Jesus

[donadams]

for_his_glory said Hebrews 1:8, 9 refers Jesus as being God. But the weight of the evidence indicates that it is YHWH God.
However believers of the Trinity believe that Jesus is shown to be the same as Almighty God at Hebrews 1:8. I don't believe this to be correct.

First, we have to note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed at Hebrews 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

Secondly, it should be noted that Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God so I don't believe the writer of Hebrews thought that Jesus was Almighty God.

Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said: “It is scarcely possible that Elohim,(God]) in the original can be addressed to the king. . . . 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.’”

So I disagree that Hebrews 1:8,9 refers Jesus as being Almighty God.

for_his_glory said that 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus being God.
1 John 5:20 says, "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us insight so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true. And we are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

Believers in the Trinity doctrine hold that the demonstrative pronoun “this” (houtos) refers to its immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ. They assert that Jesus is “the true God and life everlasting.” I believe this interpretation, however, is in conflict with the rest of the Scriptures. And many authoritative scholars do not accept this Trinitarian view. Cambridge University scholar B. F. Westcott wrote: “The most natural reference [of the pronoun houtos] is to the subject not locally nearest but dominant in the mind of the apostle.” So, the apostle John had in mind Jesus Christ Father. German theologian Erich Haupt wrote: “It has to be determined whether the [houtos] of the next proposition refers to the locally and immediately preceding subject . . . or to the more distant antecedent God. A testimony to the one true God seems more in harmony with the final warning against idols than a demonstration of the divinity of Christ.”

A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, published by Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute, states: “[Houtos]: as a climax to 1 John 5 [verses] 18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true, [in] opp[osition to] paganism (v. 21 1Jo 5:21).”
So I don't agree that 1 John 5:20 refers to Jesus as being God.
In 1 John 5:7,8 the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one” do not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts. So the most modern Bible translations omit those words, the Bible edition by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine putting the words in brackets along with an explanatory footnote, as follows: “The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading.”

The oldest Greek manuscript of the Christian Scriptures is, in the judgment of many, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, written in the first half of the fourth century. In our own copy of this Greek manuscript as edited by Cardinal Angelus Maius in 1859, he inserted the Greek words into the Manuscript copy but added a sign of a footnote at the end of the preceding verse. The footnote is in Latin and, translated, reads:

From here on in the most ancient Vatican codex, which we reproduce in this edition, the reading is as follows: “For there are three that give testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are for one. If the testimony” etc. there is therefore lacking the celebrated testimony of John concerning the divine three persons, which fact was already long known to critics.

AND”

God And Jesus Christ:

Does not imply Jesus is not God.
Unity of the Father and the Son.

The Father is in the son; and the
Son is in the father.

Dogma: divinely revealed truth; taught by the apostolic church.
(Matt 28:19 eph 4:5 Jude 1:3)

41. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.

3. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.


John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 10:38
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

1 Corinthians 1:3
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:2
Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:3
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Colossians 1:2
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Apostles Creed

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord…

1 Jn 1:1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 Jn 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

 

[donadams]

3. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.

Colossians 1:26
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

 

[BB1956]

Hey All,
BB1956, you are teaching Jehovah's Witnesses 101.


Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I disagree that Genesis 1: 26, 27 proves Jesus to be God. I agree that it's the only begotten Son of God being spoken to at Genesis 1:26, 27, but not the second person of the Trinity, when the True God says, "let us make man in our image." So I disagree that Genesis 1:26, 27 indicates plurality of persons in a Godhead.

At Genesis 3:22 after Adam had sinned, YHWH God made the expression, "become like one of us." Some have taken the expression “one of us” as the plural of majesty, just as a human king might say “we are not pleased” when referring only to himself. With regard to Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, however, Bible scholar Donald E. Gowan says: “There is no support in the Old Testament for most of the proposed explanations: the royal ‘we,’ the deliberative ‘we,’ the plural of fullness, or an indication of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. . . . None of these explanations makes much sense in 3:22, which speaks of ‘one of us.’”

Referring to the spirit creature who became the perfect man Jesus, the apostle Paul said: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) It seems logical to me that at Genesis 1:26, YHWH God was speaking to his only-begotten Son, the “master worker,” who was at his side during the creation of the heavens and the earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31) The similarity of the expression at Genesis 3:22 suggests that YHWH God was again speaking to that person who was closest to him, his only-begotten Son.

 

[donadams]

only begotten Son of God

A father and son have the same nature / essence

 

[BB1956]

Josef said,
"John 1:2-3 The same (The Word) was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him (John personifies The Word); and without him was not any thing made that was made.


John 1:14 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.

The Word, who was God, the same that was in the beginning with God, that all things were made by, was made flesh.[/QUOTE\]

I never said the Word wasn't a person so I have no problem with John personifying the Word.

Concerning John 1:3 other Bibles have this verse translated differently than what you quoted.

New international version John 1:3-" Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The New Living Translation, English Standard version, New king James Bible, New American Standard Bible, American Standard Version all are translated similarly.

So it was through the only begotten Son of God who is the Word that YHWH God made all things.

John 1:14 is teaching me that it was the only begotten Son of God who is the Word is who became flesh/human, and it was the only begotten Son of God who is the Word who was in the beginning with God

 

[BB1956]

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Sounds like Christ not the Father.

I agree that verse 3 is talking about Jesus Christ but you're completely ignoring the context of Hebrews 1:1-9 and as long as you do I'm going to disagree with you. Verse 3 says that Jesus Christ is the reflection of God's glory and the exact representation of God's very being. But as I said verse 9 of Hebrews chapter 1 makes it very clear that the one addressed in verse 8 is not God, but instead in verse 8 God is addressing his only begotten Son

 

[donadams]

Hmmm, you said (that Luther said) that Jesus didn't die on the Cross. You also mentioned that Luther rejected the "holy sacrifice" of Christ. Finally, you seem to be contrasting the Lord's death on the Cross with the "eternal sacrifice" of Christ

Please elaborate, because I don't understand the point or points that you are trying to make.

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - it would help to see what Luther actually said. Perhaps you could post a quote of two of his that shows us the problem that you are having with his theology. Thanks again

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Clean oblation is a pure offering or unbloody sacrifice

Once for all!

Once bloody on the cross but for all time! Eternal sacrifice of Christ!

Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[Josef]

I disagree that Genesis 1: 26, 27 proves Jesus to be God. I agree that it's the only begotten Son of God being spoken to at Genesis 1:26, 27, but not the second person of the Trinity, when the True God says, "let us make man in our image." So I disagree that Genesis 1:26, 27 indicates plurality of persons in a Godhead.

At Genesis 3:22 after Adam had sinned, YHWH God made the expression, "become like one of us." Some have taken the expression “one of us” as the plural of majesty, just as a human king might say “we are not pleased” when referring only to himself. With regard to Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, however, Bible scholar Donald E. Gowan says: “There is no support in the Old Testament for most of the proposed explanations: the royal ‘we,’ the deliberative ‘we,’ the plural of fullness, or an indication of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. . . . None of these explanations makes much sense in 3:22, which speaks of ‘one of us.’”

Referring to the spirit creature who became the perfect man Jesus, the apostle Paul said: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) It seems logical to me that at Genesis 1:26, YHWH God was speaking to his only-begotten Son, the “master worker,” who was at his side during the creation of the heavens and the earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31) The similarity of the expression at Genesis 3:22 suggests that YHWH God was again speaking to that person who was closest to him, his only-begotten Son.

Hey All,
BB1956, do you seriously need commentary to interpret "one of us?" That is a singular plural all day long. That is just basic English. The triune God is one, and an us. You can deny the truth. You can ignore the truth. But you cannot change the truth.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Tax

 

[BB1956]

Hey All,
BB1956, do you seriously need commentary to interpret "one of us?" That is a singular plural all day long. That is just basic English. The triune God is one, and an us. You can deny the truth. You can ignore the truth. But you cannot change the truth.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Tax

It was Bible scholar Donald E. Gowan who said in regard to Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, "There is no support in the Old Testament for most of the proposed explanations: the royal ‘we,’ the deliberative ‘we,’ the plural of fullness, or an indication of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. . . . None of these explanations makes much sense in 3:22, which speaks of ‘one of us.’”
I think he makes a good point, but I understand others have the right to disagree with him.

 

[BB1956]

Hey All,
BB1956, do you seriously need commentary to interpret "one of us?" That is a singular plural all day long. That is just basic English. The triune God is one, and an us. You can deny the truth. You can ignore the truth. But you cannot change the truth.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Tax

Obviously Bible scholar Donald E. Gowan felt the need to remark on the phrase, "one if us," because of the way others were interpreting Genesis 1:26, and Genesis 3:22.