Paul and the Trinity

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By changeup2010:

quote:
Sorry but I proved that wrong in this statement:

Thank you but I'd like you to look a little further. Note in the epistle to those in Colossae Paul had already made the point that God and Jesus are two separate individuals (1:3) and in 1:13 we see a distinction between God and Jesus, who Paul says is His God's Son. So logically two verses later when they see the Son called the firstborn of all creation, what would they be thinking? Up to this point they have not read anything that would make them think Jesus is God. The logical conclusion is Jeus is the firstborn of creation, that is, the one first created.

Let's not forget that the term firstborn literally means the first one created. This Jesus is because he is called God's only-begotten son. What does it mean to be begotten? It means to be created, born, and brought into existence.

Now, let me preempt and direct your notice to Micah 5:2. Referring to Jesus, "from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from teh days of time indefinate." Thus, Jesus did have an origin, though it was long long ago.

After the Father created His Son, the Father created all things THROUGH His son. This the Scripture makes clear and I've supplied evidence for that. If that's not clear to you, let me know.

Thanks

changeup2010 · Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:31 am Post subject: Paul and the Trinity

Ryck,

First of all, verses 1:3 and 1:13 make sense to me, so I don't know what your point is here.

quote
Quote:

Now, let me preempt and direct your notice to Micah 5:2. Referring to Jesus, "from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from teh days of time indefinate." Thus, Jesus did have an origin, though it was long long ago.
This doesn't prove your point, it proves mine. Time indefinite means there is no definite "beginning." It would be like saying I will die, or was born, in infinity years.

The creation was "by him" and "for him", but not through him. The bible states in Col. 1:16 this point. If it says otherwise show me.

Tiger75 · Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:34 am Post subject: Paul and the Trinity

quote:
Originally posted by Ryck:
Let's not forget that the term firstborn literally means the first one created.

In your opinion. It can also mean first-bearer.

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Nobby:

quote:

Could be I have the Word & God both existing,
since the Word & God are the same!

That could be if God and the Word always existed together but that is not the case, right? The Word was with God only in the beginning, not always. When the Word came to be, that's when the Word was "with God". How could the Word and God be the same when the Word had a beginning and is "with God"?

Please see my reply to Changeup posted on 01-09-2003 09:54 AM where I made him aware of the point that Jesus is God's only-begotten Son. He that is begotten is created, born, and brought into existence. By thinking rationally with what the Scriptures gives us, that cannot mean that Jesus always existed with God.

quote:

Nothing there to disagree about!

You believe that God=Jesus? Then we disagree.

quote:

I don't know about the stream of time but John 1:1 says that the Word was God!

Then I suggest you do think about the stream of time. John 1:1 does say that the Word was God. John 17:3 says that Jesus prayed to His Father and called him "the only true God". The point was not lost Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, when he said that exclusively the Father was God at 1Co 8:6. Either Scripture contradict Scripture or the contradiction is in us. I choose the latter and therefore I feel compelled to research deeper. Since the preponderance of Biblical evidence shows that Jesus is not God, we have to look beyond the surface of John 1:1. And a lot of people have.

John 1:1 is probably the most quoted verse in support of Jesus being God. And not without reason since most Bibles say Jesus is God at that verse. At the same time, some have wondered how Jesus can be with God and still be God. Is John really saying Jesus is the same God of whom he was with? That has been the cause of a log of discussion among Bible scholars regarding the grammer involved in this verse. Those that are predisposted with the Trinitarian preconception would naturally follow the course of least resistance.

But I will note however that argument regarding the third Person of the Trinity is mute since it is not even mentioned. So we'll have to confine the arguments to the status of two entities: God and the Word.

I do believe that Iris posted quite a bit regarding John 1:1 in her topic "A discourse on the understanding of John 1:1". Rather than rehash it here, have you considered it? Admittedly, Iris goes into meticulous detail, but, as the saying goes, "God is in the details!"

Also consider my post in this topic at page 4 dated 01-01-2003 06:43 PM. And my post in the topic "A discourse on the understanding of John 1:1" at page 3 dated 12-06-2002 07:08 PM.

Peace

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Tiger75:

quote
Quote:

In your opinion. It can also mean first-bearer.

Why, in your opinion, do you say "first-bearer"? Can you expound on that a bit more? What did Jesus 'bear first'? Are you suggesting that he is female, a mother?

See what happens when you just drop one-liners and walk away?

Van · Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 8:47 am Post subject: Paul and the Trinity

Colossians 1:15 says, "An He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation." But does first-born means first created? Clearly Jesus was not the first born of a women because people have been being born since Adam and Eve gave birth to their first child. Jesus was not even the first human son of God, Adam was. Jesus was in His humanity the first and only begotten (born of a woman-Isa. 45:10) son of God. And Jesus was the first born from the dead (Col 1:18) so either (1)Jesus was the first born from the dead of all mankind demonstrating He is the image of the invisible God, or (2) figuratively, Jesus was termed first born as a reference to having first place in everything because He rose from the dead (Col 1:18) or (3)the reference is being the first born son of God. No matter which way, Ryck's invention is not only logically impossibe it is sheer nonsense.

Verse 16 proves that God the Son created all things in heaven, so it is impossible to logically assert that God the Son was created in heaven, especially since first born was explained as being first born from the dead in Col 1:18, first and only begotten in John 3:16, or figuratively first born means because Jesus is the first born from the dead He has "first born" rights to first place in everything, in all creation.

Verse 17 proves that Christ was before all things, proving just as John 1:1 does that God the Son is eternal because time is a thing created, and existing before time defines being eternal.

It is logically impossible to assert that God the Son was created based on Colossians 1:15 through 23. Note Col.1:19 says the Father caused the "fulness" to dwell in Him.
This "fulness" is explained in Colossians 2:9 which says, "For in Him (Jesus) all the fulness of deity dwells in bodily form...."
Jesus was God with us, not only in purpose but also in bodily form. We exist for the Father through the Son, all things are from the Father by the Son. Amen

[This message has been edited by Van (edited 01-09-2003).]

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

quote:
Originally posted by changeup2010:
Ryck,
You seem to have looked over my post, for some unknown reason. So I'll post it again, so it doesn't get burried.

How could I overloked it and it be buried if you only posted it today at 01-09-2003 10:31 AM??? Sheesh, I thought you meant a post from way back, like yesterday! LOL! Are we a tad bit impatient? LOL!!

I do impress myself sometimes in that I can deal with all of you in this topic, adjacent topics, and in other folders and BBs apparently all at once - but, contrary to some misunderstanding, I am one person.

In the interim, maybe you can read other responses I made today to you and others in and around here.

Peace

[This message has been edited by Ryck (edited 01-09-2003).]

changeup2010 · Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:14 pm Post subject: Paul and the Trinity

Ryck,
You seem to have looked over my post, for some unknown reason. So I'll post it again, so it doesn't get burried.
-------------------------------------------

First of all, verses 1:3 and 1:13 make sense to me, so I don't know what your point is here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let me preempt and direct your notice to Micah 5:2. Referring to Jesus, "from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from teh days of time indefinate." Thus, Jesus did have an origin, though it was long long ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't prove your point, it proves mine. Time indefinite means there is no definite "beginning." It would be like saying I will die, or was born, in infinity years.
The creation was "by him" and "for him", but not through him. The bible states in Col. 1:16 this point. If it says otherwise show me

[This message has been edited by changeup2010 (edited 01-09-2003).]

Tiger75 · Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:10 am Post subject: Paul and the Trinity

quote:
Originally posted by Ryck:
Why, in your opinion, do you say "first-bearer"? Can you expound on that a bit more? What did Jesus 'bear first'? Are you suggesting that he is female, a mother?

See what happens when you just drop one-liners and walk away?

Col 1:15 "Who (referring to Jesus Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (Prototokos) of every creature:"

Strong's Number: 4416 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
prwtovtokoß from (4413) and the alternate of (5088)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Prototokos 6:871,965
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pro-tot-ok'-os /cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4416g/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4416g Adjective
Definition
1. the firstborn
a. of man or beast
b. of Christ, the first born of all creation
</TD King James Word Usage - Total: 9 firstborn 7, first begotten 2

Strong's Number: 4413 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
prw'toß contracted superlative of (4253)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Protos 6:865,965
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pro'-tos /cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4413g/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4413g Adjective
Definition
1. first in time or place
a. in any succession of things or persons
2. first in rank
a. influence, honour
b. chief
c. principal
3. first, at the first
</TD King James Word Usage - Total: 104 first 84, chief 9, first day 2, former 2, miscellaneous 7

Strong's Number: 5088 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
tivktw a strengthened form of a primary teko {tek'-o} (which is used only as alternate in certain tenses)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Tikto None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
tik'-to /cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5088g/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5088g Verb
Definition
1. to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
a. of a woman giving birth
b. of the earth bringing forth its fruits
c. metaph. to bear, bring forth
</TD King James Word Usage - Total: 19 bring forth 9, be delivered 5, be born 3, be in travail 1, bear 1

Why the previous 'one-liner' well firstly I had given you the credit of previously looking up the meaning of this word, as this is your tact when you don't like whta the obvious is saying, and secondly I didn't expect you to deflect the statement with a trite rediculous notion which doesn't even fit in with your own body of erroneous doctrine i.e.

quote:
Originally posted by Ryck:
Are you suggesting that he is female, a mother?

[This message has been edited by Tiger75 (edited 01-10-2003).]

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Tiger75:

quote:

Why the previous 'one-liner' well firstly I had given you the credit of previously looking up the meaning of this word, as this is your tact when you don't like whta the obvious is saying, and secondly I didn't expect you to deflect the statement with a trite rediculous notion which doesn't even fit in with your own body of erroneous doctrine i.e.

Thanks for the information.

Didn't you notice my humor clues? I was joking with you, Tiger. Sorry. I meant no offense.

Peace

Van · Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:19 pm Post subject: Paul and the Trinity

Paul and all other biblical writers taught that Jesus was a man, Jesus is the Christ and Jesus is God the Son. He is Yahweh, God Almighty, the First and the Last, Eternal Father and Mighty God. Lets look at some of the Scriptures that reveal all these true aspects of Jesus Christ, Our Lord, God and Savior.

Paul refers to Jesus as God in passage after passage. I have made reference to Titus 2:13, to 1 Tim.1:11, and to Roman 9:5. Paul explained in Philippians 2:5-7 how Jesus humbled himself and took on the subservient role so clearly becoming the Son of God does not indicate that Jesus is not also the Son of Man, the Christ, God incarnate. The view that Jesus is a lesser God is polytheistic and not consistent with Isaiah 44:6. Scripture tells us that Jesus is God, Jesus is the Christ and Jesus is a man without sin. All aspects of the revelation of Jesus Christ are true.

The polytheistic view, Jesus is another god (a spirit entity called a god) should be rejected. Strict monotheism I think is the belief in only one true God. Others can believe in other gods (either divine or physical) but those beliefs require turning away from the true god and are seen as adultery and idolatry. So while the bible records that many believed in other gods, I do not think it teaches that any other divine gods actually exist. Ex. 20:3-11

Another point concerning Philippians 2:5-6, is the comparison with Satan. Jesus who was equal with God, being in the form of God did not grasp His high status and share of God’s glory, but humbled Himself. Satan, a created Angel, who was not equal to God, and not in form God, sought to grasp equality and make himself like God. The comparison is a comparison of opposites not equals.

Colossians 1:15 says, "An He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation." But does first-born means first created? Clearly Jesus was not the first born of a women because people have been being born since Adam and Eve gave birth to their first child. Jesus was not even the first human son of God, Adam was. Jesus was in His humanity the first and only begotten (born of a woman-Isa. 45:10) son of God. And Jesus was the first born from the dead (Col 1:18) so either (1)Jesus was the first born from the dead of all mankind demonstrating He is the image of the invisible God, or (2) figuratively, Jesus was termed first born as a reference to having first place in everything because He rose from the dead (Col 1:18) or (3)the reference is being the first born son of God.

Verse 16 proves that God the Son created all things in heaven, so it is impossible to logically assert that God the Son was created in heaven, especially since first born was explained as being first born from the dead in Col 1:18, first and only begotten in John 3:16, or figuratively first born means because Jesus is the first born from the dead He has "first born" rights to first place in everything, in all creation.

Verse 17 proves that Christ was before all things, proving just as John 1:1 does that God the Son is eternal because time is a thing created, and existing before time defines being eternal.

It is logically impossible to assert that God the Son was created based on Colossians 1:15 through 23. Note Col.1:19 says the Father caused the "fulness" to dwell in Him.
This "fulness" is explained in Colossians 2:9 which says, "For in Him (Jesus) all the fulness of deity dwells in bodily form...."
Jesus was God with us, not only in purpose but also in bodily form. We exist for the Father through the Son, all things are from the Father by the Son. Amen

After acknowledging that the Father is the only true God, in John 17:3, Jesus claims to share that glory in John 17:5 when He says, “Now Father Glory me (Jesus) with the Glory I had with you before the beginning of the world.” Since God Almighty’s Glory is exclusive for God does not give His glory to other gods (Isaiah 42:8), you should not take the polytheistic view that the Word was separate from God and not God, just a created being, but instead you should believe that the Word was with God and was God just as John 1:1 says. When the Word was set apart from God as the Chosen one, Christ gave up the glory He shared to be sent into the world from heaven. Since there is only one true God, with all others being false gods, the Word must be a manifestation of the true God, just as 1 John 5:20 says when it refers to Jesus as the true God.

In the OT (Joel 2:32), Joel said that whoever calls on the name of the LORD (Yahweh) shall be saved and in Romans 10:9-13, Paul says that whoever confesses Jesus as LORD shall be saved. Therefore yet another example of how Paul referred to Jesus as Yahweh of the OT.

Did Jesus ever say He was equal with the Father as Paul did in Philippians 2:5-6? Yes. In John 17:10, Jesus says that all things that belong to Jesus belong to the Father, which of course makes the Father at least equal to Jesus, and then Jesus says that all things that belong to the Father belong to Jesus, indicating at least a measure of equality! The argument that since God the Son was not equal to God the Father in every way, means God the Son was not equal with God the Father in Godhood is without merit. As a writer I am not equal with Paul, but in humanity, I am equal with Paul and all other humans. John says Jesus was God, Paul says Jesus did not think equality with God was a thing to be grasped (as God in heaven) but humbled Himself to become a man on earth.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul writes, "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we through Him." This pairing reveals the Father and Son as separate persons yet bound together. All things are from the Father but nothing exists except by the Son. God caused all things so we (Christians) would choose Him and glorify Him yet none of us could glorify Him except through Christ.

Does this passage teach that Jesus is Savior and Christ and Lord? Yes. Does it teach that Jesus existed before all things? Yes. Does it suggest that Jesus is God the Creator? Yes! Does it suggest that Jesus is not God? No. In fact, it teaches the opposite. Isaiah 44:24 says, “…I, Yahweh am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself, and spreading out the earth all alone.” Therefore it is inescapable that Yahweh is both Father and Son. This view also reconciles Paul’s emphatic statement in Col. 1:16 that Jesus created everything. Christ is a manifestation of God Almighty.

In 1 Timothy 1:11, Paul refers to “the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which He entrusted to me.” This appears to be another example of Paul referring to Jesus as God. Opponents of this view say Paul is not referring to Jesus. However, the phrase “which He entrusted to me” clearly indicates Jesus Christ is in view because of Galatians 1:12 which says, “I received it (the gospel of Christ) by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

In John 17:18-23, Jesus prays for His disciples, asking (I believe) His Father to send the Helper, the Spirit of Christ such that His disciples will speak and act in unity with God, demonstrating, because they are filled with the Spirit of Christ, that they love one another, and thus reveal that God is in them and that their message of the Gospel of Christ is from the Father. Using this passage to say that when Jesus said, “ I and my Father are one” shows only unity of purpose was in view, is without merit. Jesus did claim to speak with unity of purpose for God. But this does not indicate that He did not claim that His Father was God, and hence He is God. When John 10:30 quotes Jesus as saying “I and the Father are one” one is neuter so Jesus is not saying they are the same person, but instead is saying they are the same thing (God Almighty as manifested as the Father and as the Son). When Jesus said in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one” the Jews picked up stones because they understood correctly that Jesus was saying “… You being a man make yourself out to be God.” Jesus explained further, that because of His Father sanctified Him and sent Him (Jesus) into the world, as demonstrated by His miracle works, they should not consider it blasphemy because He says He is the Son of God. The Jews, still understanding correctly that Jesus was claiming to be God when He said, “I and my Father are one” tried to seize Him.

Yahweh is called Father (Isaiah 63:16) and Jesus is called Father (Isaiah 9:6) but that is not a problem because the Father and the Son are One.

God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:32 and Galatians 1:1) and yet Jesus said he would raise himself from the dead (John 2:19-12). But that is not a problem because the Father and the Son are One.

Yahweh is the First and the Last (Isa. 44:6) and Jesus is the First and the Last (Rev. 1:17) but that is not a problem because the Father and the Son are One.

Yahweh's name alone is exalted (Psalms 148:13) yet Jesus’ name is above all names (Philippians 2:9) but that is not a problem because the Father and the Son are One.

At the judgment seat of God, every knee will bow to Yahweh (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:10-11) and at the judgment seat of Christ, we will all appear (2 Cor. 5:10). Also every knee will bow to Jesus (Philippians 2:10), so either we face two judgments and we will bow down to two Gods, or the Father and the Son are Yahweh.

Does the fact that Christ and Yahweh share titles (Savior, First and Last, etc) mean they are the same entity or could they not just be two entities that share the same title like Judge or Senator. It would depend on whether the attribute or title seems exclusive. If I say my name is above all other names, and someone else says their name is above all other names, both statements cannot be true because we are two different people. But if a King, dresses in rags and goes into town and says his name is above all other names in the kingdom, and later, dressed as the king he says my name is above all other names, then the statement can be true, because although the appearance of the entity is very different, both were still King.

Bottom line, since Yahweh’s name alone is exalted, and Jesus is the name above all names, either we have an incorrect statement or Yahweh and Jesus are the same entity. This is an example of an exclusive attribute contained as part of the title or characteristic.

Similarly since both Yahweh and Jesus are the First and the Last, either we have an incorrect statement or Yahweh and Jesus are the same entity.

If a god claims to be a savior, then that has to be a false statement, because no other God but Yahweh can save (Isaiah 45:21). So if the phrase “God and Savior” is used to describe Jesus (Titus 2:13), then either Paul got it wrong or Jesus is Yahweh.

Now let us consider the title "son of man". God describes one of his prophets as the son of man 93 times, apparently to contrast his place as a creation with God's place as creator. Does this mean when Jesus calls himself the "son of man" he is making reference to the general truth that He was part of humanity? I think not! His reference was to the Christ, the Anointed One of God and not just to His connection with men.

Lets look at a few verses. In Matthew 9:6 he refers to himself as the Son of Man with the power to forgive sin. Note that in Matthew 9:8, scripture indicates that the crowds gloried God that such authority had been given to men. But in the parallel passage Mark 12:1-12, they say Jesus is blaspheming for who but God can forgive sins. Therefore at least some in the crowd but not all got the message, by claiming to forgive sins the “Son of Man” was claiming to be God. In Matthew 13:41 Jesus says the Son of Man will be the judge at the end of the age. Note that in Psalms 96:10-13, scripture says the Yahweh is coming, not sending a representative. So when Jesus says, in John 5:22 that the Father has given the judgment to the Son, the message is clear: Jesus is Yahweh, not Yahweh’s representative. And in Matthew 16:13-16 Jesus asks who the Son of Man is and the answer given by Peter is "thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." So when Jesus takes on the title of the Christ by using the term Son of Man, it is exclusive for there is only one Christ no matter how many judges, kings and prophets were anointed.

And therefore, in summary, when Jesus says he is the Son of Man, he is claiming to be sent from God and to be God. And that is an exclusive attribute of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In 1 Timothy 1:11, Paul refers to “the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which He entrusted to me.” This appears to be another example of Paul referring to Jesus as God. Opponents of this view say Paul is not referring to Jesus. However, the phrase “which He entrusted to me” clearly indicates Jesus Christ is in view because of Galatians 1:12 which says, “I received it (the gospel of Christ) by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

Opponents of the Godhood of Christ take a different tack with Romans 9:5 which states, “Theirs (the Hebrews) are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised, Amen.” The opponents say it is a meaningless rote phrase added to the end of the statement. All I can say is that the NIV translates the passage as above to indicate the phrase applies to Christ.

John 5:19 has been used to indicate Jesus is not God, because Jesus can do nothing unless He sees His Father doing them for the Son does in like manner the things He sees the Father do. All this shows is that the Father and the Son act in unity, not a lack of power of the Son, who created all things, and who will judge the world.

When the Jews heard Jesus and thought Jesus was committing blasphemy because He was making Himself equal with God (John 5:18) did Jesus refute that He was the Son of God or that it was blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God? Jesus did not refute that He was equal with God; Jesus asserted that God was His Father, and that He had been sent by His Father and that as the Son He represented the Father. Read John 5:18-27 and judge for yourself.

Matthew 3:3 indicates Jesus is Yahweh. But does Matthew 25:35-40 demonstrate Jesus is not Yahweh? In the passage, Jesus says that if you show kindness to the least of our brethren in Christ, you are showing kindness to Christ. Clearly Jesus is saying He will judge our love and devotion to Christ by our love and devotion to all those “in Christ.” But just as clearly, Jesus is not saying the brethren are Christ. Only that by expressing our love for the brethren, we are expressing our love for Christ.

Did Peter, when preaching in Acts 2:22-24 teach that Jesus was only a man and not something more? In verse 22, Jesus the man is accredited by the miracles and wonders done by the Father through Jesus the man. A mere man could not have done those miracles! In verse 23, Peter teaches that Jesus’ death on a cross was part of the predetermined plan of God. But note what Peter says in verse 24, “And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him (Jesus) to be held in its (death’s) power. A mere man could die and stay dead, so why was it impossible for death to hold Jesus? Because scripture, and scripture cannot be broken, said (Peter quotes Psalms 16:10) that Yahweh will not allow the Holy One to decay. So Jesus is the Holy One of Psalms 16:10 and not just a man.

One other point concerning Jesus the man. Did God accept for payment of our sins the death of one human being? Or did God’s only begotten Son, die both physically and painfully as a man, and did God the Son undergo for a time, spiritual death where He was separated from God the Father, when He became sin for us. Listen again to the Words of Christ: My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? Behold, the Lamb of God.

Since there is only one true God (Yahweh), then Mighty God must be Yahweh. Since Jesus is true (1 John 5:20) then Jesus must be the Mighty God Yahweh. There is no other god but the true God. The other gods are false gods because they are not true gods. Yahweh is described as the true God, the Father is described as the true God and Jesus is described as the true God.

Mighty God refers to God Almighty. Yes the term rendered mighty is used to describe things such as warriors and men other than God, while Almighty is used exclusively as a description of God. But Mighty God appears only as a reference to God. For example in Isaiah 10:21 a remnant of Jacob will return to Mighty God. In other verses God is described as mighty and awesome such as Nehemiah 9:32. Since Jesus is Mighty God, so either we have two Mighty Gods or Jesus is God Almighty.

Hebrews 1:8-12 is a passage that should be studied carefully. First, I think the author of Hebrews is making a clear case that Jesus, the Son of God, is higher than angels. Starting in verse 8, lets go through the passage carefully.

First, “But of the Son” indicates the following are descriptions of the nature of the Son, not statements made to the Son. Then, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. So the throne belongs to the Son; He is a King like entity that sits on His own throne. The Son is called “O God” meaning the Son is God, and not some dissimilar creation such as an angel. The throne is eternal, forever and ever, so it follows, since it is the Son’s throne, that the Son is eternal.

Second, the Son’s Righteous Scepter is the Scepter of His Kingdom. So the Son is a King, and He is Righteous. In the last part of verse 9, the author says, “Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of Gladness above Thy companions.” Here we see that the Son, who is God and King, has a God, His God, who anointed the Son with “the oil of Gladness.” The Son was set apart, chosen before the foundation of the world, as the Christ, the Anointed One of God. Literally, anointing means to have oil or a substance applied onto a person or object. Noah’s ark was anointed with waterproofing stuff. But, anointing means bestowal of divine favor and equipping for service when used to describe Kings, judges, prophets and especially the Christ. To be anointed is to be selected by God for a purpose. Christ was to be the Lamb of God, and He was protected by the oil of gladness, such that He could say, in the shadow of the Cross, “not my will, but yours.”

The Word, who was with God in the beginning, was set apart as the Christ and this cannot be said of any of Christ’s spiritual companions, the Angels; so we have another demonstration that Christ is above the Angels. Who set the Word apart? The Father. Who is the Son’s God? The Father. Who sent the Son to save the lost? The Father.
Now some might say that since Jesus had a God in heaven while in heaven and not just while in the flesh on earth, Jesus cannot be God. But this is not necessarily so. I can be a King, and still address another King as King without indicating that I am not a King. Today, a U.S. Senator can address another Senator as Senator, without indicating that the Senator is not a Senator. Both the Son and the Father can be God, Yahweh, and so can the Holy Spirit be God and Yahweh, because all three can be in very nature God. The Son can serve “My Father” without being a lesser God.

Verse 10 is a very important verse about who the Son is. “Thou, Yahweh, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.” Read it again, carefully, the Son is Yahweh. I will repeat what the author is saying. The Son, the Word, the Christ, the incarnate God, is Yahweh, God Almighty!!!
The Word created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. He is eternal.
The creation will perish (v. 11) but Yahweh (the Father, Son and Holy God) is the same and will never end. (v. 12) Amen.

[This message has been edited by Van (edited 01-10-2003).]

Tiger75 · Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:57 am Post subject: Paul and the Trinity

Thanks Van.

Tiger

im113 · Tadpole Joined: 29 Apr 2003 Posts: 21

Van,

What an EXCELLENT post!

God bless you,

Ian.

Dshadna · German Shepherd Joined: 21 Apr 2003 Posts: 344

Ron · Posted: Fri May 09, 2003 8:58 pm Post subject:

Bravo for such a well put together post! I am copying it to my Bible study files for future reference. Thanks Van. Fine job indeed.
_________________
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Yours in Christ with much love,
Ron

http://www.arkwebshost.com/theology/ron