Essential vs Non-Essential Doctrine

Jim B said:

Lynne said:


Thanx, Lynne. I think it might be better stated that “the Trinity is clearly inferred in scripture.” While I do believe in the Trinty as the manner in which God has chosen to reveal Himself to man, I do not believe that that that is all there is to God. We say God is love, but that’s not all He is; I also believe we could say, God is Trinity, but that’s not all He is. Apart from 1 John 5.7, which is a highly disputed scripture not found in any Greek manuscript or translation of the Bible prior to the 16th century (see reputable commentaries and notes in Quest Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, etc.), there is no “clear” passage of scripture that "clearly" teaches a Trinity of the Godhead. It is strongly inferred in many place, just not clearly stated.

It is believed by most, if not all, evangelical scholars of the Bible that the inclusion of the disputed scripture may have been added to the text of 1 John 5 by a medieval copyist in order to provide just such a clear statement regarding the Trinity.

Most believers are not comfortable with his fact. In fact, I had a hard time accepting it at first, not wanting to diminish in any way the efficacy of the Word. But I have come to see, through honest research, that honest Bible-believing, God-fearing teachers of Word actually provide us protection from inclusions like this. God set teachers in the Body of Christ (Eph. 4.11) to protect the faith as it was once (and originally) “delivered to the saints.”

Jim
\o/

Click to expand...

you know what? ive NEVER heard 1 John 5:7 being used in my church to teach the trinity that i can remember... i have been shown a WIDE variety of scriptures that paint the picture of the trinity...not explicit, but implicit.

ill have to see if its in my fundamentals textbook at all.....

blessings,
Lynne

Charlesinflorida said:

Can you site others?

Click to expand...

I'm not very well versed in the Bible, so I can't remember most of the instances right now. However, I'm quite certain that most are from Paul's letters.

Jim B said:

Didy listed them from Heb 6:
This is the list:

Question: Are these “essentials” or simply elementary beliefs upon which all others are based? Still marginal, but a foundation for sound doctrine. Is it still possible to be a Christian if we do not, say, practice laying on of hands or have a clear understanding of "baptisms?"
Jim
\o/

Click to expand...

Hi Jim.
Good question and an important answer:

Heb 6:1 is worded this way in the ISV:

Hebrews 6:1 ISV
1 Therefore, leaving behind the elementary teachings about Christ, let us continue to be carried along to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, faith toward God,

The idea is that the "foundations" of these doctrines are going to bear up or carry us to the next level. These are the building blocks of our doctrinal building. they are the "elements" of the bricks that we will build our building with. If your elements are not correct, or if they are mixed in the wrong proportions, or if the foundations of the building is not laid correctly... then what kind of building are your going to end up with?

In the case of the Hebrew believers, they had fallen back and were attempting to mix the OT religion with the NT. (See chapter 5). Because of this Paul said that they needed to have someone teach them "which be the first principles of the oracles of God". Notice it did not say they lacked knowledge, rather they were not rightly dividing it. They did not know what was important want what was (relatively) worthless.
Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.


Heb 5:14 (PSNT)
and of perfect men is the strong food, who because of use have their the senses exercised unto the discernment of what has worth and is worthless.

Failure to understand these teachings in both content and priority can cause us to miss being carried on to the perfect doctrine of Christ. In Fact God may not permit us to proceed if we fail at this:

Hebrews 6:1-3 KJV
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection....
.
.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
The implication here is that if you do not, He may not!
So the successful application of these teachings is paramount for every believer.

And what of those who attempt to skip these and advance to the deeper teachings?


2 Peter 3:16 KJV
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I launched into these teachings as far back as 1973, and have never regretted it!
I started with Derick Prince and his 6 volume set on the topic of the six doctrines listed here, and have since created an entire lesson plan which I first presented from the pulpit and then distributed to thousands via the web.

Blessings
didy

Hi all. I want to speak about our Faith to God, and about Churches.
Me must understand that it is different thing to be a son of God, member of spiritual Church, and to have spiritual knowledge. We can have wrong spiritual knowledge’s, but to have right Faith to God, and to Jesus.
This imagination that we have only correct, true knowledge about God, Bible, and that we must have only correct, true knowledge about Faith for to be saved it is very wrong and not Biblical. Bible teaches that we must have Faith in to few subjects, that is necessary, I will try to say.
1. Faith to the creator God.
2. Faith to the Jesus Christ as king of universe and head of spiritual Church.
3. Faith to your salvation.
4. Faith to the resurrection of Jesus Chris.
5. Faith to the name of Jesus Christ.
6. Faith to the eternal glorified life of sons of God.
7. Destruction of sinners.
8. Faith to the moral Law of God, (10 commandments of God).
Faith to have moral life. And love Christians as our brothers and sisters.
9. Faith to that that we must confess our sins to God and repent our sins.
10.Faith to the Bible as word of God and to the Gospel.
I think it is all.
So I say there is many other subjects that are truths, but they are not necessary for to be saved. It is right that when we have a correct knowledge’s about Word of God and when we are wiser then our life will be more blessed. And so every believer can understand many words, verses in Bible in wrong way, but when they not essential for the salvation the believer continues to be son of God and member of spiritual Church.
There are many questions that they are very interesting, but not essential.
For example,
1. To have resting in Saturday or in Sunday.
2. Eternal life is in spirit or in body.
3. We must eat meat or not.
4. Church must have democratic structure or not.
5. The Earth is spherical or flat.
And so on. You can see, if you would want that, in itself many of these type questions Not religious questions, but philosophical, scientific questions.
We must differ what is Church and what is spiritual servants of a Church.
Church it is all the believers of Christ. But many speak about church as a organization of a spiritual servants of the Church. Catholic Church, Protestant Church, Lutheran Church, Orthodox Church and so on. But these are not Churches in Biblical view; these are only theological Schools with big traditions of even 2000 years old. These theological Schools want to have answers in every spiritual question, this make them to do many wrongs. Beside that they enforce the members of their Churches to believe in their theological resolutions they maid. And who don’t want to believe them they think that they have a right to throw the believe of Christ, son of God from the Church, and so in 2000 years. Especially have a big sin in this question Catholic Church but Protestants also not innocent in this subject. Our enemy not Catholic Church or Protestant Church, our enemy is the World and all satanic forces. May many Christians are fooled by the Devil and they work for him, but they don’t understand it as in his time Catholic Church did.
Noting can separate us from God if we have a Faith to Jesus Christ.
I think we must give a little attention in many interesting questions and don’t persecute other Christians, our brothers and sisters, sons of God
for not essential subjects.
We Christians are very powerful, we can conquer all the world, God have given us every thing in the world.
God bless you
In the name of Christ

Charlesinflorida said:

The father is eternal, infinite and boundless. Yet he has a need to communicate with his creation. So his right arm extends into creation as Messiah, God in the flesh finite. And although Messiah has all the essence of God, he is not all that God is. He is the right arm of God.

As a friend explains it, holding my right arm in his hands, this is Charles. But if I separate the arm from the body I can not say that this arm that I hold in my hands is Charles, because Charles in more than that. The arm is part of Charles, but is nothing without being connected to the rest of him.

This is how it is with Messiah Yeshua, He is Gods right arm extending into the physical world that can not contain God in his entirety, so that God can have relationship with his creation. Further, God would live in us, but the infinite God nor the Son can dwell inside of us, but the Spirit, his life breath can live in us. They are all God.

The lord says in the O.T. I am the Lord your God there is no savior but me.

Charles in Florida

Click to expand...

Are you saying CHRIST WAS CREATED???

A couple of thoughts.

1. holiness without which no man shall see the LORD

2. forgiveness without which we are not forgiven

3. the love of God, if we cant love our brothers who we have seen how can we love God whom we have seen..

I know your original post was fundamental but i consider these three to be in the group also.. Not in any paticular order but also what true holiness is not external but heart holiness..

flyfishing said:

Are you saying CHRIST WAS CREATED???

Click to expand...

Messiah was from the beginning, before all things were created. All things were creater though him. Messiah was not flesh in the beginning. A body was prepared for him born from Mariam. The word was made flesh John says.

JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.. . .

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Seems flyfishing that you are constantly on a witch hunt and trying to find anything possible to twist into a reason to bring accusation and slander upon me. I try to share from my heart but sometimes my words are not adequate. This causes you offense every single time. Perhaps you could find someone else to bird dog or a while.

CIF

Charlesinflorida said:

The father is eternal, infinite and boundless. Yet he has a need to communicate with his creation. So his right arm extends into creation as Messiah, God in the flesh finite. And although Messiah has all the essence of God, he is not all that God is. He is the right arm of God.

As a friend explains it, holding my right arm in his hands, this is Charles. But if I separate the arm from the body I can not say that this arm that I hold in my hands is Charles, because Charles in more than that. The arm is part of Charles, but is nothing without being connected to the rest of him.

This is how it is with Messiah Yeshua, He is Gods right arm extending into the physical world that can not contain God in his entirety, so that God can have relationship with his creation. Further, God would live in us, but the infinite God nor the Son can dwell inside of us, but the Spirit, his life breath can live in us. They are all God.

The lord says in the O.T. I am the Lord your God there is no savior but me.

Charles in Florida

Click to expand...

charles, i have to agree that this statement sounded like you thought that Jesus was "formed" from the substance of the Father, as though He took a peice of himself and that became Jesus, Jesus being a part of the father up until His incarnation, and thus not a separate "person" up to that point.... that He is in fact only a part of the Father, separated only when He was needed...

could you clarify your statement?

thanks!!!

Judaism including Messianic Judaism has a its central anchor point that there is one God. It is the central point in Pauls teachings as well. It is the Gentile that tries to explain God in Greeco-Roman terms and creates three spearate Gods, in the Trinity.
Jews are satisfied to allow Gods nature to be a mystery, something that we Humans may not fully understand; That God can be both a flaming column, and a pillar of smoke, a buning bush and a form with a body and a hand to cover the face of Moshe, he is spirit, he is eternal. I am satisfied with the Mystery and do not have to pass God through an equation to see if all the parts add up. You may think of him as you choose as well.

Charlesinflorida said:

Judaism including Messianic Judaism has as its central anchor point that there is one God. It is the central point in Pauls teachings as well. It is the Gentile that tries to explain God in Greeco-Roman terms and creates three spearate Gods, in the Trinity.
Jews are satisfied to allow Gods nature to be a mystery, something that we Humans may not fully understand; That God can be both a flaming column, and a pillar of smoke, a buning bush and a form with a body and a hand to cover the face of Moshe, he is spirit, he is eternal. I am satisfied with the Mystery and do not have to pass God through an equation to see if all the parts add up. You may think of him as you choose as well.

Click to expand...

I want to add more explanation to this. I first thought a simple answer might suffice and then had second thoughts, beause I do not want to sound harsh but am trying to be helpful in understanding Hebraic thought. First off I will provide you with a bit of Ancient Jewish writing so that you may see that Jews also believe that Messiah was before the creation:

Yet was the fire of the Gehenna created on the eve of the Sabbath? Surely it was taught: Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Torah, for it is written, The Lord made me [sc. the Torah] as the beginning of his way.26 Repentance, for it is written, Before the mountains were brought forth, and it is written, Thou turnest man to contrition, and sayest, Repent, ye children of men.27 The Garden of Eden, as it is written, And the Lord planted a garden in Eden from aforetime.28 The Gehenna, for it is written, For Tophet [i.e., Gehenna] is ordered of old.29 The Throne of Glory and the Temple, for it is written, Thou throne of glory, on high from the beginning, Thou place of our sanctuary.30 The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His [sc. the Messiah's] name shall endure for ever, and has exited before the sun!31 — I will tell you: only its cavity was created before the world was created, but its fire [was created] on the eve of the Sabbath.

This next clip is from Tim Heggs book the Letter writer, (Which I would recommend to anyone who would really like to understand Paul)


Chapter 3
In fact, the promise of Messiah, beginning with Genesis 3:15, becomes the primary thread that unifies the whole of the Tanach, from the micro through the macro structures. Kaiser380 and Sailhamer,381 among others, have shown how the central theme of the Messianic promise not only unifies the Tanach, but also was a core idea that helped mold the very shape of the Hebrew canon. Far from being a peripheral belief held by a few fringe groups, the promise and hope of a coming Messiah lay at the very heart of post-exilic Israel and of God’s revelation to her via His prophets.

In classical treatments of the doctrine of Messiah (usually called “Christology”) the material may be broadly divided into two categories: the person of Messiah and the work of Messiah. Once again, as we read the epistles of Paul with an eye to these categories, we discover that he has formulated his understanding of Messiah from the pages of the Tanach.

The Person of Messiah

Paul did not walk with Yeshua as the Twelve did, even though he certainly knew of Yeshua before his Damascus Road experience. Yet all that Paul knew of Him from a societal perspective was negative, since he learned of Him as an antagonist. In fact, Paul plainly states that he could no longer consider Yeshua “according to the flesh,”382 but was apparently given over entirely to understanding Him from the testimony of others, and directly from the Scriptures of the Tanach. He accredits to oral testimony (“that which I also received”) what he knew about Yeshua’s final Passover, including His newly inserted word in the seder regarding His broken body and shed blood. He further learned through the testimony of others that the Pesach seder would, from that time on, also be a memorial of the deliverance He had won for His people as the Savior of the world.383
Paul knew that Yeshua was born of a woman,384 and that He was from the family of David,385 statements fully affirming His humanity. He knew that Yeshua had died, that He had risen three days later as He had said, that He had appeared to His disciples as well as to others (including Paul), and that He had ascended to the Father.386 Paul also affirms Yeshua’s eternality, His equality with the Father, His status as the Son of God (a label well recognized as messianic),387 and that He was worthy to be worshiped.388 Paul taught the present intercessory activity of Yeshua at the Father’s right hand389 and His future return to retrieve His own.390 In all of these affirmations, Paul never writes as though needing to defend something by way of debate. It was only in the later, creedal activity of the 3rd and 4th Century Christian Church that the linear logic of the Greek and
Latin fathers found some of these categories inconsistent. In attempting to unravel the “mystery of godliness,”391 they forced an “either-or” into categories which, in Hebrew thought, were “both-and.”
For instance, Paul has no problem affirming the humanity of Yeshua, but he can also, without explanation, tell the elders of Ephesus that God purchased the congregation of believers “with His own blood.”392 Does God have blood? Here Paul unveils his working presupposition, namely, that Yeshua is God. Yet even recognizing this open declaration of Yeshua as “God,” Paul can state in another place that God is the “King eternal, immortal, invisible….”393 and not concern himself with what appears to the Western mind as an open contradiction. He can do this because within the thinking process of the Semitic mind there is no need for a comprehensive linear logic across all aspects of life’s experiences and thoughts.394 Within the sphere of the Divine, God is invisible. But when He desires to appear to His creation, He can do so without compromising His essential nature. In the same way, Paul has no difficulty affirming the full eternality of Yeshua (no beginning or end) while at the same time acknowledging His full humanity. Holding these apparent opposites in tension only heightens the nature of the mystery and majesty of God, Who is both above and beyond us, yet dwells with us.
The same phenomenon occurs in the Tanach, where the descriptions of God appear to be contradictory. For instance, in Exodus 33:20 God explicitly states, “You cannot see My face,395 for no man can see Me and live!” Yet in the same book (Exodus 24:10), after Moses and Aaron and the elders of Israel ascend Mt. Sinai, the text states:
Exodus 24:10: and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
It is obvious that the narrative contains what to the Western mind would be a blatant contradiction, yet neither Moses nor the scribes who copied these texts throughout the millennia felt the need to reconcile them. Why? Because the Semitic mind of the ancient world expected the tension of competing concepts to be the norm within the thinking process. Often our need to reconcile these tensions leads us down a path the original authors never intended.
Thus Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, fully affirms the eternality of Yeshua and at the same time confesses Him to be “born of a woman,” a descendant of David “according to the flesh.” Paul believes that Yeshua had no beginning when he describes Him as the Creator, as well as “before all things” (Colossians 1:15-18):
Colossians 1:15-18: And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.


If we look at Paul’s words from a Hebrew perspective we avoid the misinterpretations so easily attached to this text by Western thinking. First, the structure is obvious in the Greek, and discernible in the translation. It is made up of three stanzas, each in chiastic396 arrangement, with the first and third stanzas also parallel. In the overall arrangement of the stanzas, the first one is parallel to the third, utilizing the same key words for each respective line. Thus, line 1 begins “He is the image…” and line 7 begins “He is the beginning….” Likewise, line 2 begins with “first-born” as does line 8. Line 3 begins with the Greek preposition έν (en, “in” or “by”) as does line 9. This kind of arrangement is not uncommon in ancient writing, and particularly in the Semitic languages. Since Paul is writing as a Hebrew, it is not strange to find these kinds of structures in his Greek epistles. Here is how the text might be arranged:
Line Text
1 He is the Image of the invisible God
2 first-born of all creation
3 By Him all things were created; through Him and for Him
4 And He is before all things
5 in Him all things hold together
6 And He is the head of the body, the ekklesia
7 He is the beginning
8 first-born from the dead
9 In all things He is first place
What does this arrangement397 tell us? It emphasizes the preeminence of Yeshua as Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. In the opening line He is the image of the invisible God, which is paralleled by line 7, “He is the beginning.” This word “beginning” corresponds to the typical Rabbinic use of the term to denote the work of creation (תיִשאֵרְב הֶשֲעַמ/רֵצוֹי yozer/ma’aseh b’reshit).398 As “first-born” of the creation, parallel with “first-born” from the dead (lines 2 & 8), He is proclaimed to be the One who rightfully inherits both the fruits of creation as well as resurrection. Line 3 reiterates the proclamation of Yeshua as Creator, and its parallel, line 9, emphasizes His preeminence in this position.
The first and third stanzas act as “bookends” to hold the central stanza. Here, Yeshua is once again proclaimed as the preeminent One, but now in relation to His people, the ekklesia. And the middle sentence of the whole, which apparently Paul intends to emphasize the most, proclaims Yeshua as the One by whom all things maintain their current viability, including (and perhaps especially) the ekklesia. Such language corresponds to the Rabbinic teaching that God is constantly in the process of creating and maintaining the creation, for the same phrase “work of creation” is found in the liturgical affirmation that God “renews every day, continually, the work of creation.”399 This means that without His continual work of creation all would cease to exist.

Continued on next post

Continuing Tim Hegg from The letter writer

So what does Paul affirm about Yeshua in this text? That He is the Sovereign, the Creator, the Preeminent One, and the One by whom the whole universe is constantly maintained. Any reading of this text which puts Yeshua in a secondary place, or a position diminished from God, has not read it with integrity. Paul is using clear, Hebraic and even Rabbinic language to describe Yeshua as the Creator, and such an affirmation ascribes to Yeshua an absolute oneness with Adonai (הוה&#1497, a unity which goes beyond our ability to explain.
But this is not some innovation on the part of Paul. Even the Rabbinic literature alludes to the fact that the Messiah and HaShem share the same Name:
What is the name of King Messiah? R. Abba Kahana said: His name is “the LORD” (הוהי as it is stated, And this is the name whereby he shall be called, the LORD (הוה&#1497 is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6).400
In like manner, the Name was vested in the Angel of the Lord Who led Israel on her journey to the Promised Land,401 meaning that His word was to be accepted as having the same authority as the very word of God. This same Angel of the Lord is described by Isaiah as the “Angel of the Face,” that is, the very Presence of God, Who wrought salvation for the people of Israel.402
Thus, Paul affirmed the eternal nature of Yeshua, His sovereignty as Creator and Sustainer of the universe, His humanity as the son of David, Messiah, and His unity with the Father as possessing all the divine attributes associated with the Name. Paul never attempts to unravel this mystery, but affirms and teaches it as the core reality of the Messiah he served.
Paul goes one step further in this remarkable opening chapter of Colossians. Following the “hymn” of 1:15-18 he concludes in verses 19-20:
Colossians 1:19-20: For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
We should pay close attention to Paul’s affirmation that it was the “father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.” This is paralleled in the next chapter (2:9) by the words:
For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form….
Here, the additional word “deity” (θεοτήτος, theotetos) denotes “the nature or essence of deity, that which constitutes deity.”403 The mystery of the incarnation is captured in this term for Paul. He does not say the fullness of “God” dwells in bodily form, but he adopts a term which contains the attributes of deity while maintaining a clear distinction between God the Father and the Son of God as Immanuel.404
What exactly is Paul teaching here? The word “fullness” (πλήρωµα, pleroma) means “completeness.” While its meaning in this text has attracted considerable debate, the growing consensus is that in the Lxx and other places it “expresses the conviction that
Chapter 3 God’s power and presence fill the universe.”405 This concept is found in early Jewish works,406 and the idea of the divine presence indwelling human beings is also present in Jewish writings.407
The point is obvious: Paul affirms the mystery of the incarnation. He felt no need to give a philosophical explanation on the level of Latin persona408 or Greek philosophy of ontology (basis of reality). As a Hebrew, his way was to accept the mystery of the unexplained and hold in tension two truths which would appear to be self-contradictory but which were both surely true: God is One, invisible, eternal, unchanging; Yeshua is One with the Father, visible, human, yet eternal and divine. While the eternal wonder of the incarnation no doubt remained a supreme mystery in the heart of the Apostle, he felt no compulsion to attempt an explanation which would satisfy human reason.
Unfortunately, this need would exist in the Western, Greek mind, whose understanding of truth was necessarily built upon the Greek definitions of reality. Yeshua could not be known or understood (or trusted in) unless His “person” could be analyzed and His “parts” defined. Was He fifty percent man and fifty percent God? Did His humanity and deity blend to form a new, unique “substance?”409 Such questions would never have occurred to Paul, which is why the answers eventually formulated by the Church Fathers are based upon philosophy and dogmatics, but not on Paul’s letters nor any other Scriptures. Unfortunately, the dogmatic creeds adopted by the Church in the 4th and 5th Centuries to satisfy the Western mind went further to fuel the heretic fires than they did to explain Paul. If we are to listen to Paul’s teaching on the person of Messiah, we must do our best to read his letters apart from the later dogmatic theology manufactured to explain him. Indeed, nothing is more important for a clear understanding of Paul’s theology than to read him “with both hands,” and not with Luther’s theology in one hand, and Paul’s epistles in the other.
Summary – The Person of Messiah
In summary, what can we say that Paul affirms about the person of Yeshua? He is the promised Messiah, the King and Priest of Israel, of the tribe of Judah and the house of David. He is the very presence of God with us (Immanuel), and in Him the fullness of deity dwells. He is the only Savior, the One who died as a sacrifice for sins and who rose from the dead as proof that the Father accepted the atonement He made. He ascended to the Father where He intercedes for His people, and will return to gather His own to Himself and to rule as the rightful King of Israel. He is the One of whom the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings speak, and He is worthy to be worshiped because He is our Savior and God.410




I hope that this helps some. Sorry that I have not brought over the foot notes, and some of the Hebrew characters convert to mood faces in the Forum software.
CIF

References for above Tim Hegg

Footnotes 365 C. A. Evans, “Messianism” in Evans and Stanley, eds., Dictionary of the New Testament Background (IVP, 200), 700.
366 Ibid., 701.
367 4Q285 has been labeled the “Pierced Messiah” text, primarily on the basis of early interpretations by scholars such as Robert Eisenman of California State University who claimed that it spoke of the Messianic Leader being killed. Subsequent investigations by scholars have reinterpreted the text to indicate that the Messianic Leader is the one who does the killing, not who is killed. Eisenman later agreed that this was a possibility. Cp. Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Element, 1992), 24ff; Hartman Stegemann, The Library of Qumran (Brill / Eerdmans, 1998), 102ff.
368 Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 103.
369 It is true, of course, that the early midrashim, along with the Mishnah and the Apostolic writings, give us much evidence of the character of early Judaisms. However, the extant manuscripts of these writings are later, and detractors often presume that they have been tampered with to accommodate the later, emerging Christian Church (Apostolic Writings) or the post-70 CE Rabbinic Judaism (midrashim and Mishnah). Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls occupy a unique position as the only extant manuscript evidence that dates from the 1st Centuries BCE and CE.
370 cf. 17:32, “Lord Messiah” (as in the Greek and Syriac manuscripts). The character of the Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon is that he will appear on the appointed day (18:5), drive out the wicked (17:27), purge Jerusalem of sinners (17:30, 32, 36; 18:5) and will lead Israel, judging the tribes of the people (17:26) and distributing the land according to their tribes (17:28). See the comments of C. A. Evans, “Messianism” in The Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, 701.
371 The Targumim are expanded translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. The dates of the codified Targumim are disputed, but there seems to be clear evidence of the existence of recognized Aramaic translations of the Tanach in the 1st Century CE and earlier. Fragments of Aramaic translations have been found at Qumran (4QTgLev, 4QTgJob, 11QTgJob), and the emerging rabbinical regulations of the Targumim would indicate that they were gaining popularity and use in the pre-rabbinic era.
372 The Qumran scrolls likewise interpret the Genesis 49:10-12 text messianically, 4Q252.
373 b.Sanhedrin 98b. cf. also Mid. Rab. Ruth on 2:14; Yalqut ii.571, ii.620.
374 See the comments of Rashi, Eben Ezra, and Kimchi on Zechariah 6:12f in תולודג תוארקמ (םילשורי, 1924), 7.345-46.
375 For further resources on the Rabbinic view of Messiah, see Paphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979); Rachmiel Frydland, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Messianic Pub. Co., 1993).
376 b.Sukkah 52a.
377 Acts 13:32-33.
378 תיִרְבּ, berit, in the Hebrew, διαθήκη, diatheke in the Lxx and Apostolic Scriptures.
379 For information on the Royal Grant Treaty / Covenant see M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970); T. Hegg, “Covenant of Grant and the Abrahamic Covenant,” Masters Thesis: Northwest Baptist Seminary (Tacoma, 1980).
380 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 1978), 20-69; “The Eschatological Hermeneutics of ‘Epangelicalism’: Promise Theology” JETS 14 (1972), 91-99.
381 John Sailhamer, Introduction to the Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Zondervan, 1995); “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible” JETS 44.1 (2001), 5-23.
382 2Corinthians 5:16.
383 1Corinthians 11:13ff.
384 Galatians 4:4.
385 Romans 1:3; 2Timothy 2:8.
386 1Corinthians 13:3ff; Romans 8:34.
Footnotes 387 Philippians 2:1-5. The older scholarship which relegated the title “Son of God” to the later, Greco-Roman influence, has currently come under heavy attack by the appearance of the “Son of God” text (4Q246) at Qumran. That the parallels in this text closely align with the verbiage of the Lukan infancy narrative cannot be denied, and is further proof that the “Son of God” terminology was not only extant in the early centuries, but was used to denote Messiah figures. On the terminology “son of Man” as Messianic, see C. F. D. Moule, “The Son of Man: Some of the Facts” NTS 41 (1995), 277-279; John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism” NTS 28 (1992), 448-466; Thomas B. Slater, “One Like the Son of Man in First-Century Judaism” NTS 41, 183-198; William O. Walker, “The Origin of the Son of Man Concept as Applied to Jesus” in John Maier and Vincent Tollers, eds. The Bible in its Literary Milieu (Eerdmans, 1979), 156-165.
388 Philippians 2:10.
389 Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1.
390 1Thessalonians 4:16-18.
391 1Timothy 3:16, a recognized confession of faith of the early followers of Yeshua.
392 Acts 20:28. The manuscript data for the two readings κύριος and θέος is as follows: θέος - א B, 056, 0142, 104, 614, 629, 1505, 1877*, 2412, 2495, lectionaries, itar,c vg, syrp.h copboms κύριος – P74 A, C, D, E 33, 181, 436, 451, 630, 945, 1739, a few lectionaries, itd,e,gig,p syrh-mg copsa,bo arm. Furthermore, the easier reading is “Lord,” since the text as read with “God” is a blatant affirmation of the deity of Yeshua. See the comments in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971), 481-81.
393 1Timothy 1:17, cf. Colossians 1:15.
394 Marvin Wilson calls this “block logic.” Marvin Wilson, Our Father Abraham (Eerdmans, 1989), 150ff.
395 It should be remembered that the Hebrew word “fact” (םיִנָפּ, panim) is often translated “presence” in our English translations. The phrase in question could therefore just as well be translated “You cannot see my presence and live.”
396 “Chiastic” means a structure in which elements are parallel from the outer to the inner (a-b-c-b-a), thus forming an “X,” the letter “Chi” in Greek.
397 ǒς έστιν είκών τοΰ θεοΰ τοΰ άοράτου
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
έν αύτώ έκτίσθη τά πάντα τά πάντα δι’ αύτοΰ καί είς αύτόν έκτισται’
καί αύτός έστιν πρό πάντων
τά πάντα έν αύτώ συνέστηκεν,
καί αύτός έστιν ή κεφαλή τοΰ σώµατος της έκκλησιας
ός έστιν άρχή,
πρωτότοκος έκ τών νεκρών,
έν πάσιν αύτός πρωτεύων.
398 b.Sotah 40a; b.B’rachot 58a; b.Rosh HaShanah 11a, etc. The phrase אֶשֲׂעַמ תיִשאֵרְבּ involved the “mysteries of creation,” which were forbidden by the Rabbis to be taught in public, cf. b.Chagigah 11b. The Greek άρχη, the word for “beginning” in the Colossians text, regularly translates the Hebrew תישאר of the Tanach. Furthermore, this same Greek word (άρχ&#951 can mean “government” and is so used in the Lxx of Isaiah 9:6-7 [Hebrew text 9:5-6] to translate the Hebrew הָרְשִׂמַּה.
Footnotes 399 תישארב השעמ דימת םוי לכב שדחמ, in the Morning Service, cf. Joseph H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (Bloch, 1975), 114-115. The concept is based upon the use of the participle הֶשׂוֹע, ‘oseh, “making” is Psalms 115:15; 121:2, 124:8; 134:3; 136:5, 146:6, indicating a present and ongoing work.
400 Mid. Rab. Lamentations 1:51; cf. b.Bava Batra 75a.
401 Exodus 23:21.
402 Isaiah 63:9.
403 BAG, θεοτητος.
404 That the Kabbalists tried to find a way to explain the obvious multiplicity within the self-revelations of God as the conflation of sepharot is in itself an attempt to explain the unexplainable, not unlike the explanations derived by the later, Constantinian Church. But any manufactured attempts at explaining the divine mystery of God’s self-revelation rather detract from the glory of the mystery than explain it. That God is both invisible and visible, that He is both “wholly other” while at the same time “Immanuel” is the essence of the mystery, and the strength of the tension which by faith we accept but cannot (and perhaps should not) try to simplify in order to render a satisfactory explanation.
405 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998), 204.
406 cf. Jeremiah 23:24; Ben Sira 1:6-7; Epistle of Aristeas 132; Philo, Legum Allegoriae 3.4; De Gigantibus 47; De Confusione Linguarum 136; De Vita Mosis 2.238. One should also note the Synagogue Liturgy, in the two blessings before the Shema, the first (called רוא רצוי, “Who creates light”) includes the שודק שודק שודק prayer of Isaiah 6:3, which contains the words “the whole earth is full of His glory (וֹדוֹבכּ ץראה־לכ אל&#1502. Fearing that the biblical concept of the glory of God filling the earth might be misinterpreted, the Sages ordained that Ezekiel 3:12, “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place,” be inserted next. While God’s glory or presence may fill the universe, He is still distinct from the universe and still maintains His rule of the world from His exalted throne.
407 Testimony of Zebulun 8:2; Testimony of Benjamin 6:4; 1Enoch 49:3; Wisdom 1.4.
408 The Latin word persona has a root meaning of “mask,” and was used in the Roman theater to denote the carious “persons” a given actor would portray. It has no equivalent in Hebrew or Greek.
409 The very fact that the later Church Creeds (such as the Athanasian Creed) required the use of the term “substance” when speaking of the nature of God, shows beyond doubt that a Greek model of reality was the basic framework out of which the Creed was conceived. But to consider the God of Hebrew Scripture from the Framework of Greek philosophical categories is to invite sure disaster. The eternal Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not encompassed by Greek philosophical explanations, notwithstanding Augustine’s valiant attempts to so explain Him.
410 Romans 9:5, though disputed as to the exact syntax and structure, is best understood as affirming the deity of Yeshua (cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 2 vols in International Critical Commentary (T & T Clark, 1979), 2.464f; cf. Titus 2:13, noting the application of Granville Sharp’s rule, see note 495 below.
411 Galatians 1:14.
412 Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18.
413 Isaiah 6:10; 43:8.
414 y.Chagigah II, 4.
415 b.Sanhedrin 97a.
416 Mekilta Bahodesh 7 (249-251 in the Lauterback edition); cf. b.Yoma 86a.
417 m.Yoma 8:6, Gemara b.Yoma 85b.
418 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 161.
419 Ezekiel 18:30.
420 Matthew 3:8.
Footnotes 421 I use the word “tradition” here in the sense in which it is found is Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8, 9, 13, that is, the teachings of men which effectively set aside the truth of God. Those traditions which encourage and promote true faithfulness to God and His Torah should not be despised but utilized according to one’s freedom in Messiah.
422 Romans 2:16; 16:25; 2Timothy 2:8.
423 2Corinthians 4:6.
424 1Corinthians 15:3-4; Romans 8:34; 1Thessalonians 4:16-18; 1Corinthians 15:25; 2Timothy 2:12.
425 This figure is based upon the text of the UBS 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament and does not consider the few times where textual variants exist.
426 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998), 197-8.
427 ό.Χρίστος (nominative article) is found 14 times in the Pauline letters. Χρίστος with the article (in whatever case) is found 82 times, but a majority of these are in constructions using Χρίστος as an attributive manner.
428 Romans 3:25.
429 1Corinthians 5:7.
430 Exodus 25:17, 18, 19, 20(x2), 21, 22, 31:7; 35:12; 37:6, 8(x2), 9; Leviticus 16:2(x2), 13, 14(x2), 15(x2); Numbers 7:89.
431 Ephesians 5:2.
432 Exodus 29:18, 25; Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17, etc.
433 John 1:26, 29.
434 Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20.
435 E.g., Leviticus 4:12, 8:15; 9:9.
436 E.g., Exodus 29:40, 41; Numbers 15:5, 7, 10, 24.
437 E.g., Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, etc.; 1Peter 1:18-19.
438 1Corinthians 15:45.
439 The idea that “atonement” (from the Hebrew רפ&#1499 was only a temporary covering for sin until Yeshua came to make a full washing away of sins is neither borne out by Scripture nor by sound thinking. When the term םיִרוּפִּכּ, kippurim, “atonement,” was used, it was envisioned within the realm of the Tabernacle/Temple. Since the blood was placed on the mercy seat in the sigh of the One who is “enthroned upon the cherubim” (1Samuel 4:4; Isaiah 37:16; Psalms 80:1; 99:1) it accomplished its purpose of being a substitute life for the sinner. The holiness of God, symbolically guarded by the Cherubim, was satisfied by the substitute’s life, and thus the life of the sinner was spared. The faithful thus had their sins forgiven, completely, not partially or in some way “lay-away” fashion. Their sins were removed as far as the east is from the west because God, Who exists in the all eternal present, as much accredited Yeshua’s work to them as He does to us.
440 Hebrew 10:4.
441 Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 117; cf. Exodus 21:30; 30:12; Numbers 35:31-32; Psalms 49:8; Isaiah 43:3-4. Note also the contributions of Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1995), 160-78; J. Herman, “רפכ” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3:303-10.
442 On the idea that the Yom Kippur sacrifice was for intentional sins while the guilt and trespass offerings were for unintentional sins, see below p. 197ff.
443 Acts 2:29-31.
444 1Peter 1:10-11. The translation here departs from the NAS95 and the NIV, both of which miss the nuance of the Greek: έραυνώντες είς τίνα ή ποΐον καιρόν, which does not mean “what person” but “what and what manner of time.” The KJV has it right.
445 Luke 24:25-27. Note that the Greek word translated “explained” is διερµεινύω, diermeinuo, which means “to translate, explain” and involves a text-based explanation, thus “exegesis.”
446 Romans 4:1ff; note especially 4:12ff; Galatians 3:8ff.
140

too much information! i cannot absorb it all! my attention span is quite limited!

realizing that i may have missed something in there, what does this mean?
>>>>Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. <<<<

also, i dont understand how "trinitarians" are not embracing a mystery of God... i dont believe in 3 Gods i believe in ONE God, who is in three persons. not shifting from one "manifestation" to another, but truly independent in personhood, yet not in being, in being they are one. i think the term i am thinking of is "modalism"... shifting from one person of the godhead to another... that is not what trinitarianism is. how can "my Lord said to the Lord" be in that sense? it is clear, to me anyhoo, that while Jesus and the Father are ONE, they are still evidently separate, one spirit, two persons (three incl. the Holy Spirit)... that is a HUGE mystery to me. its not like ppl who believe in the trinity are lacking in faith in God and so thus have to "rationalize" it. i think when we look into scripture the trinity teaching is clear....

uh, anymore clarity that can be brung to this slow witted person?

thanks CIF
Lynne

To me God is manifested in 3 Persons.

In the Bible, in Genisis, God said let US make man. Who's the Us? Was he not agreeing with himself. Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

Jesus told the Jews, before Abraham was, I AM. No one says, "I AM", except God.

Thomas bowed down before Jesus, and confessed My Lord and My God. Thomas recognized Jesus as God. He called Jesus "His God".

Jesus told the Apostles, I am from above, you are from benieth, by Him saying this, He had to be from above from the beginning.

LynneClomina said:

too much information! i cannot absorb it all! my attention span is quite limited!

realizing that i may have missed something in there, what does this mean?
>>>>Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. <<<<

also, i dont understand how "trinitarians" are not embracing a mystery of God... i dont believe in 3 Gods i believe in ONE God, who is in three persons. not shifting from one "manifestation" to another, but truly independent in personhood, yet not in being, in being they are one. i think the term i am thinking of is "modalism"... shifting from one person of the godhead to another... that is not what trinitarianism is. how can "my Lord said to the Lord" be in that sense? it is clear, to me anyhoo, that while Jesus and the Father are ONE, they are still evidently separate, one spirit, two persons (three incl. the Holy Spirit)... that is a HUGE mystery to me. its not like ppl who believe in the trinity are lacking in faith in God and so thus have to "rationalize" it. i think when we look into scripture the trinity teaching is clear....

uh, anymore clarity that can be brung to this slow witted person?

thanks CIF
Lynne

Click to expand...

Lynne,

Don't give up on the pages I posted, and don't make any fast decisions about who has faith and who doesn't. Read them over a few times. Print them out and read them again later.

Tim Hegg has done an excellent job of binging together what Paul is saying about the nature of Messiahs person. Roman-Greeco understanding is like science and math, all the parts of the equation have to balance and add up to the whole, you know the whole is the sum of all its parts, that sort of thing. In Hebraic thought you are allowed to have things that don't add up, like 2 + 2 = 5. Sometimes the whole is greater than its parts in ancient Hebraic thought. (I am not speaking of math here).

CIF

Charles, while I see much truth in what you have posted, I am concerned by a statement in one of your earliest posts, namely that Jesus (Yeshua) was not all that God is. If He is not all that God the Father is, then He is not fully God. Jesus' equality with the Father is and has been one of the fundamentals of the faith. Agreed, it IS a mystery how "one God" can be eternally manifest in three Persons. Agreed, the Fathers strayed from Hebraic thought, but the doctrine of the "complex unity" of the Godhead is clearly found in the Scriptures and central to an orthodox understanding of Who god is. By the way, the Eastern Orthodox Church, even after the definition of the Trinity finalized at Constantinople in 381 C.E. still views the Godhead as a mystery, which I fully agree with- it is and will always be beyond our tidy definitions- but the basic truths are still present.