• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Christ's Deity

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by fieldsofwind, Dec 3, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    sure pal... then show me its "un-reasonable" nature... come on... you can do it

    in the mean time... take care

  2. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Posted by lightbearer: "In the everlasting future in heaven, Jesus will continue to be a separate, subordinate servant of God. The Bible expresses it this way: "After that will come the end, when he [Jesus in heaven] will hand over the kingdom to God the Father . . . Then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all." 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, NJB."

    I forgot to address this part earlier, and, just to clarify some things:

    1) this verse is not saying that Christ will always be subservient... it is actually saying that in the end God will indeed reunite... and become all in all again. Remember... if you do not agree with the fact that Christ was God before He became flesh, then you deny John 1, Hebrews 1, and Revelation 1, 19, 22, etc...

    2) how about starting here evangelion, lightbearer, etc...

    How is it that Christ is my only Sovereign? How is it that He is the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega? How is it that through Him all things were made that have been made, and without Him, nothing was made? How is it that God calls Christ God, and says that "today I have become your Father"... (this is when they separate through His love... He became flesh and subservient-- John 1, Phil 2, Hebrews 1.)

    Or, you could address any of the points in the earlier post... or the rebuttal to lightbearers post.

    take care

  3. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    Then the thoughts are much more likely to be original than what was copied and pasted by Lightbearer. I had to think of a response for each part I quoted. It's not like I have some book right next to me telling me how to respond to each and every comment made by those who reject Christ as God.

    Begging the question - you have yet to show how. I've given evidences I haven't seen anyone else here give, and yet, somehow, those who reject the deity of Christ fail to respond to them 100% of the time. Curious.

    Truly, you must be blind. Helen Keller would have one up on you.

    Begging the question again. Merely saying "No, it isn't so!" is less than convincing, and doesn't address anything.
  4. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    2 Thess 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
    2 Thess 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
    2 Thess 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
    2 Thess 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
    2 Thess 2:11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
    2 Thess 2:12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness
  5. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    Jehovahs Witness

    Exactly.  Jesus was requesting that he be given back the glory he had before coming to the earth.  This was his own glory as the firstborn Son of God, not God's own glory that he gives to nobody.  In fact the scriptures inform us that Jesus was give greater glory than he had previously in heaven and that he was also given immortality, something he did not have before coming to the earth.  All this screams separate individual, not God almighty because God Almighty has always had immortality.


    Lets examine this a little closer to determine to whom this title "Alpha and Omega" properly belongs? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In Re 1 verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in Re 1 verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in Re 1 verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be 'sons' of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his 'brothers.' (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those 'brothers' of Jesus are referred to as "sons of God." (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in Re 22 verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be "the first and the last," which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression "apostle" is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers as is Shepherd, Light of the World, Judge, need I go on. But thist does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title "Alpha and Omega" applies to Almighty God, the Father, Jehovah, not to the Son.


    Again an example of misapplication of scripture.
    Although AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am." Was Jesus there teaching that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as you claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"?  Again lets closely examine the evidence.

    At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"

    The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

    1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

    1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

    1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

    1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

    1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
    Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created "firstborn," Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.-Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

    Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to "have seen Abraham" although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Joh 8 Verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he "was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.[/quote]

    The correct term used in the scriptures you quote is "Obeisance"

    The act of bowing, kneeling, prostrating the body, or making some other gesture to betoken submission; or simply the paying of respect. It adequately translates the Hebrew hish·ta·chawah' and the Greek pro·sky·ne'o in many cases.

    The Greek pro·sky·ne'o corresponds closely to the Hebrew hish·ta·chawah' as to conveying the thought of both obeisance to creatures and worship to God or a deity. The manner of expressing the obeisance is perhaps not so prominent in pro·sky·ne'o as in hish·ta·chawah', where the Hebrew term graphically conveys the thought of prostration or bowing down. Scholars derive the Greek term from the verb ky·ne'o, "kiss." The usage of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures (as also in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) shows that persons to whose actions the term is applied prostrated themselves or bowed down.-Mt 2:11; 18:26; 28:9.

    As with the Hebrew term, the context must be considered to determine whether pro·sky·ne'o refers to obeisance solely in the form of deep respect or obeisance in the form of religious worship. Where reference is directly to God (Joh 4:20-24; 1Co 14:25; Re 4:10) or to false gods and their idols (Ac 7:43; Re 9:20), it is evident that the obeisance goes beyond that acceptably or customarily rendered to men and enters the field of worship. So, too, where the object of the obeisance is left unstated, its being directed to God is understood. (Joh 12:20; Ac 8:27; 24:11; Heb 11:21; Re 11:1) On the other hand, the action of those of "the synagogue of Satan" who are made to "come and do obeisance" before the feet of Christians is clearly not worship.-Re 3:9.

    Obeisance to a human king is found in Jesus' illustration at Matthew 18:26. It is evident that this was the kind of obeisance that the astrologers rendered to the child Jesus, "born king of the Jews," that Herod professed interest in expressing, and that the soldiers mockingly rendered to Jesus before his impalement. They clearly did not view Jesus as God or as a deity. (Mt 2:2, 8; Mr 15:19) While some translators use the word "worship" in the majority of cases where pro·sky·ne'o describes persons' actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one's reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God's representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as "God's Son," the foretold "Son of man," the Messiah with divine authority. On many occasions their obeisance expressed a gratitude for divine revelation or evidence of favor like that expressed in earlier times. Mt 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Lu 24:50-52; Joh 9:35, 38.
  6. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    Jehovahs Witness

    Paul begins his letter to Titus with the greeting "to Titus, a genuine child according to a faith shared in common: May there be undeserved kindness and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior". Titus 1:4

    In connection with Titus 2:13 the question is whether the Greek should be rendered 'the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,' or 'the glory of the great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ.

    Which  agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to "God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior"? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.

    The same applies to Heb 1:8
    RS reads: "Of the Son he says, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'" (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever.'" (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

    Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression "God, thy God," showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads "Your divine throne." (NE says, "Your throne is like God's throne." JP [verse 7]: "Thy throne given of God.") Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit "upon Jehovah's throne." (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the "throne," or Source and Upholder of Christ's kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

    Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: "The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os'] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os' sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that ['Elo·him'] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os'] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'" The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
  7. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    Jedi -

    I don't see that this necessarily follows.

    Well, that's quite refreshing. Good for you! :)

    All in good time... ;)


    Having spent the last I-don't-know-how-many-years debating the Trinity, I tend to be a trifle laissez-faire about the standard Christological controversies. You may already have detected in my posts a certain ennui. This is nothing personal, but merely a natural reaction to the familiar sight of the old, time-worn Trinitarian arguments being rehashed and reiterated all over again.

    Moreover, I abide by the principle of not casting my pearls before swine. Again, this is nothing personal - it's just that I don't see the point in addressing every single argument on every single occasion, since (most of the time) many of the arguments that come my way, are totally undeserving of a response.

    But if you hang around for a bit, I can promise that you'll see enough rebuttals to last you a lifetime. ;)

    If you look carefully at FOWs massive copy/pasted spamming efforts, you will see that they consist of little more than a personal opinion. This leaves me with very little to address.

    If you want to see a response, you'll have to wait (as I am doing) for something that's worth responding to. :cool:
  8. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Posted by lightbearer: "In fact the scriptures inform us that Jesus was give greater glory than he had previously in heaven and that he was also given immortality, something he did not have before coming to the earth. All this screams separate individual, not God almighty because God Almighty has always had immortality."


    And, why not respond to the numerous pieces of earlier posts indicating the numerous parts of the Bible in which Christ is described as God alone... as the Alpha and the Omega the Beginning and the End the First and the Last... the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS... the Lord of Glory, He is addresssed by the Father as being God... is worshiped by men and angels... is described as being God who became flesh in John one... etc...

    You see... I have Biblical back ups to my posts... you do not. You only portray one side of the story, and that is Christ's submission. Yet you do not portray the other side of the story, and that is who Christ was before becoming man... He was not always the Son... (Hebrews, John 1, Phil 2,)... He was God, and even while flesh He was in very nature God.

    Posted by lightbearer: "At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in Re 22 verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him."

    Basically... you doubt the word of God... you claim that it is flawed, yet... I believe that it is exactly how the Lord of Glory wants it to be.

    Yes Christ is the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last... HE is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS... (all caps there)... He is the Word of John one who was God and became flesh... He is addressed by the Father as being God and is described as the creator of all things in Hebrews... He is the great I AM in John 8 and 18.

    Of course... to back up your claims you would have to get rid of many parts of the Bible like your attempts just now... or you have to say that they don't mean what they say... But!!! They do!

    Posted by lightbearer: "Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created "firstborn," Jesus"

    Nope... every referrence to Christ as the firstborn is that of firstborn from the dead. This has nothing to do with being created... indeed the Bible says in John 1 and Hebrews 1 that either nothing was made without Christ and that Christ did indeed create all things because He is God who separated Himself from His glory to be able to become flesh.

    Every piece of scripture that you have will agree with this... the only way that you can come about an idea that Christ is not God is by taking only the verses describing Him as subservient and omitting all of the verses describing who He truely is and what He was before becoming subservient. You are addressing God Himself when speaking of Christ.

    The rest of your post is the same... you attempt to discredit the word of God.

    And... you, once again, did not address my post.


  9. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Christ is God who became flesh. When He became flesh... He had to make Himself like a man... (Phil 2 clearly explains that Christ made HIMSELF nothing... no one else did this for Him). This is why you see Christ as being subservient to the Father. It is also why you see Christ as being addressed as God throughout the word of God. God was always Christ in that Christ is God in His love. God is always love. (Hebrews Ch 9 talks all about how the sacrifice was necessary, and had to be made by the one who made the covenant in the first place--God.) Christ represents love in every way that is described throughout the Bible. All of love's characteristics are fulfilled in Christ. However, God can not be subservient to death... He cannot become sin. This is why God in His love became flesh, which enabled Him to become our sin. This is where Christ and the Father, although they are one, separate (Remember, Christ says that He comes from the Father.) God in His love, (Christ), did not consider it necessary to remain God in His glory. Therefore God in His love separated Himself from God in His glory... because love had to make a sacrifice. (Notice the direct similarity with Phil 2:5-11) These things fit in perfectly with Hebrews chapeter one where God is speaking of Christ and calling Him God... saying that "today I have become your Father." Christ is the Word of John 1:1. He is not an "idea/logos" of God's put into a man... He is exactly as the Bible says... the Word was God... the Word became flesh. One of Christ's titles in Revelation is the "Word of God". Notice once again ed.. that nothing in these words isn't already in the Bible... everything here is taken from Love as mentioned by Christ and in 1 Cor 13... from Phil 2... and from Hebrews 1 and 9. ---------->God becoming like man... amazing! And doing this to enable Him to become our sacrifice. The very punishment that was given, He Himself underwent. However, God in His majesty cannot become sin. Sin cannot enter His Domain. God in His glroy had to turn His back on Himself in the flesh, as a man... as sin... out of love. Phil describes Christ... His form after becoming flesh. He was God... (Remember, God Almighty in His majesty is always Christ in that Christ is God in His love... however, God through His love [Christ] had to give up being Himself in all of His glory to be able to become our sacrifice) But as described in the parenthesis, He had to give up being Himself in all of His power/glory/majesty/words cannot describe/etc. However, He was still in very nature God (or in the "form" of) when He became flesh. It is just the best way that the words we have can describe what happened. God out of His love for us did not consider staying in a state equal with Himself in His own majesty/glory/etc something that He needed to hold on to... ("to be grasped")...(He didn't need to, it was His already)... and He in turn made Himself nothing, through Love, to become our sacrifice... (I know this has been said again and again... but it is so important.) This is who Christ is... and it is completely supported by every scripture that anyone here can bring to the table.

    Yes... God is one... who became flesh... He is also Spirit... not three different individuals... and yes He did have to take on the nature of man. He did indeed become the Son of God... (read Hebrews chapter one... "today I have become your Father")... and furthermore... Hebrews is very clear that the one who made the covenant in the first place is the one who had to die to put it into effect.

    So... here are some points for those claiming that Christ is not God who became subservient, and is now glorified again after defeating death. (He is God, just to make sure folks know what I'm saying here)

    First of all... you have verses where Christ possesses the title KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS. Yet... God will not give His glory to another... so how is it that Christ would have this title if He was not God? Also... the verse referring to Christ as the Lord of Glory... how do you explain that one?

    Secondly... you have the debate over John 1. Some here assume that the Word came into a man... yet that is not what it says. The Bible says that the Word was God. It does not say it was an idea or some metaphysical entity. The Bible clearly, clearly says that the Word was God, period. Then... it says the Word became flesh... not came into someone's flesh. here is a refresher reading for you: (John 1:1-5, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. ------> (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

    Thirdly... we have the following verses: (Hebrews 9:14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:16-17) In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living.--------> These verses clearly explain who had to die: The One who made the will (covenant). It is obvious... yet some do not believe... they say... what? What do you say?

    Next we have these verses: (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son: today I have become your Father.” Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Hebrews 1:10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Notice at the beginning of this God says “TODAY… I have become your Father… indicating that He wasn’t always… while Christ says many times that He is the Beginning and the End… indicating the claim I AM)-------> Now... what do you guys have to say about this one? Is it a "bad" translation? Nope... God's word is truth... I believe it. If you believe that the new translations can be erroneous, then what is to keep the old ones from being skewed as well? (I'll give you a hint... God!!!) These verses, once again, portray Christ as was explained at the beginning of the post. He is God who became flesh... "today I have become your Father." The Father says of the Son: "Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever".

    Here's another one: (Colossians 2:9)—For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form-----------> Pretty self-explanitory isn't it?

    How about this: (Acts 3:15)--You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (Who is the author of life?) Once again... we have a verse indicating that Christ is the author of life... the creator... etc... like John 1... like Hebrews chapter 1.

    Here you go: (Jude 1:4)-- "They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Pretty explicit about that "only Sovereign and Lord huh.)-------> What do you guys have to say about this one... isn't God our only Sovereign? Our ONLY Lord it claims... hmmm.... pretty powerful isn't it!

    And finally... (at least for this post)... (Titus 2:13)--while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. (notice that it says Christ was purifying a people for his very own... "purify for himself"... sounds like this is what God was doing doesn't it... indicates, once again, that they are one in the same)

    Need I say more about this last one? (Purify for HIMSELF... not someone else)


  10. Knight

    Knight Knight of the Cross

    Good argument and presentation.

    One question though. How does Christ's deity fit into "Unorthodox Theological Doctrines?" As far as I know this doctrine is well accepted by mainstream Christianity. The unorthodox doctrine would be that Christ wasn't God.

    Just an observation.
  11. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    A closer examination of this thread will show that FOW is defending the alleged deity of Christ against those who reject it.

    IOW, ppl like me. :cool:
  12. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    Lets go to the Hebrew:

    Plural Name: "Elohim" is the third word of the Hebrew Scriptures: In the beginning "Elohim" - "God" (Genesis 1:1). Elohim comes from a root that means "strength, might, or power." "Elohim" is the most common word for "God" and is used over 2300 times in the Scriptures. "Elohim" is plural and can be literally translated as "gods." Exodus 12:12 refers to "all the elohim (gods) of Egypt." "Eloah" is the singular form of "Elohim," but it is used much less frequently - only 250 times. This plural name that is applied to the One God is a hint of the plural/singular nature of God that is more fully revealed in the rest of the Scriptures.

    Plural Verbs: Normally the plural name "Elohim" is followed by a singular verb. But there are several fascinating instances when "Elohim" is accompanied by a plural verb. Genesis 20:13 literally says in Hebrew that Elohim (God) they caused me to wander from my father's house... And in Genesis 35:7 Elohim (God) they appeared to him. 2 Samuel 7:23 says: What nation on the earth is like Your people Israel, whom Elohim they went to redeem for Himself. Psalm 58:11 declares that surely there is a God they judge the earth.

    Plural Pronouns: There are times when plural pronouns are used to describe the One God. The Lord God, speaking in Genesis 1:26 says: Let Us make man in Our image according to Our likeness. (See also Genesis 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8 for other instances of plural pronouns that refer to God).

    Plural Nouns: There are several intriguing occurrences where plural nouns refer to the one God: The LORD... He is a holy God [literally holy Gods] (Joshua 24:19). Remember your Creator [literally Creators] in the days of your youth (Ec. 12:1). Let Israel rejoice in his Maker [literally Makers] (Psalm 149:2). For your Maker [literally Makers] is your husband [literally husbands] (Isaiah 54:5).

    Plural Descriptions: In the Tenach there are mysterious plural descriptions of the Three-in-One God. King David writes: The Lord (Adonai) says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet (Psalm 110:1). Psalm 45:6-7 records this: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, therefore God, Your God has anointed You with the oil of joy more than Your fellows. The apostle to the Messianic Jews applies this passage to Messiah, declaring that Yeshua[Jesus] is God, and that His Father is God (see Hebrews 1:8-9).

    In Genesis 1:1-3 God (Elohim, which is a plural), the Spirit of God and the Word of God (and God said...), are all involved in the creation of the universe.

    In Isaiah 48 One speaks who calls Himself the first and the last, and the One who founded the earth. He goes on to say that from the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit (Isaiah 48:12-16). The Creator who is speaking claims to have been sent by the Lord God and His Spirit!

    In the Jewish Bible God is pictured sitting on His throne in Heaven, and at the same time He is present everywhere throughout the universe (where can I go from Your Spirit? Where can I flee from Your Presence? - Psalm 139:7), and at the same time the Spirit of God was dwelling in the prophets, and at the same time the Shechinah (God's Dwelling Presence, the Glory of God, the Holy Spirit) was manifested in the Jerusalem Temple (1 Kings 8:27)!

    From time to time God manifested Himself as the enigmatic Angel of the Lord, a mysterious messenger being (angel means messenger) who appeared throughout our people's history. When He appeared this mysterious angel was treated as God Himself. He possessed divine prerogatives, He had divine authority, and He received divine worship. When Manoah, the father of Samson, finally realized that he was dealing with the Angel of the Lord, he said to his wife, we shall surely die, for we have seen God (Judges 13:21-22). In that same chapter, God is mentioned, the Angel of the Lord (who is called God), is mentioned, and the Spirit of God is mentioned. (See Genesis 16:7, 9, 11, Exodus 3:2-6, Judges 2:1-4, 6:11-22, for other appearances of this mysterious Angel of the Lord).

    What about the Shema? Some have objected that the Shema (Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One - Deut. 6:4) reveals that God can only be a simple unity. But there are two Hebrew words for "one" - "echad" and "yachid." "Echad," which is used to describe the oneness of God in the Shema, connotes a composite oneness, as in the unity of a husband and wife, which are said to be "one" flesh (Genesis 2:24). "Yachid," which is not used in the Shema, connotes an absolute oneness, as that of an only son (Genesis 22:2). The Shema teaches the unity of God, based on a oneness that allows for a composite Three-In-Oneness.
  13. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member


    What do they Believe?


    The Christadelphians have been with us since about 1848. They rose up after the Mormons, but prior to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists. A man name John Thomas founded the group. The Disciples of Christ denomination attempted to discipline this man for his "strange doctrines", but the discipline was not accepted by him. John Thomas drew off his own followers under their original name, "The Royal Association of Believers in New York", now known as the "Christadelphians".

    John Thomas' book, "Elpis Israel" (Hope of Israel), and his successor's book, "Christendom Astray from the Bible", by Robert Roberts form the basis for the group's beliefs.


    The Christadelphian publication, "Key to Understanding the Bible", page 13, reads under "The Godhead"

    "God is one, not three. He has revealed Himself as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and of all who are related to Him in Faith."

    God is therefore believed to be ONLY God the FATHER. Christians do believe there is only one God. However, whereas we agree that the Father is called God, the Son, Jesus Christ, is also called God. Therefore He is likewise a manifestation of the One God of Scripture.

    Prophecy calls Jesus God - Matthew 123

    The Disciples called Jesus God - John 2025-28

    The Father called Jesus God - Hebrews 18


    Again, we quote from "Key to Understanding the Bible", page 14.

    "Jesus Christ is not God the Son, but is the Son of God, begotten of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. He was a man of our race, identical in nature with all mankind."

    Jesus Christ is therefore presented by the Christadelphians as being the son of God ONLY, having no existence prior to his birth to Mary and being only a man by nature. However, the Bible plainly teaches the preexistence and eternal nature of Jesus Christ. For example, John 1:1 states,

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." (NAS)

    Verse 14 continues, regarding Jesus,

    "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NAS)

    The Word, Jesus Christ, was plainly there "in the beginning". In fact, He is "before all things" according to Colossians 1:17, which chapter of the Bible portrays Him as Creator of all.

    The prophecy in Micah is of special interest. Micah 52 reads,

    "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."

    The key word here is "eternity", also translated "everlasting". This is the Hebrew word "olam". This word is never used for any creature, or product of creation. It is ONLY used for GOD. This same Hebrew word is used of the Father in Psalm 90:2,

    "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God."

    The eternal nature of Jesus Christ is also evident from 1 Timothy 1:17, which ways of Christ,

    "Now to the King ETERNAL, immortal, invisible, THE ONLY GOD, be honor and glory forever and ever, Amen."

    Jesus Christ did function on this earth as a man to perfectly redeem us, but this did not detract from His eternal Deity. Colossians 2:9 says of Christ, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

    All is all, full is full. Jesus Christ, even in the flesh never ceased to be truly and fully God.


    Under the heading "Devil" and "Satan" in the Christadelphian publication, "Key to Understanding the Bible", on page 15, we find,

    "Devil.....Its general meaning is sin or lawlessness, whether manifested individually or politically. It is also applied to the unlawful lusts and tendencies of human nature which invariably lead to sin. It is not a supernatural being. Satan is a Hebrew word signifying "adversary", "enemy", or "accuser"."

    Christadelphians therefore reduce the Devil to our own sinful lusts, and make every adversary in the Bible a "Satan". Both views are in error, as we shall see.

    In Zechariah 3:1,2, we see Satan standing before the angel of the Lord, and God Himself speaks to Satan, rebuking him. Was God rebuking His own lustful thoughts? Ridiculous. Likewise Jesus carried on quite a conversation with the person of Satan the Devil in Matthew 4, verses 1 through 11. Jesus, who was perfect, certainly did not have a sinful nature talking to Him! He was speaking to a real personage, Satan the Devil. Jesus went on to call him, the "father of lies" and a "Murderer" in John 8:44. These are titles for a real person, not abstract feelings.

    Christadelphians need to know that there is a real person in the world called "Satan the Devil" and he delights in having people deny his existence, for then they never gain the mastery over him.

    I have seen a lot of 'pride' displayed on the part of the Christadelphians in this discussion. The enemy [who you do not believe exists] was thrown out of heaven for the same behavior.
  14. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    Thankyou for revealing the paucity of your education by plariagising somebody else's work.

    Anyone who clicks on the hotlink in my signature will be taken to the Christadelphian Statement of Faith, to which I subscribe.

    This appears to have escaped your attention, and so you have just wasted your time by telling people what they could have found out for themselves by taking up my own invitation to learn what I believe by interacting with my sig. line. :cool:
  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -

    Have you? Have you really? Well firstly, there's only one Christadelphian here, and that's me. And secondly, I'd like you to identify that alleged "pride." And thirdly, any "pride" that you might infer from my posts, is totally eclipsed by the arrogance of the Trinitarians here. :cool:
  16. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -

    None of this is relevant.

    Elohim is not a name. Any half-decent lexicon will tell you that.

    No, it does nothing of the kind. If that was its intended purpose, we would find it used consistently, in the way that your argument requires. And yet, it is not. The fact that elohim is plural in form, does not mean that it is necessarily plural in its meaning. Indeed, elohim is not the only Hebrew noun that can be plural in form but singular in meaning. Such Hebrew noun forms are sometimes used for abstract nouns and as intensifiers. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar devotes several pages to this subject. The following list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point.

    Bearing in mind that the masculine plural ending is -im, while the feminine plural ending is -oth, consider these examples:
    • zequnim - old age (Genesis 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20.)
    • ne`urim - youth. David was only a boy (na`ar), but Goliath "has been a fighting man from his youth (ne`urim.)" (I Samuel 17:33.)
    • chayyim - life. This is used in the song "To life, to life, lechayyim" in the movie Fiddler on the Roof.
    • gebhuroth - strength. The singular form gebhurah is the usual word for strength, but the plural form is used in Job 41:12.
    • tsedaqoth - righteousness. The singular form tsedaqah is the usual word, but tsedaqoth is used in Isaiah 33:15 - "he who walks righteously (or "in righteousness.")
    • chokmoth - wisdom. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Proverbs 1:20.
    • 'adonim - lord. 'Adon means "lord," and 'adonim normally means "lords," but Isaiah 19:4 says, "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ('adonim.)"
    • behemoth. This word normally means "beasts", but in Job 40:15 it refers to one particular animal.
    All of these words appear in a plural form, and yet they are applied to individuals. So the plurality of elohim is by no means unique, and therefore carries no special significance whatsoever. It is, in fact, nothing more than a peculiarity of Hebrew grammar. Plurality of form does not always indicate plurality of meaning in Hebrew, and our brief list (above) confirms this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    Hence the words of Ethelyn Simon et al, in The First Hebrew Primer for Adults:

    • When (ELOHIM) refers to the God of Israel it is always singular in concept, even though it has a masculine plural ending.
    The citation is taken from the 2nd Edition, published in 1983.

    ...therefore denoting a single person, and thereby demolishing the Trinitarian argument.

    These errors are found only in the Massoretic text, upon which the KJV is based. Modern versions prefer to take their cue from the Samaritan text. And why? Because according to the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia...

    • There are cases where, with colloquial inexactitude, the Massoretic Text has joined a plural noun to a singular verb, and vice versa; these are corrected in Samaritan.
    The fact that these anomalies are not found in the LXX (which predates even the Samaritan Pentateuch), and the fact that they contradict the recognised grammatical rules of Biblical Hebrew, is further evidence that they are mere scribal errors.

    Four occasions only! Hardly sufficient evidence for a "plurality of persons within the Godhead." What you have to explain to me, is why this use is not consistently applied throughout the OT.
  17. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>


    The footnote for Genesis 1:26 in the New English Translation provides a sensible, scholarly analysis:

    • The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory.

      In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).

      Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
    Finally, we must realise that the Trinitarian argument from Genesis 1:26 is fraught with logical perils.
    • Trinitarians take the "God" of verse 26 as a reference to one person of the Trinity. (God said "Let us make man...") They argue that this refers to a plurality of creators and therefore cannot refer to the angels.
    • But verse 27 says that only a single creator was responsible for the creation of man, and that single creator was God. Not only that, but He is referred to in the singular (not the plural), as we find in the following words: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
    • Trinitarians insist that verse 26 refers to a plurality of persons. Very well. That is their prerogative. But verse 27 refers only to a single person; a single creator - and for that reason alone, the Trinitarian argument falls flat on its face.
    • In order to be consistent with the Trinitarian interpretation, verse 27 would have to say "So God created man in their own image. In the image of God created they him; male and female created they them" - which would correspond to the "us" of verse 26. This would confirm that more than one person is referred to by the singular use of "God" in verse 27. It would certainly lend support to the Trinitarian reading.
    • And yet, we find that in both cases, singular pronouns are used. So Trinitarians cannot claim that the word "he" in verse 27 is used to denote the Godhead as a whole, without (a) running contrary to Trinitarianism, and (b) contradicting their own exegesis of verse 26!
    • If, therefore, the Trinitarian still wishes to see a plurality of creators in verse 26, he must explain why verse 27 confirms that a single creator was responsible for the creation of man.
    Another problem for the Trinitarian argument, is that Jesus Christ himself refers to the creation in Matthew 19:4, where he says:

    • Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?
    Notice that Jesus does not claim responsibility for the work of creation, and that he ascribes it to someone other than himself. Even more damaging to the Trinitarian argument is the fact that, according to Jesus, the creator was a single person (hence his use of the word "he", not "they" or even "us", which is what the Trinitarian needs to see here.)

    As we would expect, the Old Testament vindicates the Unitarian argument and confirms the truth of Christ's words (words which the Trinitarian is desperate to deny), when it speaks through the mouth of an inspired prophet:

    • Isaiah 64:8.
      But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
    Who was responsible for the creation? On countless occasions, the Old Testament tells us that it was a single person. Now Isaiah 64:8 tells us that this single person was the Father.

    But the problems for the Trinitarian argument don’t stop there, for we find that the truth of the Unitarian claim is verified yet again - this time in the Apocalypse:

    • Revelation 4:11.
      Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
    These words are spoken to the Father, not to the Son. How do we know that this is the Father? Because they are spoken to "the one who sits upon the throne." How do we know that "the one who sits upon the throne" is the Father? Because He is clearly delineated from the Lamb, who approaches Him in Revelation 5.


    • Revelation 5:5-7.
      And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
      And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
      And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
    The same distinction is made again in Revelation 14:7. Yes, it is the Father Who created all things - not the Son. Nowhere in the NT (no, not even in Colossians 1), will you find anybody using Genesis 1:26 to prove that a plurality of creators were responsible for the formation of man.

    This expression is obviously a reference to the angels, as the New English Translation demonstrates:

    • Genesis 3:4.
      The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die,11 3:5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open12 and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.”
    The corresponding foonote says:

    • Or perhaps 'like God, knowing.' On the other hand, it could be taken as an attributive adjective modifying elohim. In this case elohim has to be taken as a numerical plural referring to 'gods,' 'divine beings,' for if the one true God were the intended referent, a singular form of the participle would almost certainly appear as a modifier. Following this line of interpretation, one could translate, 'You will be like divine beings who know good and evil.' The following context may favor this translation, for in 3:22 God says to an unidentified group, 'Look, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'

      It is probable that God is addressing his heavenly court (see the note on the word 'make' in 1:26), the members of which can be called 'gods' or 'divine beings from the ancient Israelite perspective. (We know some of these beings as messengers or 'angels.') An examination of parallel constructions shows that a predicative understanding ('you will be, like God himself, knowers of good and evil,' cf. NIV, NRSV) is possible, but rare (see Gen 27:23, where 'hairy' is predicative, complementing the verb “to be'). The statistical evidence strongly suggests that the participle is attributive, modifying 'divine beings' (see Ps 31:12; Isa 1:30; 13:14; 16:2; 29:5; 58:11; Jer 14:9; 20:9; 23:9; 31:12; 48:41; 49:22; Hos 7:11; Amos 4:11). In all of these texts, where a comparative clause and accompanying adjective/participle follow a copulative ('to be') verb, the adjective/participle is attributive after the noun in the comparative clause.
    There is no justifiable reason for seeing a plurality of persons within the Godhead here. As with Genesis 1:26, the context is far more consistent with a reference to the angelic host.
  18. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>


    I refer you to my previous comments on the textual flaws of the Massoretic text.

    Notice also the commendable honesty of Trinitarian scholar Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible:

    • Isa 54:5 - For thy Maker is thine husband -
      Both these words, ‘maker’ and ‘husband,’ in the Hebrew are in the plural number. But the form is evidently the pluralis excellentiae - a form denoting majesty and honor (see 1 Sa_ 19:13, 1 Sa_19:16; Psa_149:2; Pro_9:10; Pro_30:3; Ecc_12:1; Hos_12:1). Here it refers to ‘Yahweh of hosts,’ necessarily in the singular, as Yahweh is one Deu_6:4. No argument can be drawn from this phrase to prove that there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead, as the form is so often used evidently with a singular signification.

      That the words here properly have a singular signification was the evident understanding of the ancient interpreters.

      Thus Jerome Quia dominabitur tui qui fecit te - ‘Because he shall rule ever thee who made thee’

      So the Septuagint, &#927;&#769;&#964;&#953; &#954;&#965;&#769;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; &#959; &#960;&#959;&#953;&#969;&#957; &#963;&#949;, &#954;.&#964;.&#955;. Hoti kurios ho poio&#772;n se, etc. ‘For the Lord who made thee, the Lord of Sabaoth,’ etc.

      So the Chaldee and the Syriac. Lowth renders it, ‘For thy husband is thy Maker.’

      The word rendered ‘husband,’ from &#1489;&#1506;&#1500; ba&#8219;al, denotes properly the lord, maker, or ruler of anyone; or the owner of anything. It often, however, means, to be a husband Deu_21:13; Deu_24:1; Isa_62:5; Mal_2:11, and is evidently used in that sense here. The idea is, that Yahweh would sustain to his people the relation of a husband; that he who had made them, who had originated all their laws and institutions, and moulded them as a people (see the note at Isa_43:1), would now take his church under his protection and care (see the notes at Isa_62:5).
    With characteristic objectivity, Barnes addresses the text as he finds it in the KJV, and offers a reasonable explanation. But he goes further, too - he proves that the sense of the phrase is more accurately expressed in (a) the LXX, (b) the patristics, and (c) alternative Jewish copies, such as the Chaldee and Syriac.

    Here we have one person addressing another person. Remind me - just how is this supposed to prove that both persons are God? :D

    Nonsense. The application of elohim to the Messiah is a titular reference, not an ontological one.

    Hence the footnote in the New American Bible:

    • O god: the king, in courtly language, is called ‘god,’ i.e., more than human, representing God to the people. Hebrews 1:8-9 applies Psalm 45:7-8 to Christ.
    Notice also the footnote in the New English Translation:

    • O God.
      The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9.
      Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB ‘your throne is like God’s throne, eternal’). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title ‘Mighty God’ (see the note on this phrase there).

      Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: ‘No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique’ (see M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa. 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.
    God himself declared that there are “No gods beside me”, but also said to Moses that "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh”"

    • Exodus 7:1.
      And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
    Was it idolatrous for Moses to accept Aaron as his own prophet, even though he himself was not a literal god, nor even the God of Israel?

    This is raw eisegesis - nothing more.
  19. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>


    This is a classic grammatical error, of the sort for which Trinitarians are infamous. When we consult the New English Translation, we find that the narrative switches between the prophet (who speaks on God's behalf), and God Himself.

    God's address commences in verse 3:

    • Isaiah 48:3.
      “I announced events beforehand
      I issued the decrees and made the predictions;
      suddenly I acted and they came to pass.
    The quotation marks open here (marking the commencement of God's address) and they do not close until verse 16, in which God's address concludes, and the prophet resumes the narrative:

    • Isaiah 48:16
      From the very first I have not spoken in secret;
      when it happens, I am there.”
      So now, the sovereign Lord has sent me, accompanied by his spirit. [32]
    Notice the footnote:

    • [32] The speaker here is not identified specifically, but he is probably Cyrus, the Lord’s “ally” mentioned in vv. 14-15.
    Commenting on this passage, Trinitarian scholar Albert Barnes (writing in Notes on the Bible) rules out any possibility that a "plurality of persons within the Godhead" is here referred to:

    • There is evidently a change in the speaker here. In the former part of the verse, it is God who is the speaker. But here it is he who is sent to bear the message. Or, if this should be regarded, as Lowth and many others suppose, as the Messiah who is speaking to the exiled Jews, then it is an assertion that he had been sent by the Lord God and his Spirit.


      Many of the reformers, and others since their time have supposed that this refers to the Messiah, and have endeavored to derive a demonstration from this verse of the doctrine of the Trinity. The argument which it has been supposed these words furnish on that subject is, that three persons are here spoken of, the person who sends, that is, God the Father; the person who is sent, that is, the Messiah; and the Spirit, who concurs in sending him, or by whom he is endowed.

      But the evidence that this refers to the Messiah is too slight to lay the foundation for such an argument; and nothing is gained to the cause of truth by such forced interpretations.


      The scope of the passage demands, as it seems to me, that it should be referred to the prophet himself. His object is, to state that he had not come at his own instance, or without being commissioned. He had been sent by God, and was attended by the Spirit of inspiration. He foretold events which the Spirit of God alone could make known to mankind.
    Barnes is honest where so many other Trinitarians are not. He concedes that the context and construction of the passage simply will not permit the violent twisting upon which the standard Trinitarian argument so obviously relies.
  20. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    When I was in my 'Intellectual" days of thinking that 'I' had superior knowledge that the masses were not privy to, someone made a statement to me that made me think. The statement was 'There will be a lot of smart men in Hell" Now if you do not believe in Hell, then this is not really a problem, however, it changed my life. I did not post the writing on what the Christadelphians believe for your benefit..I posted it for the rest of the people on the forum.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.