Not so...Hebrews only attempts to give evidence for Jesus being "the high priest in the order of Mechizedeck," and being also "over the angels," as well as over all men.
Kind of odd wording for claiming he is God verdad? Why say GOD is over men or angels or even a "high priest" at all?
This is a given. Just say Jesus is God and all other lesser categories are covered, amen?
Heb
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
This was originally probably to SOLOMON sir, and serves as a double-fulfillment prophesy. How is SOLOMON God sir?
No, the Hebrew wording is ELOHIM, sir, said ten percent of the time for warlords, prophets, patriarchs (Ex 7 for Moses)
resurrected saints, the heavenly assembly. And kings.
It is, but believers are included in the mix. And this not OF God's INHERENT ontology. "I and the Father are one," or HEN the neuter declensioned "one" is a unity of the Holy Spirit ALSO said of believers in Jn 17 "that they may be HEN as we are."
You are a little confused. I think you mean God and the Son are not created. Prophets did not do this but proclaimed it.
However, to be begotten MEANT that Jesus was created by his God, Jn 1:14. God SPOKE forth Jesus and this the Word speaking, "Jesus." To be MADE first just under the angels and then GLORIFIED over them is the same kind of concept.
The Word is pre-existent in the one Jewish sense. Many things eternal were considered PLANNED before the Foundation of the World, and the Messiah included. Jesus even knew in Jn 17 that his GLORY potentiated was still to be had, and yet WAS POSSESSED when God determined it to be, before the Foundation of the World.
But Jesus did not "share glory" in the sense of hippies cavorting in heaven with the Father. He was not alive until the Holy Spirit MADE him alive in Mary's womb.
Now I know ye are quite confused. YHWH was named "the Father" when Jesus said and made primal his new name, although not really new. YHWH was the known name of God, just not pronouncable anymore in thought, text or speech. Too sacred to say out loud, sir.
Blase and pedantry. Genesis is known by rabbinical commentary forever as God speaking to other ones in heaven, not HIS other SELVES, sir. And the almost 11,000 SINGULAR verbs and pronouns attentant to YHWH Elohim in verse prove the plural etymology of "elohim" was not the dominant meaning in any verse. Not two or more persons in fact. ONE person with many attributes, characteristics, magnificent powers etc.
Basic Hebrew will tell you this, but no...trinitarians will argue these dummy tings to the end of tine, sir.
Buuut. He told you His DEFINITIVE name is YHWH or..."YHWH Elohim." Sir. ALLLL Jews knew this, and this is WHY this name was considered TOO SACRED to say out loud.
Compound unity is NOT implied in EITHER the Shema OR the First Command of the Ten, sir. A NUMERICAL ONE is the plain and simple meaning of "echad." And ALL CONTEXT of the OT has "no other one can be God." This is unequivocal and true.
This is absolutely true. To say otherwise is to REJECT the Abrahamic Monotheism of ALLL Jews who were faithful, sir.
Trinity is illogical, impossible and dummy theology. It makes NO SENSE from the git-go. When the Athanasian Creed MADE it "orthodox" this Creed states two impossible things to be true side-by-side. Three ARE God, but these three are NOT three Gods.
How ARE Three who ARE God not in turn three Gods? No explanation, no inspiration, no revelation and no how no way.
[/QUOTE]
nothead,
1. The order of Melchizadek was for the purpose of showing Christ priesthood as being eternal.
2. Taken the nature of man or angels? Christ took on the nature of man and not angels which shows he was neither. So your point about being over the angels is not scriptural to the wording of taken on the nature. It is not a given and this is your humanistic reasoning.
3. Probably written about Solomon is guessing.
Jesus rebuked Peter in Matthew 16:22-23; and in verse 23 where Jesus said, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou, art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
This is a double reference and we know Peter is not Satan. So your double fulfillment about Solomon even though you are not sure if it was written about Solomon is off base and is not scriptural or correct about double fulfillments.
4. Elohim is used in many more passages including Genesis 1:26 than passages talking about heathens. You are trying to show proof by showing that Elohim can be applied to heathens which would have no bearing or do away with the passages on the Elohim of God. That is ridiculous thinking and even if that is true is irrelvant to the context of the Godhead.
5. It is about believers as I showed. This doesn't mean God cannot be unified in himself and it doesn't mean that he cannot be unified with the other two members of the Godhead.
6. I believe it is inherent ontology because I believe in the three in one which the bible talks about and is given in the formula of Matthew 28:19 and shown that they are separate entities with different responsibilities. The Father in heaven was talking to the Son on earth. Were they the same individual? It depends on what your definitions and context which I am not sure you have distinctively yet. Since the bible shows they are separate entities with different responsibilities of their own that act separate apart from each other but yet are always in harmony and unity that cannot be broken your neuter declensioned is not really correct. Unity is more than number one concerning individuals and at the same time they are one in unity in harmony.
7. One could say the Father and Son were created according to the plan. Physically they were not created because they have always been, always is and always will be completely eternal.
8. Jesus was begotten of the Father before the foundation of the world prophetically and then physically when Christ was born.
However, Jesus was the God men and he was not created physically or otherwise by the Father because he was conceived when the Holy Ghost would come upon him and the power of the Highest would overshadow Christ. The last part of Luke 1:35 says therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. God is holy, Jesus is holy and the Holy Spirit is holy. Being begotten is why he is called the Son and the Father which is relationship of unity. Because Christ was the God-man is why they have these offices and the subordination that Christadelphians support doesn't violate compound unity.
Once again it goes back to definitions and context to the scriptures to understand being created and begotten. This is why I believer your position is confused.
9. Jesus said they shared glory before the foundation of the world in John 17. Let the angels worship him which was referring to Jesus. If the father is the only God why would he share his glory with worship and the fact that noone can be saved by any name or person's blood except for Jesus. Once again you need to understand proper usage and meaning of compound unity instead of inferiorism.
10. You need to study the kenosis of Christ. You misunderstand the relationship of the father and son and why it is worded in the new testament the way that it is. This misunderstanding leads to subordination and inferiorism in the Godhead. This is not a scriptural.
11. God the father is not known as the Father in fruition in the old testament and Christ was not known as the Son in the old testament. The only passages have to do with the prophecies of the Messiah.
God means deity or divinity. They can be used of the false Gods as well. The number of persons can be understood in the meaning of true deity.
Godhead means that which is divine. Colossians 2:9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily or in human flesh. It is used of all three persons in the deity in Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so they are without excuse.
12. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were all called God and Lord and Jehovah.
13. Yahweh named the Father? Jehoshua is a type of Christ which was the salvation of the Jews and of all men being able to forgive sins. Yahweh was not the father literally in the old testament for he did not really become the Father literally until his begotten son at the time of the birth of Christ.
14. It is not bias and your assessment about the number of singular Elohim doesn't cancel out the pluralism of the Godhead.
Deuteronomy 6:4-6 one Lord Malachi 2:10 is one God and is echad, to unify, collect, be united in one, one in number. I have already explained the unity of number and harmony. So your not the main point between singular and plural is wrong and null and void. You are trying to be one sided in your definition and not harmonize with the scriptures of plural Elohim which is many scriptures and not just one.
15. There are new testament jews that will tell you of the trinity.
16. Deuteronomy 6:4, the shema is; Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. All three are called throughout God and Lord in the scriptures. Scriptures show that the Father if you will was the predominant speaker in the old testament and in the gospels was the Son and now it is the Holy Spirit. Your assessment is not consistent with the scriptures.
17. Actually, there are not three Gods because they are all one in harmony that has never, is not now and can never and will never be broken. That is the impossibility.
18. That is the proper scriptural explanation, inspiration of unity with all people with the one Godhead. The scriptures reveal the way and the truth and the life of Christ and the Father who sent his Son and the Holy Spirit who the Son sent. It is completely logical in the proper context.
What you should do is explain what your exact position of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and if they are all divine or not divine and why and why you think your position is logical. Thanks Jerry Kelso