership unknown
Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, Incorporated - unknown, membership unknown
First Church of Jesus Christ - 40 churches, membership 2,200
The Holiness Church of Jesus Christ - 12 churches, membership unknown
International Evangelism Crusades, Incorporated - 30 churches, membership 2,000
International Ministerial Association, Incorporated (Houston. Texas) - 117 churches, membership unknown
The Jesus Church - 500 ministers, membership unknown
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Incorporated - 527 churches, membership 45,000
Pentecostal Church of Zion, Incorporated - 15 churches, membership 500
The Primitive Church of Jesus Christ - unknown, membership unknown
The Seventh Day Pentecostal Church of the Living God - 4 churches, membership 1,000
The United Church of Jesus Christ - 25 churches, membership 1,250
United Pentecostal Church International - 2,800 churches, membership 440,000
The Universal Church of Jesus Christ - unknown, membership unknown

Written by James Bjornstad and Walter Bjorck; updated and revised by Ralph E. Spraker, Jr., July 28, 1980.
Copyright 1970 under the title Jesus Only: A Modalistic Interpretation by the Christianl Research Institute, Inc.
All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the written permision of Christian Research Institute.

CRI Christian Research Institute Box 500, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693

CA 92693

CHAPTER 29

TRINITY LINKS ON THE WEB

For those of you who desire to research this further, here are some good links I and others have found on the web to assist you:

Egun Caner....Now this is GREAT!!! Imagine, here is a once strong Muslin, giving one of the best description of THE TRINITY...like the ones I posted in the forum...he "confirms" all that I had shared and The Monitor rejected. This puts The Monitor in a bad position for rejecting what a strong Muslin can "SEE:" Fantastic!!!!! Here is that link:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3983968838021245454&hl=en

CHAPTER THIRTY

IN THE ESSENCE OF GOD - UNITY AND DIVERSITY EXPRESSED

In the "essence" of God, there is Father, Son, and Spirit. Being in the "essence" of God, Father, Son, Spirit, are co-equal......"Jesus, prior to His incarnation, becoming the son of man, was in the essence of God..."Who being in the "form" of God (essence of God) thought it not "robbery," (something to clutch to, or place His Son ship as above the Father or Spirit..(thus we see "perfect Unity in diversity") to be co-equal with God (the Father, and Spirit), but took upon Himself the form of a servant (mode of man) emptied Himself (Set aside the independent use of an attribute He possessed) and became obedient to God the Father (while in this mode as the son of man) even unto that of surrendering to the Will of God the Father, unto death (Jesus demonstrated this in the Garden. "Not my will as a son of man, but the will of God the Father). He constantly said, "the words that I speak, they are NOT MY OWN, but the words of God the Father....He even claimed that His works were His own, but those of God the Father. (I must work the works of Him who sent me) He was the 2nd Adam, coming to do what the 1st Adam had failed to do....the 1st Adam "ACTED independent from God, the 2nd Adam, Jesus, NEVER acted independent from God, God the Father in the essence of God. He said it, "Accuse me of SIN - "Acting independent of God and going with my own will as a son of man. He said to those around Him, "I have many things to say and judge of you (my opinion as a son of man), but the One who sent me is true." This all comes out in Phil chapter 2. Through this we can understand the command..."Lean not unto your own understanding, but in ALL YOUR WAYS acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path." Philippians chapter 2 is Paul the Apostle begging us to see how we as a son of man, possessing our Son ship through what Jesus accomplished for us, were NOT TO USE this Son ship independent from God our Father, JUST LIKE JESUS, in the mode of the son of man, the 2^nd Adam, demonstrated.

“To as many that have received Him, (what He accomplished,) them is given the right to say, “I am a son of God.” Note this; before the fall of Adam and his becoming a son of man, he was a son of God: Tracing the genealogy of Mary….

Luke 3:38

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Note this, Cain and Abel is left out to get us to focus on the line of Seth who replaced Cain’s brother Abel, whom he killed. Cain “rejects” God’s offer of Jesus “being slain before the foundation of the world” (Rev.) demonstrated by the slaying of an animal of innocent blood, later manifested in time through the son of man Jesus, taking this fallen nature of the 1^st Adam unto Himself. _ “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the fallen nature of the 1^st Adam, placing all who would embrace this offer, once again as a son of God.

Friday, March 18, 2016