Need a hand here folks: The Word?

[handy]

Naw, just go ahead and respond to Hebrews 1:8. It's message is very clear, very straightforward. Putting into context, the He of the text is God, the Son is Jesus Christ.

I see. Am I to understand that you cannot or will not answer the scripture I asked you to explain?

You may understand that I will not at this time.

Tit for tat here, Mutz, I've brought up this verse 3 separate times. Am I to understand that you cannot explain it?

Surely you don't need my explanantion of 1 Corinthians or John 17 in order to explain why you think Hebrews 1:8 doesn't say that Jesus (the Son) is God.

If you will give me your view on the text that I've asked about 3 times, I'll be happy to continue on with this discussion. If you don't, I think all of us will be able to see that you are without answer to God's very clear statement of the true nature of His Son.

 

[handy]

Correction: I've brought it up 3 times, but have asked about it only twice.

I don't like these kinds of situations where someone will say "I'll answer your question only if you answer all of my questions first. We have a fairly decent discussion going here so far. Let's not derail it by playing silly games.

If your answer as to why God didn't mean that the Son was God when He said "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever" hinges on what you believe 1 Corinthians 15:27 and John 17:11 to mean, then by all means explain how you believe the two define the one.

 

[stovebolts]

mutzrein,
Hello good friend. It's good to hear from you. :D

I know that you directed this to Dora, but if I may, please hear me out.

I see. Am I to understand that you cannot or will not answer the scripture I asked you to explain?

Both of you have presented scripture that can be interpreted to produce the view that each is able to see and realize. What it really comes down to, is the lens with which one views a particular portion of scripture. Regardless which lens you choose, whether it be a view that includes the Trinity, or a view that does not, each view is restricted.

In regard to the scripture you posted,

1 Corinthians 15:27 (NIV)
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

Christ was also made a bit lower than the angels, (Hebrews 2:7-10) and suffered that God would be glorified and in such, that all things would be put under his feet. But the writer of Hebrews also says, “But now we see not yet all things put under him.â€Â, for truly, the fullness of Christ has not yet been revealed or completly manifested, and thus, we wait in anticipation for the day when all things are made known to us and we hunger and thirst no more. (Revelation 17:15-17)

Christ himself declares, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last†(Revelation 1:11), and confirms these words in Revelation 21:6 where he repeats these words and adds, “It is Done.â€Â

Remarkably, “It is Done.†echo’s Jesus own words on the Cross where he says, “It is finishedâ€Â.

But John’s account goes further to say, “I will give unto him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.â€Â

Remarkably, Jesus also tells the Samarian woman at the well the same thing, John 4:14 But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Thus, I find it conclusive that it is indeed Jesus speaking in Revelation 21:6 where he clearly states, “It is done, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.â€Â

Revelation 21:7 He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

So the question becomes, which lens are you viewing scripture through? Is it one that denies the trinity, or one that accepts this wonderful mystery?

 

[Imagican]

Naw, just go ahead and respond to Hebrews 1:8. It's message is very clear, very straightforward. Putting into context, the He of the text is God, the Son is Jesus Christ.

I see. Am I to understand that you cannot or will not answer the scripture I asked you to explain?

You may understand that I will not at this time.

Tit for tat here, Mutz, I've brought up this verse 3 separate times. Am I to understand that you cannot explain it?

Surely you don't need my explanantion of 1 Corinthians or John 17 in order to explain why you think Hebrews 1:8 doesn't say that Jesus (the Son) is God.

If you will give me your view on the text that I've asked about 3 times, I'll be happy to continue on with this discussion. If you don't, I think all of us will be able to see that you are without answer to God's very clear statement of the true nature of His Son.

And I believe that what you have offered HERE Is NOT accurate in the LEAST. For we see in this writting that Paul is NOT offering what God stated. He is offering an alagorical situation that is MORE of a 'question' than a statement. Yes, if you choose to be deceptive and take it OUT OF CONTEXT, it does seem to BE God 'saying' something. But if would read the chapter, (which is ALWAYS necessary to understand what is being offered), you will see that this is Paul asking questions NOT making valid QUOTES.


Ok, I'll bite, but then you will owe ME. I'll get to the debt in a moment. First:

[8] But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[9] Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This basically sounds like a 'psalm' or 'poetry' of some sort, (to me). for it is rife with the 'taste' of inuendo rather than words offered for 'enlightenment'. But I digress..

handy, perhaps you would like to explain why you left out the NEXT verse. For in it we see clearly that 'He who is FIRST person' is this monologue IS God. And in this statement He PLAINLY states that HE IS the God OF Christ. ''therefore God, EVEN THY GOD". And, this statement would contradict about a hundred others if it is taken literally, Including this one: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." So, to offer an exact answer as to what Paul 'meant' in these words, I admit, they are a bit confusing.

Now handy, what you owe me: When Christ stated that the words that He offered were NOT His own, but given Him by The Father. What exactly does this MEAN? Were the 'words' that Christ refered to: The Word of God? And IF SO, how were they given to Christ if Christ IS God?

Now, a problem that we might be dealing with in Hebrews is the POSSIBILITY that there has been a misinterpretation. Possible. It could also have been added. Before you 'freak out' and start accusations that may or may NOT be valid, let me offer this:

The gospel of Mark has MUCH that MANY scholars 'believe' was added later, either by Mark or more indicative, by SOMEONE else. This is NOTHING new, (the possibilty that there were additions to the books of the Bible. That there may have been bits and pieces that were added to in order to form a complete, or semi-complete work.) I won't argue this point, but I too have read the Last Chapter of Mark and wondered myself HOW something could be 'put together' in such a manner. For in the beginning of a Chapter Mark speaks of Mary as IF WE ALREADY know to whom he refers. And then half-way through the chapter, there is an offer of explanation of WHO Mary IS that simply does NOT fit the context of the writting. And the end of Mark also offers information that was NOT offered by the other apostles Gospels. And NOTE, 'the other APOSTLES'. For Mark was NOT even an original apostle. Not having actually 'witnessed' that which he recorded but by necessity, took his information SECOND hand. Neither Matthew or John offered the statement that the end of the Gospel of Mark does. So far as the 'handling of serpents, speaking in tongues, drinking poison, or laying on of hands. Marks Gospel offers this, yet neither of the two people that actually WITNESSED Christ's return said a SINGLE word of what is offered by the Gospel of Mark. The indication being that a 'part' of Marks Gospel was lost, never finished, or whatever. And 'someone' simply 'finished it for him'. Adding what they would in order to complete the work. Who knows. But read the book of Mark yourself and see if the last eight verses FIT so far as the style of writting, (words used and the WAY in which his style 'flows').

So, as I have stated: If this verse was MEANT to be written in such a manner it seems REALLY strange to say the least. For the very NEXT verse offers contradiction to that which you point to.

MEC

 

[handy]

Good post, Jeff. And, I'll be the first to admit that my view of all the Truth's contained in the Scriptures are indeed restricted.

However, I am wondering how one who denies the trinity looks at a text such as Hebrews 1:8 wherein the Son is clearly called "God" by none other than God Himself. This is why I keep bringing it up.

As you say, the Trinity, to us humans is a mysterious thing. And, I can understand why some struggle with the concept, I certainly don't have it figured out myself. So, if Mutz can come up with a well reasoned, well cross-referenced non-Trinitarian interpretation of this very clearly stated affirmation by God, I'll listen, truly I will.

I'm a big believer in challenging myself with opposing points of view. Either God's truth is affirmed or falsehoods are revealed, both of which are good things.

So Mutz, the ball is in your court, and keep in mind that if we don't come to an agreement, that's OK.

 

[mutzrein]

A few quick comments - trying to let the paint dry before returning to my loft. Might also grab myself a bite to eat while I muse at these posts.

Dora – I’m not being evasive or playing games. Just wanted to hear what you had to say about a scripture that (from my perspective) conflicts with the scripture you quoted (from your perspective). I certainly do have a response to the scripture you quoted and after a quick read of some other posts here, I see a most important issue that I would also touch on. CONTEXT. You cannot take a verse from here, another from there, marry them and produce a doctrine. Especially when surrounding scripture gives a decidedly different view.

Thankyou Stove. You are right. We are each approaching this from two different premises. The Lord showed me a little while ago that there can only be ONE premise for knowing God. And that is faith. This is the key to our salvation. Not that we adhere to a particular doctrine, do the right things, say the right words, or go to the right ‘church’. If man thinks that through any of these things he can earn himself position or favor with God, he is already bewitched. He is denying the righteousness that can only come by faith.

MEC – thanks for your words brother. They provoke me to thought. I don’t always agree (and I’m mulling over a few things you have said) but I recognize we are one in Christ. As of course are others on this board.

Bless you all

 

[handy]

MEC,


Don't ever accuse me of choosing to be deceptive and deliberately taking things out of context.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I haven't read and studied this passage of Scripture thoroughly before commenting on it. I never use Scripture to explain my doctrines unless I've studied them and are sure they mean what they mean.

And, I don't OWE you anything. Aren't we all here to learn from one another?

Now, before Vic has to lock yet another thread to allow things (especially the feisty little Irish girl) to 'cool off', I'll gladly address some of the points you bring up.

First, I'll entertain no debate on the complete accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible. That Dora Miller might be mis-interpreting Hebrews, I can accept. That the writer of Hebrews (who is never identifed as Paul) failed to write exactly what the HOLY SPIRIT inspired him to write? Never will I accept that. If you are going to hinge your interpretation of this passage on the spurious claim that the writer got it wrong, then I will no longer discuss this issue with you.

Secondly, the writer is not making any kind of allegory. He is simply quoting Psalm 45:6. (Yes indeed I did study the passage enough to look up the originals of what the writer is quoting here.) The Hebrews long recognized their Psalms as being inspired of the Spirit. The HOLY SPIRIT is revealing to all of us that this Psalm was speaking of the Son.

Thirdly, I didn't 'leave out' the next verse, I simply didn't quote it because it wasn't germaine to my point which was that the HOLY SPIRIT revealed to us the true nature of the Son. However, the next verse does not in any way contradict the revealed nature of the Son as God. Father, Son and Spirit are ALL God. Naturally the Father is God to the Son, the Son is God to the Father and the Spirit is God as well. The fact that each have differing roles and differing personalities in no way negates that all Three are revealed as one God.

And, even though I get my Irish up a bit at your tone that I OWE this to you, I will gladly answer these questions of yours:

When Christ stated that the words that He offered were NOT His own, but given Him by The Father. What exactly does this MEAN? Were the 'words' that Christ refered to: The Word of God? And IF SO, how were they given to Christ if Christ IS God?

If one accepts the Triune nature of God, the answer is quite clear: The Three are One God, but each of the Three have their different roles. The Son has always acted out the will of the Father and this includes bringing the Father's message to us as well as dying on the cross for us.

 

[handy]

A few quick comments - trying to let the paint dry before returning to my loft. Might also grab myself a bite to eat while I muse at these posts.

Dora – I’m not being evasive or playing games. Just wanted to hear what you had to say about a scripture that (from my perspective) conflicts with the scripture you quoted (from your perspective). I certainly do have a response to the scripture you quoted and after a quick read of some other posts here, I see a most important issue that I would also touch on. CONTEXT. You cannot take a verse from here, another from there, marry them and produce a doctrine. Especially when surrounding scripture gives a decidedly different view.

Mutz, I can really relate to the need for a bite to eat. I really need to get supper going, but I will respond to this post of yours.

Honestly, everyone, I've studied Hebrews many many times, and I hope that all would grant me the respect of believing that I never deliberately rip things out of context just to somehow "prove" a pet theory or doctrine. When I was quite young, I was caught up in a cult that pulled things out of context all the time. At best, pulling things out of context is sloppy exegesis, at worst it's apostasy. There is nothing "out of context" in seeing the Son as God in John 1, and there is nothing out of context in seeing the Son as God in Hebrews 1. There may be different interpretations, but the interpretation I see in these verses harmonize completely with the context in which they are found.

And, I simply do not see any contradictions in the verses you posted with the Triune nature of God. Which is why I'm just about faint from begging you (no wait, I'm faint from hunger : ) but I would very much like to see your response to Hebrews 1:8 which, as I so snippily pointed out in my last post is the Holy's Spirit's revelation of the nature of the Son as written in the inspired Psalms, specifically 45:6. Only after you post your response can we look into why you think these verses conflict with each other and I can explain why I think they don't. Without the frame of reference that your response to Hebrews 1:8 will provide, I'm left guessing what you're understanding of the verses are and cannot then answer any supposed contradictions.

Why don't we both get something to eat, and you get your painting done, and I'll get my kids fed, bathed and to bed, and then I'll see if you have posted your response and we can take the discussion from there.

 

[Imagican]

Firstly Dora, allow me to apologize if offense was taken. Didn't mean to 'raise your dander'. I thought that I was simply 'playin' the game'. You seemed to think that there were those that were deliberately avoiding your question and indicated that it WAS a 'i'll answer yours, if you answer mine'. So I simply steped in in JEST. Forgive me if you misunderstood my intentions. For you are correct, you 'owe' me NOTHING. And pardon my directness if it cause you to stumble. I'm sorry, truly.

Now, I NEVER stated that this writting was INCORRECT. I simply offered that it was offered as 'questions' more than statements. And I also pointed out that even though The Word IS inspired by God and meant for instruction, it WAS written by men. That WE make mistakes is inevitable. So simply accepting EVERY word of the Bible 'as it is written? Come now, we have already been warned that the words of Christ Himself are practically USELESS without one BEING able to comprehend them.

So, even if there are offerings of men inserted into The Word, the Spirit IS able to offer correct interpretation. You DO realize that this book, The Bible, was written only a few hundred years ago, right. Which would mean that it was written in it's present 'form' only about SIXTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AFTER the death of Christ. Hmmmmmm That would make the ORIGINAL writting around fifteen hundred years or OLDER. A lot can happen in translations over a period of a hundred years, imagine what changes have taken place over the past five thousand.

Don't forget, what I offered was an example of the Gospel of Mark. If this was possible with his Gospel we have NO assurance that there were NO other interpretations that were NOT offered from one perspective OVER another. I do NOT read or write Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. I am a simple English speaking and writting man with little education in even that. But it is apparent to any that have studied the history of ancient texts, (no, not the languages themselves), but the history of the documents that have been copied and originals lost. Numerous versions of the SAME texts but interpreted DIFFERENTLY, it IS apparent and relatively safe to assume that what we read today is NOT an EXACT representation of that originally offered. I know, I know, another thread right?

I guess the main difference that we debate here is that I see Christ as a 'part' of God and those that accept 'trinity' believe Christ IS God. I am forced to lean in the direction of what was originally KNOWN by those that God actually HAD a direct relationship with. Those that had actual communication with The Father Himself. And to these, there was NEVER an understanding offered that there was ANYTHING other than ONE God. Regardless of Representatives offered, the Father WAS/IS God and IS above all else of deity.

And yes, Let me apologize again. For you are correct in that 'so far' we have been able to keep this achedemic, (or theological if you will), without allowing it to get 'personal'. And if I have made an indication of anger or spite, PLEASE be assured; that while I am most certainly passionate about my 'beliefs', there is NO malice in my heart towards any. And if my offerings concerning Satan and his influence offend any, PLEASE, don't believe that these words are offered in malice. They are offered in 'warning' to any able to hear them. For how could I claim to love my neihbors and NOT offer that which I feel they NEED to know in order to avoid the damage such could create?

But my question still hasn't been answered. Anyone? Not 'picking on you' Dora, but I would truly love to hear what a 'trinitarian' has to offer so far as an answer to the question that I posed? If no one remembers, let me post it again.

WHEN did Christ RECEIVE The Word? At what point in TIME was Christ GIVEN The Word? Or, better yet, WHEN did Christ NOT have The Word?

These I would really appreciate a 'trinitarian view of'.

MEC

 

[cyberjosh]

handy, perhaps you would like to explain why you left out the NEXT verse. For in it we see clearly that 'He who is FIRST person' is this monologue IS God. And in this statement He PLAINLY states that HE IS the God OF Christ. ''therefore God, EVEN THY GOD". And, this statement would contradict about a hundred others if it is taken literally, Including this one: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." So, to offer an exact answer as to what Paul 'meant' in these words, I admit, they are a bit confusing.

Well MEC, if you read it 'as is' without the idea that it may have been added (which we have no manuscript evidence of) the Father says to the Son "God" and then refers to Himself in the third person (not unprecendenced - done quite often by God in the OT) as the God of Him. So taken literally we see the God of God, which could only be God, for God has no master (yet manifested in distinct persons). This is perfectly in line with Trinitarian doctrine. Also we see other such "role dualities" and "title dualities" between Christ and the Father in Psalm 110:4-5, which says, "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath". The first mention of LORD is literally Yahweh, who I believe to be the Father, and the second 'Lord' is Adonai, which is equivalent to the NT Greek Kurious used often of Jesus. However here we see Yahweh as also Adonai (something obvious all through out the OT) and He is at Jesus' right hand, while all the portrayals we see of Jesus are as being at the Father's right hand. How can we explain this duality? I say it is solved in the same way I just proposed for the Hebrews passage. The Lord of the Lord is the Lord, the God of God is God. Trinitarian doctrine is the only thing that makes sense here.

~Josh

 

[handy]

MEC,

I fully accept your apology and offer one of my own. I reacted when I should have responded. This has been a good discussion, I certainly don't want to derail it by getting so snippy.

What say we make up and move on.

I am going to respond to your post, but right now my computer is acting all funny again. If this post isn't followed by another from me, suffice it to say that I'm having ISP problems again. If that's the case, Josh has given pretty much the same explanation that I would give regarding Hebrews 1. God annoints God in these verses.

Here's hoping I get right back on again to answer your other questions.

 

[handy]

I guess the main difference that we debate here is that I see Christ as a 'part' of God and those that accept 'trinity' believe Christ IS God. I am forced to lean in the direction of what was originally KNOWN by those that God actually HAD a direct relationship with. Those that had actual communication with The Father Himself. And to these, there was NEVER an understanding offered that there was ANYTHING other than ONE God. Regardless of Representatives offered, the Father WAS/IS God and IS above all else of deity.

Who besides Jesus, Adam and Eve has ever had a direct relationship with God. I would need to know of whom you are speaking in order to address this.

I will say that since I believe Jesus to be God, then many have. But, I gain from your post that you believe only the Father is God, and Jesus told us in Matthew 11:27:

All things have been handed to over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and anyone whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

WHEN did Christ RECEIVE The Word? At what point in TIME was Christ GIVEN The Word? Or, better yet, WHEN did Christ NOT have The Word?

Christ didn't receive the Word, (as Logos is used in John 1) Christ is the Word. And, He has been the Word since the beginning. The Word of God, is to put it at it's most basic level is God's Divine Expression. And, I think, MEC, that you made the same point at one time in this discussion.

(I'll be honest, MEC, and I know I mentioned this at least once before, but I sometimes find it very, very difficult to understand all your posts. And, add to this Mutz's contributions to the discussion, and my many responses to him, there may have been conclusions you have made that I missed, or maybe I've misunderstood your conclusions. So, if we start to go over things that you feel you've already addressed, bear with me.)

Our words give insight to who we are, what our thoughts are, what are emotions are, what makes us tick. In order to get to know me, you need to understand what I express to you. The same can be said for God. No man can know God, unless God reveals Himself to us. Jesus is God's ultimate revelation of Himself to us. We know that Jesus is God's ultimate revelation of Himself to us by not only John 1, but a variety of other texts as well.

The reason why I keep dragging Hebrews 1 into this discussion is because it was exactly for this purpose that Hebrews was written, to explain the nature of God and Jesus to us.

Hebrews 1:3: And He (the Son) is the radiance of His (God's) glory and the exact representation of His (God's) nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

There is only one time when Christ did not have the Word, and that would be when He cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me." From that moment to the time of the resurrection, the Son ceased to be the Divine Expression and became sin.

Back to Hebrews 1:3: When He (the Son) had made purification of sins, He (the Son) sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Now we go right into the Trinity, when God says, "Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee" and "I will be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to Me?"

I've heard many times, (for one of my good friends is a Jehovah's Witness) that this only shows that Jesus is God's Son, NOT God Himself. And, a good case could be made for that interpretation, if the Holy Spirit stopped right there in His revelation to us. But, He didn't. He went right on to tell us, (after referring to the angels worship of the Son) that of the Son, God says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."

Hebrews 1 goes on to affirm what John wrote about the Son, that He was the One who created the world. And, this wasn't just a revelation John had, for the writer of Hebrews didn't quote John, yet another prophetic Psalm, Psalm 102, was revealed by the Holy Spirit that the Lord which made the heavens and the earth, was none other than the Son.

This is Hebrews 1 in context and I believe that it should answer your question of not only the nature of the Word, but also the Diety of Jesus.

 

[mutzrein]

I want to say from the outset, that I believe it is futile to try to convince another, merely by academic argument, that a doctrine they hold to is false. There are two reasons I say this and the two reasons relate to two different types of people.
The first is the person who knows God – who is born of His spirit - and who is secure in the understanding that their salvation does not hinge on a correct ‘knowledge’ of a particular doctrine, but on faith. These are made righteous, by their faith.
The second is the person who says that a relationship with God is dependant on having the correct understanding of that particular doctrine. For this person, although they speak of having faith, it is often nothing more than a conscious decision to accept something they think they need to believe – even though they don’t understand it.

Should I ‘convince’ the first person? No. Actually I can’t. But I can certainly reason with them, showing them what the Lord has revealed to me but at the end of the day, only the Spirit of God can reveal the truth – as it is in Christ.
Should I ‘convince’ the second person? No. Again I can't. For as long as they remain convinced that salvation hinges on an academic acceptance of a doctrine, they will continue to wallow in self righteousness. They believe that they have already achieved righteousness by virtue of a human decision which has led to their salvation.

In fact anything that man believes he must do in order to gain relationship with God can only result in self-righteousness.

Ah but back to this.

Dora, earlier in the thread I made a post which reflects what the Lord has shown me regarding the ‘Word’ in John 1. I know you responded with comments about the trinity & nature of God etc, but setting aside any argument about the trinity and anything else for that matter, what do you say about the ‘Word’ – as I have described it.

Blessings

 

[handy]

Mutz, you said in your last post that you had a response "to the Scripture that (I) posted". I had assumed you would give it and yet now you are going back to John 1. Frankly, we need to deal with John 1 in the light that Hebrews 1 shows. The two passages are both concerning the nature of the Son and should be studied together. This is not cobbling doctrine by joining Scriptures that have no bearing upon each other. This is examing the word by the light of the word. When one is studying a particular subject, in this case the nature of the Son, one should never just read one part of one chapter of one book and that's it. One should always look up everything the Scriptures has to say regarding the subject. Scripture never contradicts itself. Therefore, when John makes the claim that the Word, who was God, became flesh and dwelt among us, we can and should wonder, "Is John saying that Jesus is God?" So, we can and should look to see if the Scriptures refer to the Son as God in other places and we find that it surely does, especially in Hebrews 1. And we see in Hebrews 1, the writer referring to an Old Testament source which also points to God calling the Son God.

So, Mutz, I really want to see your thoughts on Hebrews 1:8 which states emphatically and without any veiling,
"But of the Son, He (God) says, "Thou throne, O God, is forever and ever."

and sure, I'll add verse 9 here as well which says:

"Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee."

Who was anointed? The Son, of whom God said, "Thou throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Who called the Son God? God did.
Who anointed Him? God.
God anointed God.

Why are we going back to what we've already discussed without dealing with this text?

For the record, the post that I posted before this one, the one addressed to MEC, contains exactly what I believe regarding the Word, as God's expression to us.

 

[stovebolts]

Handy,
Thank you for your reply to my last post. As far as why people struggle with the concept of the trinity, that would be pages and pages to explain as we each have worn our own pair of moccasins and thus, our lens which we view our surroundings (and God) is tainted and formed by some of our experiences along the way. I suppose the same could be true for those of us who believe that God is triune in nature and the unity which is expressed by the term trinity is merely our attempt to begin to describe a God that is so much bigger than ourselves.

Mutzrin,
It really is good to hear from you again. Regardless of our view on the trinity, I still consider you a brother in Christ.

Unlike Handy, I have done very little study in the book of Revelation and perhaps, at the risk of being embarrassed, I am mistaken and it is YHVH, not Jesus speaking in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 21:7. (I didn’t check it in my bible with the little red letters)

If my view which I posted in response to your inquiry of 1 Corinthians 15:27 is in error, please show me. However, if I am correct, and it is Jesus speaking in Revelation 21:7, would you please explain how Jesus is saying, “I will be his God, and he will be my son†which echo’s YHVH’s words in Leviticus 26:12 in regard to YHVH’s children entering the promise land as they were being redeemed from bondage.

I believe that some things in the bible are pretty straight forward, like not stealing, coveting, lusting etc. All of these things are key in how to live lives as God intentionally created us to live with one another and with Him. Thus, some parts of scripture can be taken at face value. However, these realities only point to particular aspects of God’s nature, assuming that we are to live a life in accordance with God’s will that we may be in a fuller state of communion with God.

Now, concerning things that are in the Bible that may first appear straight forward, but in reality, they certainly respect a deeper lever of discernment, it is here that the yearning of one seeking, knocking and asking become apparent. For example, and these are things that I have found myself that if took at face value, would be contradictory.
1. In the linage of Jesus, does Jesus come from Nathan, the son of David (Luke 3:31), or does he come through Solomon, the son of David (Matthew 1:6)?
2. Did Peter first identify Jesus as the Christ of God after feeding the 5000 (Luke 9:20) or after the run in with the Pharisees (Matthew 16:16)

At first glance, it may appear that these items are not related to the trinity, but in principal, indeed they are. For to properly discern the apparent tension associated within these contradictions, one must know the nature of God and through faith, we seek to better understand. Just like the twelve baskets that were taken up when Jesus feed the 4000 Jews have a deeper meaning, so do the seven baskets that were taken up when Jesus feed the multitude in the Decapolis. While at first glance these mean little, a little seeking unfolds the spiritual realities contained within each instance. In regard to the item of Trinity, it really is no different as far as principal is concerned.

Does all this mean that the doctrine of the Trinity has never been abused? Of course it has. However, though this doctrine has been abused, it's abuse should not discredit the truth contained within it.

Peace.

 

[Imagican]

Ok handy, (Dora),

I read your reply but I guess you didn't understand the question. So let's start over this way:

When Christ stated that the "words that He offered were NOT His OWN, but GIVEN Him by The Father", What did He MEAN by this statement.

MEC

Oh, and this question is NOT only open to handy, ANYONE, please feel 'free' to 'step right up' and offer an answer. PLEASE.

 

[handy]

MEC, you are correct, I misunderstood your question. When you asked:

WHEN did Christ RECEIVE The Word? At what point in TIME was Christ GIVEN The Word? Or, better yet, WHEN did Christ NOT have The Word?

I thought you were referring back to John 1. I'm not sure which text you are referring to when you ask:

When Christ stated that the "words that He offered were NOT His OWN, but GIVEN Him by The Father", What did He MEAN by this statement.

Is it John 17:8? I'll wait for your confirmation before replying, because I'd hate to take the time to write out an answer, just to find that I wasn't working with the right reference.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between the Word, in John 1 and the words of Christ in John 17:8. "Logos" in John 1 is referring to Jesus Himself as God's Divine Expression personified. In John 17, Jesus is using the word "Rhema" which is in reference to specific commands and statements of God that Jesus is imparting to us.

 

[cyberjosh]

MEC,

Did you see my post to you on the last page? If not please look at it. I look forward to your reply.

~Josh

 

[Imagican]

That will do handy. John 17:8 is as good as any.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

MEC,

Did you see my post to you on the last page? If not please look at it. I look forward to your reply.

~Josh

Yes cyber I did. And I have working on a reply since you posted it. You will receive it soon.

MEC