Bible Study The Identity of the Pre-Incarnate Messiah

[R7-12]

Hello all,

We will now examine texts that will likely cause some discomfort for those who have presuppositions that run contrary to what is written in Scripture. Hopefully this can be worked through in a positive and edifying manner for everyone.

Previously we were able to determine that the rank or title of Morning Star was one way with which Jesus Christ identified himself. We also became aware of aspects concerning the duties and responsibilities involved with this title, of which some actually foretold of the sacrifice to come.

We now go back in time to the point when the measurements of the earth were determined and when its and cornerstone foundations were laid.

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7, NKJV).

At the creation of the earth the Morning Stars of God sang together and all the bene elohim (sons of God) shouted for joy!

This must have been an incredible event! The Morning Stars of God sang in unison and all the sons of God shouted for joy at the physical creation! They were all singing praises and shouting for joy together. This is beyond our ability to imagine in physical terms! It is humbling to say the least, and for me I find it a huge reminder never to take the word of God likely because what it says is always of much greater significance than anything I could ever express as a mortal man.

There obviously are many important points that evident in this verse. Let’s take a look at what we can conclude just from what is written,

“The Morning Stars and all the sons of God.†Clearly the Morning Stars are also included in the phrase, “and all the sons of God.†Thus we must accept two things as it is written.
First, multiple Morning Stars exist.
Second, Morning Stars are sons of God.

If this is not enough to convince that Morning Stars are sons of God, be patient, we will examine more evidence as we continue. Remember, Christ identified himself as a Morning Star and as a son of God.

We now have the answer to Question 2). Are there Morning Stars other than Messiah?
A: Yes, there are additional Morning Stars other than Jesus Christ. Or at the very least one other than himself.

This text also reveals there are many sons of God and not just one as many assume.

These facts along with our previous section answers Question 1). What is a Morning Star?
A: It is a rank or position of responsibility among the sons of God.

This introduces Question 4). Who are the bene elohim or sons of God?

We will address this in our next section. In the meantime, I would expect a few thoughtful comments and questions might arise.

Please keep your responses relevant to the topic and the texts under examination.

Anyone deviating from the Bible Study format that was determined at the outset, not only for the entire section this thread is under, but also for this specific thread, will be seen as deliberately intending to disrupt, hi-jack, distract, or interfere with our intentions as laid out from the start.

I know many don't like rules but rules are important for they maintain discipline and thus help develop discipline - something all sinners need.

Thank you for your cooperation in advance.

R7-12

 

[jgredline]

Oh boy.
Here we go again.
Ok. I will read through these tomarrow as its getting late. I lready some issues though.
Good night and God bless

 

[R7-12]

Hi everyone,

Before we examine the texts that address Question 4, let’s consider additional scriptures that add to our understanding of who are the sons of God and Morning Stars.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them (Job 1:6, NKJV).

The sons of God or bene elohim, came to present themselves before the YHVH on a specific day and Satan also came among them. Bullinger notes in the Companion Bible that the phrase present themselves literally means, take their stations.

Satan came among as one of the bene elohim or sons of God also to present himself as we see from Job 2:1,

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

It appears evident that the sons of God or angels of God come before THE YHVH on regular intervals to take their stations, and this includes Satan.

The bene elohim are spiritbeings generated by God the Father. In other words, they are called sons of God because they were directly created by God. “For that which is born of the flesh is flesh.†God is spirit, and that which is “born of the spirit is spirit†(John 3:6). That’s why Adam is called a son of God. Those who have the spirit of God indwelling them become “new creatures in Christ†by the spirit of God and thus are created directly by God anew and hence called “sons of God.â€Â

Angels of God are created directly by God and are spirit as He is. Thus they are elohim and sons of Eloah (the singular name of the Most High God). In the text below the angels of God are called bene El, another way of calling them sons of God.

Give unto the LORD, O you mighty ones (1121 bene + 410 El), Give unto the LORD glory and strength.

The same term is found in Psalm 89:6,
For who in the heavens can be compared to the LORD? Who among the sons of the mighty (bene El) can be likened to the LORD?

This text shows the bene El are in the heavens and therefore must be the angels or heavenly host.

In another very familiar text we see a son of God appear among men,

“Look!†he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God†(1247 abar + 426 Elahh) son of God.

It should now become clear for those who were unsure of the nature of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:2 & 4,

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God (1121 bene + 430 elohim) saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.†4There were giants (5303 Nephilim) on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God (1121 bene + 430 elohim) came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

These Nephilim were the product of the union between some of the fallen angels and human females.

What occurred here is what is spoken of in Jude 6,

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly (2 Peter 2:4-5).

As an aside, the text above will provide the correct timeframe for the declaration made by Christ in 1 Peter 3:19-20. But that may be best left for another thread.

So what the Scriptures have made plain for us is the fact that the angels of God are called sons of God and are elohim as created spiritbeings and thus direct offspring of God, made of spirit (cf. Ps. 104:4). This includes the Adversary called Satan.

This brings us back to,
Question 4). Who are the bene elohim or sons of God?

We can safely conclude, based on the written word that the sons of God, including Satan, and the Morning Stars from Job 1:6 and 2:1 are all elohim - spiritbeings generated directly by God the Father as bene elohim - sons of God.

I will pause here again for any comments or question directly related to this study.

R7-12

 

[John the Baptist]

Another RED FLAGG!

"These Nephilim were the product of the union between some of the fallen angels and human females."

 

[Georges]

So far, so good....right on...as far as I can tell....

Just a side question....Do you hold any weight to the Book of Enoch as a confirmation of the above? Personally, I do.

 

[stovebolts]

John,
I don't see the red flag? Admitably, This is a new topic for me.

I sometimes use the NetBible. I'd like to supply some comments on Gen 6:2

Sons of God:
The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God†(בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God†are distinct from “humankind,†suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,†however. Some argue that the “sons of God†were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind†were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God†from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind†are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God†as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God†in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.

Remain IN
The verb form יָדוֹן (yadon) only occurs here. Some derive it from the verbal root דִּין (din, “to judgeâ€Â) and translate “strive†or “contend with†(so NIV), but in this case one expects the form to be יָדִין (yadin). The Old Greek has “remain with,†a rendering which may find support from an Arabic cognate (see C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:375). If one interprets the verb in this way, then it is possible to understand רוּחַ (ruakh) as a reference to the divine life-giving spirit or breath, rather than the Lord’s personal Spirit. E. A. Speiser argues that the term is cognate with an Akkadian word meaning “protectì or “shield.†In this case, the Lord’s Spirit will not always protect humankind, for the race will suddenly be destroyed (E. A. Speiser, “YDWN, Gen. 6:3,†JBL 75 [1956]: 126-29).

 

[stovebolts]

Here are the footnotes from the NetBible on Verse 6:4

12tn The Hebrew word נְפִילִים (nÿfilim) is simply transliterated here, because the meaning of the term is uncertain. According to the text, the Nephilim became mighty warriors and gained great fame in the antediluvian world. The text may imply they were the offspring of the sexual union of the “sons of God†and the “daughters of humankind†(v. 2), but it stops short of saying this in a direct manner. The Nephilim are mentioned in the OT only here and in Num 13:33, where it is stated that they were giants (thus KJV, TEV, NLT “giants†here). The narrator observes that the Anakites of Canaan were descendants of the Nephilim. Certainly these later Anakite Nephilim could not be descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim (see also the following note on the word “thisâ€Â).

13tn This observation is parenthetical, explaining that there were Nephilim even after the flood. If all humankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the postdiluvian Nephilim could be related to the antediluvian Nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (see Num 13:33). It is likely that the term Nephilim refers generally to “giants†(see HALOT 709 s.v. נְפִילִים) without implying any ethnic connection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian varieties.

14tn Heb “were entering to,†referring euphemistically to sexual intercourse here. The Hebrew imperfect verbal form draws attention to the ongoing nature of such sexual unions during the time before the flood.

15tn Heb “and they gave birth to them.†The masculine plural suffix “them†refers to the “sons of God,†to whom the “daughters of humankind†bore children. After the Qal form of the verb יָלָד (yalad, “to give birthâ€Â) the preposition לְ (lÿ, “toâ€Â) introduces the father of the child(ren). See Gen 16:1, 15; 17:19, 21; 21:2-3, 9; 22:23; 24:24, 47; 25:2, etc.

16tn The parenthetical/explanatory clause uses the word הַגִּבֹּרִים (haggibborim) to describe these Nephilim. The word means “warriors; mighty men; heroes.†The appositional statement further explains that they were “men of renown.†The text refers to superhuman beings who held the world in their power and who lived on in ancient lore outside the Bible. See E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 45-46; C. Westermann, Genesis, 1:379-80; and Anne Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical Nephilim,†Perspectives on Language and Text, 39-43.

17tn Heb “men of name†(i.e., famous men).

 

[jgredline]

R7
I agree with some of what you said above, but your interpretation of elohim
is not correct. First elohim is a plural word, not a singular word.
I will look at your post in more detail a little later as I have to go to work but here are some things to chew over and read.


that Jesus Christ is Lord,â€â€lit., “Lord Jesus Christ,†prominence being given to the title “Lord.†So in Romans 10:9, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord†(lit., “Lord Jesusâ€Â). The omission of the article in each passage gives stress to the word “Lord.†Kurios is the Septuagint and New Testament representative of the Hebrew Jehovah (Matt. 4:7; James 5:11, e.g.), of Adōn, Lord (Matt. 22:44), Adōnay (Matt. 22:43) and Elohim (God, 1 Pet. 1:25). “God hath made Him both Lord and Christ†(Acts 2:36), thus making His Name supreme “above every name.†Jude 4 speaks of “our only … Lord, Jesus Christ†and immediately, v. 5, uses “Lord†of God, as he does also in vv. 9, 14. When it is remembered that these men belonged to the only monotheistic race in the world, and that to associate anyone with the Creator, however exalted (though possible to Pagan philosophers), was quite impossible to a Jew, the fact that they unite Jesus with God under the one appellation “Lord†has an undeniable significance. This title “Lord†* is here set in direct contrast to His servant character in verse 7. The latter expresses His condescension, the former His consequent exaltation.
Vine, W. (1997, c1996). Collected writings of W.E. Vine.



It’s All in a Name
Each of the many Old Testament names and titles of God shows a different facet of His character and its expression in His will. He is called, for example, Elohim, “the Creator Godâ€Â; El Elyon, “possessor of heaven and earthâ€Â; Jehovah-Jireh, “the Lord will provideâ€Â; Jehovah-Nissi, “the Lord our bannerâ€Â; Jehovah-Rapha, “the Lord that healethâ€Â; Jehovah-Shalom, “the Lord our peaceâ€Â; Jehovah-Raah, “the Lord our Shepherdâ€Â; Jehovah-Tsidkenu, “the Lord our righteousnessâ€Â; Jehovah-Sabaoth, “the Lord of hostsâ€Â; Jehovah-Shama, “the Lord is present and nearâ€Â; and Jehovah-Maqodeshkim, which means “the Lord sanctifieth thee.†All those names speak of God’s attributes. Thus they tell us not only who He is, but also what He is like.
Jesus Himself provides the clearest teaching about what God’s name means: His very name, Jesus Christ, is God’s greatest name, and it encompasses His role as Lord, Savior, and King. As Jesus Christ, God drew to Himself many other names, including: the Bread of Life (John 6:35), the Living Water (John 4:10), the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), the Resurrection (John 11:25), the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), the Branch (Isa. 4:2), the Bright and Morning Star (Rev. 22:16), the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and many more. One Old Testament passage in particular lists several names for Him, each one a designation of His nature: “Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace†(Isa. 9:6). Jesus’ life was the perfect manifestation of God’s name.

MacArthur, J. (1995). Alone with God. Includes indexes. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.


Genesis 1:26, for the first time in the Bible, God introduces Himself with personal pronouns. Significantly, they are plural pronouns. Not, “Let Me….â€Â; but, “Let Us make man in Our image,†and thus we are introduced to a plurality of relationships in the Godhead. Here is the first major, unmistakable evidence of the Trinity. The fact of multiple Persons in the Godhead has been hinted at in the Hebrew word for God that is used in twenty–one of the first twenty–five verses of Scripture, because elohim takes the form of a plural noun in Hebrew. But the plural pronouns of verse 26 make the point even more forcefully. It is by no means a full revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is an unmistakable reference to plurality within the Godhead, and it begins to lay the groundwork for what we later learn of the Trinity from the New Testament.
There was at least one other earlier hint of the Trinity in verse 2, where we were told that the Spirit of God hovered above the face of the waters. But now we see even more clearly that there is a sort of divine executive committeeâ€â€a council in the Godhead.
The same truth is unfolded with even more clarity in the first chapter of John’s Gospel, which begins with an echo of Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made†(John 1:1–3). That, of course, refers to the Second Member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ (cf. v. 14)â€â€who was with God at creation and is Himself God.
By putting all those passages together, we see that all three Members of the Trinity were active in creation. The Father was overseeing and decreeing the work. The eternal Word was “with God†and involved in every aspect of the creative process. And the Spirit was brooding over the waters, which also suggests the most intimate kind of hands–on involvement in the process. So with the light of the New Testament shining on this passage, the plural pronouns of Genesis 1:26 take on a rich depth of meaning.
The Bible on creation and the fall of Adam (160). Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group.

And finally the defanition
יָרֵא vb. fear  Qal 1. fear, be afraid: a. abs. b. c. acc. rei or pers. c. with מִן be afraid of; with מִפְּנֵי; מִלִּפְנֵי, with בְּ because of, for. d. with inf. and לְ fear to do a thing; with infin. and מִן, afraid of doing. e. with פֶּן fear lest. 2. stand in awe of, with מן and inf. 3. fear, reverence, honour, e.g. parents, Moses and Joshua, the oath, commandment, the sanctuary, other gods; elsewhere of God: a. abs. b. with acc.; with sfs. referring to Yahweh or Elohim. Niph. 1. be fearful, dreadful, e.g. wilderness, land, people, ice (in sim.). 2. cause astonishment and awe: of Yahweh himself; c. לְ, to kings of the earth; c. על of hostile nations; of ˊי‍’s doings; נוראות(ה) wonderful, glorious things, of Messianic king; of Yahweh himself; ˊנו‍ adverbially. 3. inspire reverence, godly fear and awe: a. as attribute of God; with עַל, above all gods; above all angels round about him. b. of the name of Yahweh. c. of sacred things; place of theophany. Piel. make afraid, terrify, with acc.

Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. (. R., & Briggs, C. A. (. A. (1997, c1906). The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament : From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Edited by Richard Whitaker (Princeton Theological Seminary). Text provided by Princeton Theological Seminary. (431.2-). Oak Harbor WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


So you see my friend its a Plural word.

p.s. In gen 6 about the nephelim
There are two views
1) demons had relations with humans
2) the nephelim came through the line of seth.

 

[John the Baptist]

John,
I don't see the red flag? Admitably, This is a new topic for me.

****

If you ever find an angel that can mate with any human being, and have children let me know, OK? And if then, where, & which ones are they now? I mean.. if one really does believe God's Word?? Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 Next we will be hearing that humans & animals breed certain races of people, huh? SICK!

 

[R7-12]

Hi George,

The Book of Enoch does lend support, but in my opinion, cannot be taken as inspired by God as a Holy writing for the simple fact that the calendar it describes is a solar calendar and not luni-solar as given by God.

R7-12

 

[R7-12]

John,

You declare a Red Flag but provide no substance for it. The comments you do provide are rhetoric and the texts you link do not address this topic.

If you ever find an angel that can mate with any human being, and have children let me know, OK? And if then, where, & which ones are they now? I mean.. if one really does believe God's Word?? Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 Next we will be hearing that humans & animals breed certain races of people, huh? SICK!

Your final comment is totally uncalled for. It infers that my intentions are to introduce evil and unclean topics and it casts a shadow upon my post by association with beastiality - that's quite inappropriate.

You may wish to read Bullinger's Appendix 23 from the Companion Bible before further comment on this issue. You can find it HERE.

Keep in mind that this thread is not about the identity of the Nephilim, it is about the identity of one who became the man Jesus Christ.

The sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6 however, are clearly angels - that's the reason for mentioning that text.

R7-12

 

[R7-12]

Hello jgredline,

You wrote,

R7
I agree with some of what you said above, but your interpretation of elohim
is not correct. First elohim is a plural word, not a singular word.
I will look at your post in more detail a little later as I have to go to work but here are some things to chew over and read.

So you see my friend its a Plural word.

Elohim is a plural word and it is used in that sense but is also used in Scripture in the singular referring to a single being.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD (Job 2:1)

These are the Sons of The God (haElohim). The placement of the definite article denotes the offspring (elohim - plural) as those of THE Elohim (THE God - singular) and not offspring of elohim (gods - plural).

“For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe (Deuteronomy 10:17)

YHVH your Elohim (singular) is Elohim of elohim (plural) and adon (singular) of adon (plural) the great mighty El (singular) ...

Thus, THE Elolim of Elohim means the true or immortal Elohim is head of a plurality.

Consider also Psalm 45:6-7,

You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God (430 – elohim, singular), Your God (430 – elohim, singular), has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions (plural)(Psalm 45:6-7, NKJV).

This text demonstrates the same point,

Oh, give thanks to the God of gods! (Psalm 136:2a).

Oh, give thanks to the Elohim of elohim!

THE Elohim is THE God of all created spiritbeings (English - gods) or angels (heavenly host).

In Romans 9:29 and James 5:4 the Lord of Sabaoth literally means Lord of Hosts – Master of the host of heaven, the meaning it carries is consistent with the title, Elohim of elohim.

The same structure is found in Daniel 11:36 where we find, the God of gods or El of El. The first El is singular, the second plural.

So both terms – El (410) and Elohim (430) are used in the plural sense as well as singular. That is important to remember whenever one encounters these words. The Greek equivalents are theos singular and theoi plural. Examine pros ton theon from John 1:1 and compare with theos[.

Unfortunately, neither Greek nor English provide multiple words denoting divinity that distinguish between the names of God or the heavenly spiritbeings as does Hebrew. This accounts for much confusion and many errors concerning the nature of God and His generations - both heavenly and human.

The Most High El or God of gods is also identified by a name in Hebrew and Aramaic that is absolutely singular, it is His alone and admits of no plurality within its meaning showing that Almighty God cannot be viewed as consisting of two or three or more persons. The only true God is a singular being who alone has immortality and whom no man can see (1 Timothy 6:16, 1 John 5:20).

Thank you jgredline for your comments, they helped to clarify several important yet seldom undertood facts.

R7-12

 

[jgredline]

Hello jgredline,

You wrote,

R7
I agree with some of what you said above, but your interpretation of elohim
is not correct. First elohim is a plural word, not a singular word.
I will look at your post in more detail a little later as I have to go to work but here are some things to chew over and read.
R7 wrote
Elohim is a plural word and it is used in that sense but is also used in Scripture in the singular referring to a single being.

I am glad you agree it is a plural word and in the contex that your using the word its a plural word. If you take scripture out of contex as you have done then it would appear to be a singular word. In contex its a plural word. Take a look at your own verses you quoted down below.


[quote:0f24b]R7 said
The Most High El or God of gods is also identified by a name in Hebrew and Aramaic that is absolutely singular, it is His alone and admits of no plurality within its meaning showing that Almighty God cannot be viewed as consisting of two or three or more persons. The only true God is a singular being who alone has immortality and whom no man can see (1 Timothy 6:16, 1 John 5:20).

[/quote:0f24b]
First here lets put these two verses in contex. You can't just pull a single verse out of thin air to plead your case. Hermeneutics 101.
19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, ukeep yourselves from idols.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Jn 5:19-21).

Now lets look at the other verse you quoted. Again Hermeneutics 101. Don't take a single verse out of contex
Fight the Good Fight of Faith

11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before4 Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper timeâ€â€he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Ti 6:11-16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.


Both of the very verses you quoted are speaking of Jesus who is the true God, Lord of Lords (again if you choose to use elohim it is clearly a plural word and yes I know its Hebrew and these two verses were written in Greek ) In fact this section of Scripture affirms even further the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[R7-12]

jgredline,
Your entire response was based on a misapprehension of what I said.

There were two separate sentences. Here is the first,

The Most High El or God of gods is also identified by a name in Hebrew and Aramaic that is absolutely singular, it is His alone and admits of no plurality within its meaning showing that Almighty God cannot be viewed as consisting of two or three or more persons.

Notice I gave no Scripture? That was intentional.

Here is the second sentence,

The only true God is a singular being who alone has immortality and whom no man can see (1 Timothy 6:16, 1 John 5:20).

The texts given were related to the sentence they are attached to.

Therefore, your accusation is without merit. You said,

You can't just pull a single verse out of thin air to plead your case. Hermeneutics 101.

And I didn’t.

Your final statement is unfortunate because it is also based on your misinterpretation of my statement and so clearly in error. BTW, elohim is not used in either of the texts I gave - they were written in Greek not Hebrew,

Both of the very verses you quoted are speaking of Jesus who is the true God, Lord of Lords (again elohim is clearly a plural word) In fact this section of Scripture affirms even further the doctrine of the trinity.

If what you say was true and understood that way by the majority of biblical scholars, ministers, Bible students, etc. there would be no further argument. The fact is this text is understood to refer to God only evidenced by the word structure in both Greek and English, and by the fact that the content and context indicate that it can only be understood this way.

I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, 15 which He will manifest in His own time, (Matthew 13:32) He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords (Deuteronomy 10:17), 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see (John 5:37, Romans 1:20), to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen (1 Timothy 6:13-16).

Only the Father has inherent immortality, this life He has granted to the son, who, we may conclude, did not have life inherent but depended upon his God and Father to grant it to him,
“For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself†(John 5:26).

He whom no man has seen or can see is the invisible theos – Almighty God, who alone has immortality'

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (Colossians 1:15).

The Father sent His son who testifies to us that no one has ever heard the voice of, or seen the form of, his God and Father,
And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form (John 5:37).

Therefore it is Biblically impossible for 1 Timothy 6:16 to be referring to Jesus Christ, for the one who is the blessed and ONLY Potentate (mono dunastes), who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or ever can see, is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, the son whom God sent. This correct understanding is paramount and must be granted by God to have everlasting life (John 17:3).

Let’s take a closer look at the other text.

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. 20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him (God) who is true; and we are in Him (God) who is true, in His (God’s) Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen (1 John 5:19-21).

There are two beings referred to in this sequence, one is called God, the other is called the son of God. Therefore when it says, “this is the true God and eternal life†it can only be referring to the one called God and not the one called the son of God.

The key phrase at the end is, “the true God and eternal life.â€Â

We have already seen that only God the Father has eternal life (Colossians 1:15). Therefore the reference to “the true God and eternal life†can only be of Almighty God who is the Father.

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent†(John 17:3).

This too is crucial for if we elevate the son, Jesus Christ, to equality with his father (what Satan tried, Isaiah 14:12-14 cf. Phil. 2:6), then we will find ourselves worshipping an idol. For anything that is placed before the one true God – the Father, becomes a false idol because it is worshipped in place of the one true God who alone is the object of worship (Matthew 6:6, 9). Hence the warning which immediately follows the explanation in verse 20 that we must know Him, the true God and eternal life. “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen†(1 John 5:21).

It is very important that these concepts are correctly understood because Messiah said that knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ who was sent by the one true God, is required for everlasting life (John 17:3). If we teach otherwise we teach error. When in doubt - don't post, or if you must then at least use a regular font size. :wink:

Thanks jgredline for the opportunity to explain these vital texts with greater clarity.

R7-12

 

[John the Baptist]

John,
I don't see the red flag? Admitably, This is a new topic for me.
... .

******

Bolts:

The sons of God verse of Genesis 6 has been botched up in 'History' (See the Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15) in many different ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, (with the Desolate Christ/less house Matthew 23:38) and early church fathers (Revelation 17:5) and today's Jude 1:12 'wind' ones have these 'sons' to be angels. Comparing them with Job 1:6, Job 2:1 & Job 38:7.

But, this is not the Everlasting Gospel! (Revelation 14:6) Notice Genesis 6:2-4 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took them wives of all which they chose. (even more than one, huh! wives.) And verse 3 tell's of the death by flood for these. These ones were not human angel stuff! The Striving of the Holy Spirit had long been over for them in kingdom of heavens rebellion. And also is soon to be over for even Seth's 'ex/sons of God' apostates! And these ones were to die by the flood. (drowning angels?? :roll: )

Verse 4 says: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the [sons of God came in unto the daughters of men], and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." See Christs Word in Matt. 22 belowe! (you do remember the Word.. 'took wives above?)

Again: This has to be rejected as having no merit, because the punishment was for the sins of human beings and not angels. (there time will come after the 1000 years of Revelation 20:1-3 are up!) And Christ has documented that angels do not marry in Matthew 22:30.
Ask yourself, when God asks us to come and let us reason together, who would benefit by this satanic teaching, Christ or the devil?

No: Christ is immortal & not a created angel, as satan would have us to believe! and there has never been a time that He was not Christ/God of the Godhead! (and satan is a created being for just a short time more. :fadein: Obadiah 1:16)

And No. Adam was a created Son of God, and a Born Again son of God by faith in the Genesis 3:15 Everlasting Gospel. It was CONDITIONAL! And as one can see that Cain was saved by faith until he did the devils thing in full mature 'sin against the Holy Ghost' in rejection. (See Genesis 4:7)
At this moment the devil had his first convert! This is the first son of man. If one follows on, we see that Seth did not come on the scene until approximately 120 years later as the son of God. (and if you were in the Heb. 6 meat, you could even see much more here!)

Anyway, take note of Exodus 4:22 and Deuteronomy 14:1 where Moses called the children of Israel as 'His first born son' & 'Children of the Lord your God'. These others were the ones who disobeyed God that were from the lineage of Seth and [became the sons of men.] (lost ones) See Deuteronomy 7:3-4, Joshua 23:12, Ezra 9:2 & what is new?? NOTHING! See 2 Corinthians 6:14-15!

One more thought on the execution of 'mankind' by a flood. God said: 'I will destroy man' Genesis 6:7
The Hebrew expression means literally "I will wipe off" or "blot out" or "erase" (see Exodus 32:32-33, Isaiah 43:25) Surely the flood did this to all of mankind who were not inside the ark! And notice that the antediluvians Christ has compared to His human race at the [end of time]! Matthew 24:37-39

And the giant thing? Well, most before the flood lived around a thousand year period of time. Books were not even needed much surely, for everything could be passed along from the aged, to far into his descendents. Even today, we do not see the total death of mankind's physical & mental capacities that God created them with. But when one reads some of these forums threads, sometime I wonder? (and no, many do not give the credits to God)

---John

 

[Oscar3]

R7-12 and JGREDLINE

I have been following both of your comments with great interest.
I have both questions and comments.

First R7-12
You appear to be very intelligent. Atleast you make yourself out to be. Very book smart. I read your post and I must say that I really don't understand what your saying. It seems to me like you dance around many questions.
In the two verses that you quoted 1 Timothy 6:16
Clearly that looks to me like you did take it out of contex. Looking at the that part of the scripture the contex of what Paul is saying starts in Verse 13 and ends in verse 16.

The second verse you used was 1 John 5:20
The contex of what John is saying in that part of scripture should be read from verse 19-20

This is basic 3 grade grammar.

I do appreciate the effort you put into your post. Since I am new at this detail and simplicity is important to me.
I read in another post that your are a subordinate unitaian.
Does this mean your not a Christian?


JGREDLINE
While your methods of explaining things seem a little brash you make sense to me. I would guess and say your street smart. I would suggest to you and please don't take it the wrong way, that perhaps you spend a little more time in your post as sometimes you start out good and then rush off to finish with an incomplete thought. In saying that I would have to say that in my simple mind your explanations really seem logical.


On a side note:
I never gave the trinity much thought until reading these post the past few days. I followed the other thread closely and came away still on the fence.
This thread and in particular JGREDLINES explanations of the two verses you quoted 1 Timothy 6:16 and 1 john 5:20 after reading the verses for my self in contex convinced me of the trinity. Perhaps tomorrow I will change my mind but for today I am a triny

Thanks and God bless and be with you both and carry on.

 

[R7-12]

Hi oscar3,

For the sake of clarity, what did you not understand in my post concerning these two texts and what are your questions related to them?

R7-12

 

[R7-12]

oscar3,

While I wait for your other questions, I will answer the one you posted.

I read in another post that your are a subordinate unitaian.
Does this mean your not a Christian?

This is one of the doctrines which identifies a Christian according to Jesus Christ in John 17:3,

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent†(John 17:3).

When the Messiah says to the Father, “You are the ONLY true God and everlasting life is rests in knowing you and in Jesus Christ whom You have sent†are you able to recognize that Christ identified the Father as the ONLY true God? And that since the ONLY true God sent Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ therefore cannot be the ONLY true God?

I think you might characterize this verse “basic 3 grade grammar†as you mentioned earlier.

1 John 4:2-3 is another,

By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world (1 John 4:2-3).

Trinitarianism seeks to separate Christ into two beings. One is human the other divine. When questions are raised that cannot be answered by the Trinitarian model, a divided Christ is offered. For example,

Question: If Christ is God how can God die?
Trinitarian Answer: Only Jesus human part died, that is, his flesh died but he retained his divinity and thus remained God.

Q: If Christ and God are one being, how can Christ pray to his Father?
TA: God is three persons and the person that is Jesus prayed to the Father.

Q: If Christ is God how can he be raised from the dead?
TA: Only the body or flesh or humanity of Christ died and that is what was raised.

There are many incoherencies with this kind of thinking. A quick study into the Passover sacrifice which pictured Christ will immediately bring into question many unanswerable aspects inherent in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Those who believe Christ was an elohim who willingly gave up his spirit life to become a man and die for our sins, are often asked questions like,

“If Jesus were only a man and not God, how can his sacrifice be sufficient?

Well, if Christ were God and when he died all that he did was drop the flesh, what kind of sacrificial sufficiency can be explained from that?

The principle in question that seems to be not understood is found in John 15:13,
Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

Jesus Christ demonstrated this kind of love to all of God’s children. But a Jesus who really did not die but only dropped his physical flesh does not even come near the standard or fullness of measure this text demands.

The topic is actually very involved because trinitarianism denies vast slabs of what is plainly written and then carefully re-interprets the meaning of each of these texts in order to fabricate support.

A classic example is 1 John 5:7. It has been admitted for decades by nearly all scholars and most serious Bible students to be a fraudulent insertion. Most learned Trinitarians concede on this text because they know the evidence of its late forgery is overwhelming. More recently however, some scholars have asserted that there is evidence indicating that some early mss may have contained the Trinitarian Formula known as the Comma Johanneum. Now many Trinitarians jump all over this new claim and declare the forgery to be inspired of God.

I do find it interesting how I have not yet seen this argument made here. Perhaps now after informing the Trinitarians of it, we soon will.

A subordinationist Unitarian believes in one true God as per John 17:3, 1 Timothy 6:16, Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and 1 John 5:20. He also believes that the son of God, Jesus Christ or Yashua Messiah is the firstborn theos – the firstborn of all creation as per John 1:18 (early mss), Colossians 1:5 and revelation 3:14. We know firstborn refers to the resurrection from Romans 8:29. Thus messiah is a subordinate elohim to the one true Elohim, his God and Father (Romans 15:6, Ephesians 1:3, Colossians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3). We also believe the Holy Spirit is an emanation of God as the means by which He accomplishes His will through His servants. In other words, the spirit of God is the power by which we become new creatures in Christ and then truly born sons of THE God (bene haElohim) at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 6:14). It is also the means by which God will become all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

R7-12

 

[jgredline]

R7-12 and JGREDLINE

I have been following both of your comments with great interest.
I have both questions and comments.

First R7-12
You appear to be very intelligent. Atleast you make yourself out to be. Very book smart. I read your post and I must say that I really don't understand what your saying. It seems to me like you dance around many questions.
In the two verses that you quoted 1 Timothy 6:16
Clearly that looks to me like you did take it out of contex. Looking at the that part of the scripture the contex of what Paul is saying starts in Verse 13 and ends in verse 16.

The second verse you used was 1 John 5:20
The contex of what John is saying in that part of scripture should be read from verse 19-20

This is basic 3 grade grammar.

I do appreciate the effort you put into your post. Since I am new at this detail and simplicity is important to me.
I read in another post that your are a subordinate unitaian.
Does this mean your not a Christian?


JGREDLINE
While your methods of explaining things seem a little brash you make sense to me. I would guess and say your street smart. I would suggest to you and please don't take it the wrong way, that perhaps you spend a little more time in your post as sometimes you start out good and then rush off to finish with an incomplete thought. In saying that I would have to say that in my simple mind your explanations really seem logical.


On a side note:
I never gave the trinity much thought until reading these post the past few days. I followed the other thread closely and came away still on the fence.
This thread and in particular JGREDLINES explanations of the two verses you quoted 1 Timothy 6:16 and 1 john 5:20 after reading the verses for my self in contex convinced me of the trinity. Perhaps tomorrow I will change my mind but for today I am a triny

Thanks and God bless and be with you both and carry on.

Oscar3
I will take your constructive critizim and use it to better my answers and statements.
I know that there are many people on this board who are set in their WRONG theology and nobody is going to change them. I believe most have their doctrine right but don't speak up.
Others like R7 are way out in left field someplace.
I really like your signiture.
''God says what he means and he means what he says''
Sometimes we make the scriptures complicated when your signiture says it all.
My explanations may be short and not fancy sounding but I do quote scripture in contex and I don't try and confuse people like R7 does with all the fancy words and as you and others have noticed R7 likes to take verses and writings out of contex.
I am on this Board to try and reach people like yourself who are trully searching for the truth.

 

[R7-12]

I know that there are many people on this board who are set in their WRONG theology and nobody is going to change them. I believe most have their doctrine right but don't speak up.
Others like R7 are way out in left field someplace.
I really like your signiture.
''God says what he means and he means what he says''
Sometimes we make the scriptures complicated when your signiture says it all.
My explanations may be short and not fancy sounding but I do quote scripture in contex and I don't try and confuse people like R7 does with all the fancy words and as you and others have noticed R7 likes to take verses and writings out of contex.
I am on this Board to try and reach people like yourself who are trully searching for the truth.

Why does this sound so familiar?

Oh. I remember now, the words are different but the context remains the same.

‘God, I thank You that I am not like other menâ€â€extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ (Luke 18:11-12)

Attributing evil intent and motives is accusative. Exclusion by inference is still exclussion and is the basis of discrimination. This is contrary to the law which says we are not to be respecters of persons, showing partiality in our thoughts, speach, and conduct (James 2:9). The purpose of such conduct is to elevate oneself by denegrating another.

Perhaps you will find this post helpful to you. I hope you do.

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

“Whoever exalts himself will be humbled†(Matthew 23:12).

R7-12