The Yahweh Name

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Right Divider and JudgeRightly,

God would not give "all judgement" to anyone that is not God. That's just silly.

Perhaps you have not read and understood the following:
Acts 17:30-31 (KJV): 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.

David and Jesus foresaw the One God, Yahweh, God the Father before their face. You have misread this Psalm.

There is NO, I repeat, NO evidence that "THEOS" in verse 28 is referring to anything other than God.

Thomas was speaking to Jesus the Son of God, not to the One God the Father, so there is all the evidence in the world. The word God and Hebrew Elohim is applied to both Angels and Judges, refer Psalm 8:5 and Psalm 82:6 and Jesus’ exposition in John 10:30-36 and thus the title “God” does not prove that Jesus is God the Son. Even in John 10:36 Jesus replies emphatically that he is the Son of God, and hence not God Himself. A greater title is revealed a few verses later where Jesus is called THE Son of God John 20:30-31. All else are Sons of God, and are thus inferior. You need to address why the Judges and Angels were called God. Jesus also states in John 14:8-11 that he revealed God, His Father, not God the Son, and this revelation is the same theme as to why the Angels and Judges have been given the title "God" or "Elohim". They represented God, while Jesus fully revealed the character and works of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

As explained in my two opening posts and confirmed by AB Davidson, the message was about what God would accomplish in delivering Israel out of Egypt.

Special (Christadelphian) pleading. There is literally no force behind the assertion BUT for a Christadelphian NEED for "WIll Be" ONLY to deny John 8:58. Do you NOT realize that? It is proof-texting. Trevor, we've been over this: Don't hold Christadephian so high, that scripture itself, has to bow to your ideas and conceptions. "Baptist" about best sums up my ideas, but you'll never hear or see me touting a Baptist line over a scripture passage. Scripture first, always. The day scripture doesn't sync with "Baptist" I'll no longer identify. I do, like you, love them, but nothing will change that. I'll simply disagree at that point and keep loving them. You do the same? -Lon

 

[Omniskeptical]

Sad you'd have to explain that, but yes. Correct: "And" means literally 'Both.' καί - it is literally in the text.

Yes, but two Greek nominatives demand a plural not a singular verb. The expression is not singular.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Not required, even in Greek.

And certainly not needed by the context.



Well, no, it would be specifying two objects, not one.

Here's an example:

"The boss of me, and the friend of me."

No "both" needed.

You're grasping at straws here, Omni. You should stop.



"The Lord of me and the God of me."

That's how it is written. It is written extremely clearly, that Thomas was stating that Jesus was his Lord, and that Jesus was His God.

Answer the question, Omni:

Was Thomas committing idolatry by calling Jesus His God? Or was Jesus God and Thomas was recognizing Him as such?

KAI would not be required in Greek. Jesus did not say ὁ κύριός ὁ θεός μου, but rather ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Sad you'd have to explain that, but yes. Correct: "And" means literally 'Both.' καί - it is literally in the text.

And in reality, like the consecutive waw in Hebrew, KAI means 'then' and DE means 'and'

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider and JudgeRightly,

Perhaps you have not read and understood the following:
Acts 17:30-31 (KJV): 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

The man that God ordained is God in the flesh.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Special (Christadelphian) pleading. There is literally no force behind the assertion BUT for a Christadelphian NEED for "WIll Be" ONLY to deny John 8:58. Do you NOT realize that? It is proof-texting.

Yes, we have been through this, and my conviction is that Trinitarians force the meaning of both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 in a desperate attempt to find the Trinity when it is not there, and this forcing of these two passages is against many scholars, even many Trinitarian scholars.

For that alone, I'm happy for the councils.

I am not sure if I ever posted the following, and if I did it would have been a long time ago, possibly before your time on TOL. I did a search but could not find an earlier post. The following is another perspective on the councils. I originally produced the following when an ex-Baptist gave me a paper on his thesis on the Trinity, which qualified him to become a Pentecostal Pastor. He took up the position as a part-time Pastor, while still working where I was working. I purchased the book at a secondhand bookshop.

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.
Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.

Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.

Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

Yes, we have been through this, and my conviction is that Trinitarians force the meaning of both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 in a desperate attempt to find the Trinity when it is not there, and this forcing of these two passages is against many scholars, even many Trinitarian scholars.

I am not sure if I ever posted the following, and if I did it would have been a long time ago, possibly before your time on TOL. I did a search but could not find an earlier post. The following is another perspective on the councils. I originally produced the following when an ex-Baptist gave me a paper on his thesis on the Trinity, which qualified him to become a Pentecostal Pastor. He took up the position as a part-time Pastor, while still working where I was working. I purchased the book at a secondhand bookshop.

I've been here since almost from the beginning of TOL

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.
Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

Always research, Trevor. This isn't the smoking gun you were looking for, however hopeful you may have been. Leyrins was French, and not the sole authority in the 4th century. Catholics and Protestants question whether Leyrins was Semipelagian among other issues.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Awkward sentence structure, but basically he hasn't said anything damaging: 1) Trinitarian doctrine had a strong hold by the fifth century through the 16th. 2) His comment that it was/is losing prestige? Not even remotely. About 1% of Christians are Arian/Unitarian.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

True enough, though his language shows consternation and a few colorful adjectives that indicate a bias. We do because they are scripture. It is this hallmark that is most important because Thomas really did say "You are the God of me" to Jesus. We also know, by necessity, that "Only begotten" means literally Jesus is God by essence. We know that He is 'the EXACT representation of the Father." It all adds up to ideas that need to be reconciled and the only way to do so, is to simply embrace what one is reading and ENSURE that whatever we say, never does damage to scripture.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Is he correct? Did Hellenism 'supplant?' Basically, he is arguing that most of us in the Western world are Greek thinkers. That is true, but did it actually 'supplant' Eastern (not just Judaism) thought? Not like he is thinking. The Coptic and Eastern Orthodox churches still exist and for the most part, there is fellowship across board, meaning 'supplanted' isn't the correct term. "Influenced" sure.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

See, I knew where he was going and what he was trying to prove, but he didn't deliver. It isn't true.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Like Christadelphians? He may have undid your own faith at that point, if you like him so much.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

He shows ignorance on his part at this point: Scripture and God are the driving forces behind theology. "Influence" is certainly an important consideration, because Christianity must be resilient to trends but this author isn't correct in this summation. Athanasius was Eastern Orthodox. It means "no." A huge difference between this author and I: I'd always post either links, or quotes to prove something, not just assert it. If I can't prove it, it isn't worth my saying.

Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

Just because he says so? Nope. It pits one with a desire to be faithful to scripture against one without that desire, which is not true. He doesn't seem to favor your Arian theology here either, though. As I said, you'd have to read him as being against your own theology also.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Incorrect. It was not common acceptance. Most of the early Church Fathers made Triune comments. The Gospel of John, thus scripture itself, pushes a triune thought.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.

Which they did. Point?

Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.

Actually, Arianism died out due to extreme infighting (you know, like you Unitarians do on TOL). Later, the politics of the world had Catholics in power and it was a crime, not to hold, but to preach against Orthodox theology.

Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Perhaps the Catholic church believes their councils infallible. It isn't important, rather having the councils meant that we have a good history of discussion to go back to when considering scripture.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds.

Awkward sentence structures from this guy, but he may be correct that Arians, diverging from even wanting to be corrected, were mavericks thus 'freer minded.' It is the mark of cults else they'd not be cults (offshoots, break aways).

It was consequently the least united.

Right, those 'freer maverick minds.'

For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

1) those Arian men were so independent, they had no desire (much like today) to be part of the larger group NOR with one another (thus Christadelphians and JW's will never fellowship). and 2)he neglected/forgot that Arianism, even as it does every 30 years, dies out. The Unitarian churches ebb and flow and a new group has to pick up where the previous church died out.
3) while the Catholic church became ascetic and superstitious, more from the congregation, than the priests (couple of reasons for that),

It is interesting you chose him for your author. His writing style isn't great. He doesn't seem to like orthodox or Arian groups so its a dismal read because of his poor style, lack of representative research, and unfavorable comment to either Catholics or Arians.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

I've been here since almost from the beginning of TOL

I could not remember discussing with you previously. I remember well my interaction with the member in Post #6 and #9, especially when he tried to explain Psalm 110:1, and I have never seen a reasonable explanation of Psalm 110:1 by a Triniatarian and his explanation was weird. Another person that I remember as well as the above also does not seem to be active on the forum at the moment.

Always research, Trevor. This isn't the smoking gun you were looking for, however hopeful you may have been.

It was not meant to be "the smoking gun". I have only read the book once, and I made pencil marks and reference links to the points I have included in my post, and I have not examined and checked the fine detail. I am the librarian for my meeting, and also my special interests is to collect a whole range of books, general interest, but especially Bible books, especially reference books. Also I collect our own fellowship literature, printed books and notes, magazines, electronic books and magazines and mp3 and mp4 talks and videos.

My Bible Program gave the following book this month, Christian Philosophy in the Early Church by Anthony Meredith 2012. In his chapter on Platonism on Page 141 he states the following:
"The dominant philosophy throughout this period was Platonism in one of its several incarnations: Middle for Justin and Origen; Neoplatonism for Augustine and a mixture for the Cappadocians. It offered a speculative system especially in its arguments for the existence of a spiritual world, the world of forms and for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo, Phaedrus and the Republic. The natural immortality of the soul is assumed by most of the Fathers, though the nature of its insertion in the body was long unresolved. This is clear from Letter 166 of Augustine, who remained on this topic permanently undecided as between pre-existence and traducianism, that is the handing down of the soul in the moment of conception. But perhaps more importantly, Platonism offered a spiritual vision that exercised a great influence on all the great Fathers, notably Origen, the Cappadocians and Augustine. … It is, however, important to remember two features of the attitudes of Christians to extra—Christian culture, above all its philosophy. Ambiguity is the best way of describing their general position. It is particularly noticeable in Tertullian, whose somewhat ambiguous attitude to classical culture has already been noted in Chapter 2."

So my reference to both books is not meant to be "smoking gun(s)", but a general indication that Greek philosophy did influence the early church fathers and their teachings and I claim that their new doctrines replaced the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. So I am not interested in defending both or either of these books. My assessment is that the first book rejects the Trinity while this second book endorses the Trinity, but I have not read this book in detail as yet. As such I will only answer a few of your comments

We also know, by necessity, that "Only begotten" means literally Jesus is God by essence.

I understand that the term "only begotten" is speaking about the conception / birth of Jesus as a human, with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother. Your view "of necessity" does "damage to scripture".

Like Christadelphians? He may have undid your own faith at that point, if you like him so much.

Yes, his comment caught my attention. I doubt that the author was guessing, but had some access to some records. I would like to find some of this material, but many of the records would be written by their enemies in the established church.

It is interesting you chose him for your author. His writing style isn't great. He doesn't seem to like orthodox or Arian groups so its a dismal read because of his poor style, lack of representative research, and unfavorable comment to either Catholics or Arians.

It is the only book I have read on the subject. I have some books on the History of Christianity, and some copies of the writings of the early church fathers. In my fellowship I know of only one brother that has studied aspects of the teachings of the early church fathers. He has given a few Bible Classes and one lecture on the subject. I have a copy of his lecture and slides, but not sure if his Bible Class talks are still available. I gave him a copy of my article years ago and he agreed with the comments in general. He had a thorough public debate on the Trinity with the member I mentioned earlier regarding post #6 and I have a full copy of this debate.

Kind regards
Trevor
.

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I could not remember discussing with you previously. I remember well my interaction with the member in Post #6 and #9, especially when he tried to explain Psalm 110:1, and I have never seen a reasonable explanation of Psalm 110:1 by a Triniatarian and his explanation was weird. Another person that I remember as well as the above also does not seem to be active on the forum at the moment.

It was not meant to be "the smoking gun". I have only read the book once, and I made pencil marks and reference links to the points I have included in my post, and I have not examined and checked the fine detail. I am the librarian for my meeting, and also my special interests is to collect a whole range of books, general interest, but especially Bible books, especially reference books. Also I collect our own fellowship literature, printed books and notes, magazines, electronic books and magazines and mp3 and mp4 talks and videos.

My Bible Program gave the following book this month, Christian Philosophy in the Early Church by Anthony Meredith 2012. In his chapter on Platonism on Page 141 he states the following:
"The dominant philosophy throughout this period was Platonism in one of its several incarnations: Middle for Justin and Origen; Neoplatonism for Augustine and a mixture for the Cappadocians. It offered a speculative system especially in its arguments for the existence of a spiritual world, the world of forms and for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo, Phaedrus and the Republic. The natural immortality of the soul is assumed by most of the Fathers, though the nature of its insertion in the body was long unresolved. This is clear from Letter 166 of Augustine, who remained on this topic permanently undecided as between pre-existence and traducianism, that is the handing down of the soul in the moment of conception. But perhaps more importantly, Platonism offered a spiritual vision that exercised a great influence on all the great Fathers, notably Origen, the Cappadocians and Augustine. … It is, however, important to remember two features of the attitudes of Christians to extra—Christian culture, above all its philosophy. Ambiguity is the best way of describing their general position. It is particularly noticeable in Tertullian, whose somewhat ambiguous attitude to classical culture has already been noted in Chapter 2."

So my reference to both books is not meant to be "smoking gun(s)", but a general indication that Greek philosophy did influence the early church fathers and their teachings and I claim that their new doctrines replaced the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. So I am not interested in defending both or either of these books. My assessment is that the first book rejects the Trinity while this second book endorses the Trinity, but I have not read this book in detail as yet. As such I will only answer a few of your comments

You jumped quite a leap to get 'replaced teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.' I've read enough history, but this also completely ignores what Coptic and Eastern Orthodox churches, independent of Rome, believed. They are all fairly much in unison to this day. Ignoring that? Yep, Christadelphians necessarily would.

I understand that the term "only begotten" is speaking about the conception / birth of Jesus as a human, with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother. Your view "of necessity" does "damage to scripture".

Which scriptures? Point them out.

Yes, his comment caught my attention. I doubt that the author was guessing, but had some access to some records. I would like to find some of this material, but many of the records would be written by their enemies in the established church.


It is the only book I have read on the subject. I have some books on the History of Christianity, and some copies of the writings of the early church fathers. In my fellowship I know of only one brother that has studied aspects of the teachings of the early church fathers. He has given a few Bible Classes and one lecture on the subject. I have a copy of his lecture and slides, but not sure if his Bible Class talks are still available. I gave him a copy of my article years ago and he agreed with the comments in general. He had a thorough public debate on the Trinity with the member I mentioned earlier regarding post #6 and I have a full copy of this debate.

Kind regards
Trevor
.

Early Church Fathers. Enjoy.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Which scriptures? Point them out.

I expect we have discussed these before, Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14, 3:16.

Early Church Fathers. Enjoy.

I have a full CD on some of these, but have not looked at it properly yet. The subject does not look enjoyable. My Christadelphian "Daily Readings" in the second portion is now reading Isaiah, and this is one of my favourites and more enjoyable. I have two new commentaries and a new translation on Isaiah to consider for reference. I read one chapter each day, and I have not had much spare time to consider these commentaries. I did a little bit on Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 4, but less than I had hoped. I make notes on my Bible program, and have extensive notes on Isaiah that need revision from some years ago. When I either update an existing note or agree with what I had previously written I change the colour of the highlighting. The old colour indicates that my notes on a particular chapter are old. My favourite Isaiah chapter is Isaiah 6. I guarantee we would understand this differently.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14, 3:16.

Mat 1:20 And as he thought upon these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take to you Mary as your wife. For that in her is fathered of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bear a son, and you shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.
No damage. You are dealing with a name and as I said, that which is 'Fathered of the Holy Spirit.'
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come on you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. Therefore also that Holy One which will be born of you shall be called Son of God.
No damage, the opposite, it lifts up 'Son of God' exactly as I said
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.
Absolutely no damage, it lifts it up. ONLY begotten, notice Father and Holy Spirit are God, it is triune in expression between the two and literally the only viable way to understand the difference. If you think a Christadelphian has a better answer, go ahead and try hear and I'll explain why it isn't the 'best' explanation and why it will actually be the position that does damage to the text.

Isaiah 6

Isa 6:5 Then I said, Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of Hosts.
He caught a glimpse, for we know that it was a vision of God's attributes. God told Moses he could but see only His glory, and live. Every prophet that records a vision such as we find in Isaiah 6, records something of God's glory as they catch a glimpse. In Isaiah's vision, the covering of the Lord's face and feet would echo Moses' inability to see the Holy God and live, thus Isaiah is given a glimpse, just as Moses received.

Isaiah is cleansed to be in God's presence and made ready to share God's message, in ensuing verses.

When Isaiah, now with a clean tongue is enabled and readied, he steps up to deliver God's message.

It is to be a message that Israel itself will not accept. It shows therefore as a correction. Judah, under Hezekiah, has been savaged by Assyria once. Under Hezekiah, Judah resists Assyria under Isaiah's directions and the Assyrians are thrown off, but Manasseh's reign against God and His prophets will bring judgement, and Isaiah is both an assessment, God's judgements, and God's remedy for people failing to follow God.

It is therefore a message of hope, amidst Israel and Judah's failures as a whole, and a promise/hope that even at their lowest and worst (Manasseh is reported to have cut Isaiah in half), God still isn't giving up. The message that will fatten Judah and cause them to not listen, might best be seen and understood as it is today: Something foreign to the Jewish mind, that even to this day makes them 'fat and unseeing/hearing' which is a 'suffering messiah.'

In Isaiah 6:11, this message is to be given through Hezekiah's reign through the beginning of Manasseh's when Judah will be left desolate.

Then, at verse 12, a promise/an encouragement/a declarative is given that a tenth of a returning holy seed.

I'm not sure you'd be able to 'understand this differently' but let me know where/if you do differ. I don't envision it as a possibility.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

No damage. You are dealing with a name and as I said, that which is 'Fathered of the Holy Spirit.'

But also notice the margin for the translation of Matthew 1:20 "conceived" in the KJV "Gk: begotten". Yes Jesus is fathered by means of God's power, the Holy Spirit, but what is conceived and then born is a human, Jesus the Son of God, the Only Begotten. No Trinity here, as we have the One God, the Father using his power, the Holy Spirit, to conceive and enable the birth of a human who did not pre-exist as God the Son, nor did this Son have an immortal soul given to him at conception or as Augustine speculated his immortal soul pre-existed. Also Trinitarians will try to tell you that Jesus or God the Son was eternally begotten, or begotten from eternity, a contradiction of terms.

No damage, the opposite, it lifts up 'Son of God' exactly as I said

Luke 1:35 tells us why Jesus is the Son of God, because God the Father was and is the father of Jesus, while Mary is his mother. He is a human.

Absolutely no damage, it lifts it up. ONLY begotten, notice Father and Holy Spirit are God, it is triune in expression between the two and literally the only viable way to understand the difference. If you think a Christadelphian has a better answer, go ahead and try hear and I'll explain why it isn't the 'best' explanation and why it will actually be the position that does damage to the text.

There is no mention of the Trinity in John 1:14 but the glory revealed through the Only Begotten Son of God.

He caught a glimpse, for we know that it was a vision of God's attributes.

I appreciate and endorse much of what you say on Isaiah 6, but disagree with some detail. I understand that the vision is of the future role of Jesus, exalted in the Temple and on the Throne of David during the 1000 years, parallel to Isaiah 2:1-5. It is symbolic because the cherubim who were in the most holy place of the temple are now depicted as active seraphim, and seraphim have some association with the brazen serpent in the wilderness. The action of the wings depicting stages in Isaiah's time are also pre-figurative of the stages of Christ's first ministry. Isaiah 6:9-10 is quoted in the NT and applied to Jesus' ministry, speaking of the hardening of the hearts of the children of Israel.

I'm not sure you'd be able to 'understand this differently' but let me know where/if you do differ. I don't envision it as a possibility.

I endorse your exposition regarding the times in which Isaiah spoke, with Hezekiah and Manasseh, but please also consider the application of Isaiah 6 to the ministry of Jesus and his future role. The name of Jesus and Isaiah are similar. I believe that what Isaiah 6 depicts and what Isaiah saw was not a glimpse of God the Father enthroned, but a vision of Jesus in his future role as king / priest in contrast to Uzziah's attempted usurpation. I also understand Isaiah 6:9-10 is almost an enigma, as Isaiah is told to preach that particular message, to deliberately harden their hearts, but what we find is that the Book of Isaiah is one of the most profound and instructive prophecies and it was effective in gathering some disciples, including Hezekiah, and the message of Isaiah and the ministry of Jesus also was effective in gathering some disciples, but the majority of Israel fulfilled Isaiah 6:9-10, and they rejected their Messiah and crucified him.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

But also notice the margin for the translation of Matthew 1:20 "conceived" in the KJV "Gk: begotten". Yes Jesus is fathered by means of God's power, the Holy Spirit, but what is conceived and then born is a human, Jesus the Son of God, the Only Begotten.

Er, no. John 3:5,6 "That which is born of Spirit IS Spirit..." Quit listening when doctrines, however comfortable, collide with scripture. Listen to Scripture.

No Trinity here,

Incorrect. Quit turning off your ears on purpose lest you kick against God very God, instead just Lon.

as we have the One God, the Father using his power, the Holy Spirit, to conceive and enable the birth of a human who did not pre-exist as God the Son

: Plain: "The Glory I had with you before the universe began..." Are you mindfully ignorant of scripture on purpose? John 17:5 Do you hate the book of John, now? How is it you could be a Christadelphian after reading that verse? I couldnt! John wipes out all cults. It really does.
But I'm into following God. I could care less what any man says, especially if he isn't reading John. John is one of my favorite books. It was written by the "one Jesus loved" after all.

, nor did this Son have an immortal soul given to him at conception or as Augustine speculated his immortal soul pre-existed.

Why are you going to Augustine? Just read John 1:1 "In the beginning, the Word was with God and was God. Hard to argue with John and God, no?

Also Trinitarians will try to tell you that Jesus or God the Son was eternally begotten, or begotten from eternity, a contradiction of terms.

As your quote said, we don't care about seeming contradictions (Proverbs 3:5,6 unlike a cultist). We care about being faithful to God ALONE. I don't care what Christadelphians, Augustine, or Roman Catholics think. I care what God says and literally that is it. I DO ask the whole body, even and up to cultists, to double-check my work. I doubt any cultist ever gets that far.

Luke 1:35 tells us why Jesus is the Son of God, because God the Father was and is the father of Jesus, while Mary is his mother. He is a human.

Yep. BUT I believe John 1:1. Christadephians do not, even if perchance you do.

There is no mention of the Trinity in John 1:14 but the glory revealed through the Only Begotten Son of God.

Uhm "Became." It is an 'active' verb. If Christadelphians and cultists just knew parts of speech, we'd not have cults. They are their own authentication AND it is just this easy. It really is.

I appreciate and endorse much of what you say on Isaiah 6, but disagree with some detail. I understand that the vision is of the future role of Jesus, exalted in the Temple and on the Throne of David during the 1000 years, parallel to Isaiah 2:1-5.

I'm not sure you can disagree with any particular detail. It was all just commentary on the verses themselves. While I do acknowledge a lot of imagery toward Christ, we have to be careful students and not paint but carefully when jumping texts. That may be where we most differ, not so much over words of the text, but how liberally we can apply the immediate text to others. For me: VERY carefully and respectfully without taking liberty.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Er, no. John 3:5,6 "That which is born of Spirit IS Spirit..."

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but this was not a birth in itself. He was born of Mary and was born a human.

"The Glory I had with you before the universe began..."

I understand that this is an allusion to Psalm 8:4-6.

Just read John 1:1 "In the beginning, the Word was with God and was God. Hard to argue with John and God, no?

I understand that the Word in John 1:1 is similar to the wise woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8.

As your quote said, we don't care about seeming contradictions

You have not stated how you understand "only begotten".

Yep. BUT I believe John 1:1. Christadephians do not, even if perchance you do.

How do you reconcile Luke 1:35 with John 1:1.

Uhm "Became." It is an 'active' verb.

Yes. I am not sure of the full range of "became" or "made". I need to examine if this is the same as man "was made a little lower than the angels". This seems to me to be a creation word, not the transfer of God the Son into the womb of Mary. "Made flesh" - it does not say that the flesh was added to God the Son. Was Jesus when he was born "flesh" or "spirit"?

I'm not sure you can disagree with any particular detail. It was all just commentary on the verses themselves. While I do acknowledge a lot of imagery toward Christ, we have to be careful students and not paint but carefully when jumping texts. That may be where we most differ, not so much over words of the text, but how liberally we can apply the immediate text to others. For me: VERY carefully and respectfully without taking liberty.

I would be interested as to whether Isaiah saw God on the throne or Jesus. In my youth when we had a home study series on Isaiah. We invite discussion at the end of the discourse by the study leader. My first ever comment at a class was by drawing attention to the following passage which quotes and applies Isaiah 6:9-10:
John 12:37–41 (KJV): 37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but this was not a birth in itself. He was born of Mary and was born a human.

Why would you even suggest it? Luke 1:35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:20b “... the One conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

I understand that this is an allusion to Psalm 8:4-6.

No, special pleading. As I said, very rarely should one scripture hop lest they make scripture say what 'they' want it to say, rather than listening to what God says. This is the mark of every poor student I've ever come across, Trevor. MOST foul ideas about scripture can be solved simply by being good at grammar and its rules.

I understand that the Word in John 1:1 is similar to the wise woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8.

Scripture hopping again :sigh: Trevor Trevor Trevor: Listen to God! Don't be this poor of a student.

You have not stated how you understand "only begotten".

Take "ONLY" first. It means something in English and language. Take "Begotten" and place in the context of verses given. Jesus was born but had already existed with His Father, by His own mouth, thus it is all very self-explanatory. Only a convoluted mess would make such unclear.

How do you reconcile Luke 1:35 with John 1:1.

Explain the problem as you see it. I see none, EXCEPT when talking with an Arian/Unitarian. For the rest of us? Straightforward.

Yes. I am not sure of the full range of "became" or "made". I need to examine if this is the same as man "was made a little lower than the angels".

"Was made" is acted upon. "Became" is the one doing the action. The Word literally 'became' (His own action) flesh. It is aorist active indicative.

This seems to me to be a creation word, not the transfer of God the Son into the womb of Mary. "Made flesh" - it does not say that the flesh was added to God the Son. Was Jesus when he was born "flesh" or "spirit"?

The only time I'd go to other scriptures, would be if they talk, specifically, without taking liberty, about the same exact incident: Jesus taking on flesh. Philippians 2:7 does "made Himself...took on the nature of a man." Any trivial idea from Psalm? Not unless an Apostle, Jesus, Father,Spirit directly says so. It is taking liberty with the text AND to build up an idea from somebody. NOBODY is worthy of that and no disciple should give their guru/teacher a pass for doing it. It is the wrong way to do scripture because it is no longer following normal every day grammar rules.

I would be interested as to whether Isaiah saw God on the throne or Jesus. In my youth when we had a home study series on Isaiah. We invite discussion at the end of the discourse by the study leader. My first ever comment at a class was by drawing attention to the following passage which quotes and applies Isaiah 6:9-10:
John 12:37–41 (KJV): 37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Kind regards
Trevor

It was a good observation. It also honors what Apostles and Jesus have said which is so much better than us pulling ideas, ourselves especially against context and grammar rules.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Why would you even suggest it? Luke 1:35

Yes, Jesus was a man, born a human, the Son of God because God the Father was his father. This was not the continuity of God the Son, but a conception / birth. He is now a glorified human. Not much more to discuss in the rest of your post as I stand by what I have stated.

It was a good observation. It also honors what Apostles and Jesus have said which is so much better than us pulling ideas, ourselves especially against context and grammar rules.

Was the vision of the King upon the throne in Isaiah 6:1 a vision of God the Father, or of Jesus, God the Son in the day of Isaiah, or of Jesus in his future role as King / Priest upon the Throne of David in the Temple at Jerusalem during the future 1000 years, in parallel with Isaiah 2:1-5? My answer the third option.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

Yes, Jesus was a man, born a human, the Son of God because God the Father was his father. This was not the continuity of God the Son, but a conception / birth.

You CANNOT speak something against scripture, asserting such as if it were fact. Cannot. Trevor, "cannot." Only Begotten means 'Only' Trevor. It means He is necessarily God.

"Before Abraham was, I am." "...glory I had with you before the universe was..." "was with AND was God.." We talked about doing violence to scripture. YOUR concept does severe damage to these scriptures. YOURS does. He was absolutely fully man, but pre-existent.

He is now a glorified human.

Because you learned that poor theology from Christadelphians? Trevor, it is inexcusable, to do damage to the Son of God. It is unworthy of Him and does damage to Him as well. Will you beg forgiveness and His pardon for being wrong? What will your excuse be? Scriptures? :nono: He is glorified human, but you asserted he wasn't pre-existent.

Not much more to discuss in the rest of your post as I stand by what I have stated.

THAT is what you are going to say to Him, to His face? :noway:

Was the vision of the King upon the throne in Isaiah 6:1 a vision of God the Father, or of Jesus,

Uhmm if it was Jesus, then you are against your own Christadelphian church and your own posit that He wasn't pre-existent (He was, scripture is incredibly clear about it).

God the Son in the day of Isaiah, or of Jesus in his future role as King / Priest upon the Throne of David in the Temple at Jerusalem during the future 1000 years, in parallel with Isaiah 2:1-5? My answer the third option.

Kind regards
Trevor

We half agree (RIght Divider agrees below, we agree with Him being human): "The Word became flesh." You simply have to/must agree that He was 'with God' and 'was God.' Scripture says it EXACTLY this clearly. It is all this clearly given.

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Lon,

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but this was not a birth in itself. He was born of Mary and was born a human.

No Christian denies that Jesus was human. He is also God.

Col 2:9 KJV For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon and Right Divider,

You CANNOT speak something against scripture, asserting such as if it were fact. Cannot. Trevor, "cannot." "Before Abraham was, I am." "...glory I had with you before the universe was..." "was with AND was God.." We talked about doing violence to scripture. YOUR concept does severe damage to these scriptures. YOURS does. He was absolutely fully man, but pre-existent.

I have most probably already briefly considered John 8:58, John 17:5 (universe?), and John 1:1. Please check.

Uhmm if it was Jesus, then you are against your own Christadelphian church and your own posit that He wasn't pre-existent (He was, scripture is incredibly clear about it).

You seem to have misread my three options. I agree with the third option, that it is a vision of Jesus enthroned in Jerusalem during the future 1000 years of the Kingdom of God upon the earth which will replace the present kingdoms of men.

No Christian denies that Jesus was human. He is also God.

I suggest that both you and Lon have yet to prove this, and describe how to reconcile the many difficulties and contradictions. You need to explain what part of Jesus was human and what part was God when he was an infant, and then his development and then during his ministry. Did he have two minds, a Divine mind that knows all things, and a human mind that was lacking in knowledge. You need to explain what the term "only begotten" actually represents and this includes when was he begotten. And there are many other problems, some of which we have discussed briefly, including how did God the Son unite with the conception and birth of Jesus. Perhaps you could both examine and "enjoy" the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and see if they give a simple, consistent, clear explanation.

For my part I am slowly progressing through my reading of a chapter of Isaiah per day. I am interested in a few aspects. Is the book sequential, such as in the times of Uzziah and Jotham as co-regent in Isaiah chapters 1-5, Jotham in Isaiah 6, Ahaz in Isaiah 7-13, and most of the balance in the times of Hezekiah. I am also interested in whether Isaiah 6 is the start of his ministry, or if Isaiah 2-5 is earlier and Isaiah 6 is a special commission. I agree with this second option. I have not had much time to do additional meditation and reading in conjunction with the reading of each chapter. So far I have done research on Isaiah 1, Isaiah 4, Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 12. I started on a transcribe of an old Bible Class talk on Isaiah 1, I revised my personal notes on Isaiah 4 and refreshed by the margin rendition of Isaiah 4:2 "Heb: beauty and glory". I established a link in my Bible Program to the new commentary that I acquired. Now when I go to the KJV of Isaiah 6, then with one click I can open the new commentary at Isaiah 6. I have enjoyed reading Isaiah 12 and revised all of my notes, but only added one note on one suggestion on the meaning of "Yah" in the occurrence of Yah Yahweh in Isaiah 12:2.

The following is the KJV of Isaiah 12:1-6 with the YHWH rendered as Yahweh and an emphasis on where the words “name” and “salvation” occur:
Isaiah 12:1–6 (KJV): 1 And in that day thou shalt say, O Yahweh, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. 2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Yah Yahweh is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. 3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. 4 And in that day shall ye say, Praise Yahweh, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted. 5 Sing unto Yahweh; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth. 6 Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.
The whole chapter is a fitting conclusion of the section Isaiah 6:1-12:6 sometimes known as the Immanuel prophecies. It starts with the vision of Jesus in his future role of King / Priest and concludes depicting Jesus as the Holy One in the midst of Zion. It is also strongly connected with the theme of the Yahweh Name and again shows that the Name is associated with what God will accomplish and accomplish salvation. Isaiah 12:2 "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Yah Yahweh is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation." quotes from Exodus 15:2 "Yahweh is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him.". Isaiah 12 speaks of the future fulfillment of the Yahweh Name at the beginning of the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor