I like this video, and I was interested to see you mention Melchizedek. I quickly checked my book on the DSS of Q11. It says "Godlike" and "divine being". With respect to 1 Chronicles 29:20, the Greek says prosekunesan. Latreuo would have been preferred if worship, rather than bowing down to, was meant.
The KJV and Catholic bibles took out Jehovah's Most Holy name! Jesus put it number one on the list of things to pray for=Matthew 6:9,10. Jesus said to pray to his Father, and our Father in the heavens. Jesus NEVER prayed to himself, but ONLY to his God, Jehovah -Matthew 11:25,14:19,23,15:36,26:2627:46,Mark 15:34,Luke 9:28,10:21,11:1,22:19,41,44,John 6:11,17:1,20:17. Jesus is God's SON, not God himself!
@eternityandforever only one verse where Jesus says we should pray to him (Jesus): John 14:14: ""If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.". and 2 verses that make clear who the Almighty is: "Look, he is coming with the clouds,and every eye will see him, even those who PIERCED him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.So shall it be! Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:7, 8)
@eternityandforever does the Father ever call his Son God?? Look at this:"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." This is what the Father says about the Son. But pls make sure you use your own WT Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures for all the verses, then you will see how the NWT changed God´s true Word!!! God Bless
NOTICE: Isaiah 9:6-he is Prince of Peace. 'PRINCE' is the SON of a KING.Jesus is an eternal 'Prince',not eternal 'King'.He is 'The Mighty God', NOT"Almighty" -Jehovah is=Genesis 17:1,Rev.16:7, He'll be King 1,000 years,then hand rulership to his Father,Jehovah God=Matthew 25:31-46,Rev.20:1,6. Jehovah will be King forever=Zechariah 14:9. Jesus will be 'The Everlasting Father' because he took the place of Adam when he sacrificed his life to atone his sin. Heb.1:2 he is 'heir'=child
The earliest evidence of who Jesus is ! is found in new testament manuscripts that Christians translated in to other languages.Back then,translators would have a clear understanding of how to translate one language to an other,especially if two languages are written and spoken in the same time period.The linguistic evidence clearly shows that early Christians believed that Jesus is Gods Son,and not God.Jesus is a creation not the main source of creation.He was used as a instrument in creation.
The Chronicles description is a "render to Caeasar what belongs to Caeasar" situation. David then would not be authorized to take the worship for himself (he was only a man like Peter..see Acts 10) but only what he deserves..and the rest goes to God. In fact David is pictured including himself among the worshipers (see 29:10). But in Rev 5:13 we see the Lamb is portrayed as an equal receiver and only on the receiving end of all of creations worship.
Jesus can never be called YHWH since the name (meaning character) "he who is" or "he exists" indicating the elohim eternal existence - see (Revelation 1:4) . . .“The One who is and who was and who is coming,” . . . - the three inclusive translations of YHWH (no vowel points).
ALWAYS replace "name" for "character" in the Hebrew & the Greek.
(Matthew 18:20) . . .For where there are two or three gathered together in "my name" (Jesus way of doing things), there I am in their midst.”
With regard to the sopherim emendations (genesis 18 and others) should be treated with extreme suspicion as the DSS Isaiah scroll does not include them in the text or as marginals. Case in point - GEN 18:22 - compare Gen 19:27 - also the is NO other example in scripture of a superior "standing before" a subordinate. This also puts the emendation in 18:3 under suspicion.
The greek "Theos" has no direct relationship with the Hebrew since it means "shinning one" & not "mighty". John 1:1 is better translated through the concrete Hebrew to:-
In a beginning was WORD & WORD was facing Mightiest & mighty was the WORD. In no way does this relate to the personal name YHWH (he who is).
Interesting but a little convoluted. First see the akkadian equivalent word "En".
sron. nl/~jheise/signlists/list3.html
The basic definition on this page is not the concrete understanding which is actually "mighty". This is the straight equivalent to "EL" in Hebrew - also the plural En.En.En.(En.) (superlative in the Semitic sense) this directly relates the masculine plural "Elohim".
Therefore "EL" = mighty & "El.ohim" = mightiest - whether by relative degree or absolute.
You again ignore the context where Col 1:15 is found. Jesus is the creator of all things. The creator of all things cannot be a created thing. That is logically impossible.
@ETHANGELIST To be technical, which is here important, Col 1:15ff presents the pre-existent Jesus as God's agent in creation, not the source of it (cf. Heb. 1:2).
The word "God" is found 4000-4200 times in our English Bibles (including "gods" etc.). Theos/Elohim always means deity. But congratulations in finding 3 exceptions out of the 4000-4200. And you quoted Psalm 82 out of context. Read verse 7. The "gods" mentioned are being taunted and will "die like men" in verse 7.
Since Jesus is called God many times in the Bible, you must water down the very meaning of God to save your doctrines.
@ETHANGELIST Of course the exceptions always make clear that these other gods are under the one true God, so the same with Jesus (John 20:17, 28; Heb. 1:8-9).
Psalm 82 was not quoted out of context, as the appellation elohim was proper. This is evident in that the parallel is with "sons of the most high," which can in no way be sarcastic. If these are judges the meaning is simply they shall die a common death even with their appointed position, if these be angels the meaning is then obvious.
@scripturaltruths Read all of Ps 82. It is about unjust judges (verse 2). It is also definitely not about angels. It is about Israelite judges. God is being sarcastic in verse 6 and tells these false judges "“Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes.” " (verse 7).
@ETHANGELIST There are a number of reasons for taking this to be angels, but I do favor the idea that these are judges within Israel. That being said, I've already noted that the parallelism with "sons of the most high" refutes the sarcasm argument, as does the appellation in v. 1.
@ETHANGELIST I don't think one can make a blanket statement such as "Theos/Elohim always means deity," for there are clear examples that demonstrate otherwise. Each term has to be viewed with its context and relative to whom this term is applied.
@IvanDefendingTruth "for there are clear examples that demonstrate otherwise" Yeah I just said there are exceptions (a very FEW exceptions which can be explained anyway). But as for the use of Theos and Elohim in the Bible, it always means deity.
So you admit Jesus is called "God" in Scripture? And you see this as "no big deal"?
@ETHANGELIST By the way, I see no reason to limit Theos or Elohim to necessarily mean deity. This narrowing of their definition seems entirely unwarranted and theologically motivated.
This error is seen when it is realized the Hebrew word EL is used to describe men, mountains, & trees. If EL was a word implemented to express deity we have divine men, mountains, & trees. This is not how the Hebrews used the word. EL was used to express the might, power, strength of ANYTHING. That Trin translators know this fact is revealed by some of their translations of Josh 22:22 & Ps 50:1 where they translate EL as "Mighty" when it refers to God. Ditto Elohim.
@IvanDefendingTruth I also see your attempt to water down the very meaning of "God" as theologically motivated. Everyone knows God means deity in any language. You use the few exceptions found in the Bible in order to change the meaning for the sake of your doctrines.
@ETHANGELIST You can define "God" however you wish to, but I don't see a reason for not allowing the context, whether religious, historical or cultural, to define it for us. If Second Temple Monotheism allowed for a diverse application of Elohim, El, Theos, etc.. why not work from within that construct instead of limiting it for theological reasons?
@IvanDefendingTruth Ivan what evidence can you provide that the extra biblical literature you cited from a sect outside Jerusalem that was given to angelic exaltation or worship is representative of second temple Judaism?
@21crosscheck21 I'd ike to interject here. This is not from a single sect, but from Philo as well as The Apocalypse of Abraham, both of which are not a part of the DSS, also cited. Additional sources can well be cited, such as the Targums and texts as Joseph and Aseneth. Ivan cited three distinct points of reference in addition to the Bible and others are available.
@scripturaltruths "I'd ike to interject here" Of course you would Dave he is basically quoting you in the debate :')
Ok, multiple minor sects are quoted from often fanciful non biblical literature . How is this representative of second temple Jews who wouldn't even utter the name YHWH? Can you prove that these books that Ivan cited were held in esteem by second temple Jews as a whole? Cont.....
@21crosscheck21 I would point out that scholars across the board accept this as representative of second temple lit., for if we do not accept the writings of second temple Jews as representative of their beliefs we have nothing to go by. Second, we specifically do not see polemics against these writings within the Second Temple period, which would be indicative of them coming from groups with strange ideas. It is not necessary for these books to have been esteemed, only the ideas accepted.
@scripturaltruths cont... And "Scholars across the board" is not really an answer. I talked to a Hebrew Scholar from Moody Bible institute who would beg to differ. Secondly the lack of polemics against them is very likely an indication of just how marginalized this view really was. This is really an appeal to and an elevation of the "tradition" of "some" Jews which Jesus himself warned us against. You are now reading this tradition into the scriptures.
@21crosscheck21 Well I have to question how well read this scholar is when you have Mcgrath, Hurtado, Witherington and countless others saying otherwise. Similarly, agency is found in the OT, NT, DSS, Targums, Philo, Josephus and the Pseudopigrapha. How much more diverse can one possibly get? I'd remind you that "logos" is based on Jewish tradition, but further w must consider how the Jews would haver understood these things as it was written by Jews.
@scripturaltruths cont..... Secondly the "scriptural" evidence was so meager that the appeal to books outside the bible came in at just over 2 minutes in the video. I think such an appeal to a supposed authority outside Gods word so early in the presentation demonstrates the weakness of the argument. Some people abused God's name... do we create and base a theology on that? Second temple Jews didn't utter it... do you? Are you going to be consistent or pick and choose?
@21crosscheck21 There is sufficient scriptural evidence by itself, there is just much more within second temple literature. It isn't that we just accept everything in other writings, but there are unambiguous parallels between them and the NT. The apostles were Sec. Temple Jews, so it would be an injustice to remove the NT from it's historical context. For example, if we ignore other writings we are left with a big blank ofn John's Logos or texts as Heb 1:3, quoting sec. temple lit.
@scrip "There is sufficient scriptural evidence by itself" If this were true there seems little reason to abandon the scriptures in the first 2 minutes of the opening statement. I agree historical context is important but other then stating it you have yet to provide any factual evidence that these citations you have given Ivan 1: represent anything other then a minority view and 2: represent the thoughts of mainstream 2nd Temple Jews were likely the Pharisees teachings were dominant. cont..
@21crosscheck21 You are poisoning the well. Scripture was never abandoned, just further verified. The angel of Jah is a prime example of agency (cf. Zech 1:7). Ivan cited three distinct sources, one from Qumran, another from the pseudopigrapha and a third from Philo, demonstrating this was not some minor, local view. I'm confident he will be citing more, varying sources to further confirm this. Your assessment is simply not accurate.
@scripturaltruths "You are poisoning the well" No I am pointing out the obvious. I can find writings from 3 different oneness Pentecostals from across the US and then assume that the dominant view of Jesus in America is the oneness view? Certainly not.
In addition the video that I made about agency demonstrates beyond doubt that the bible teaches that Jesus is a "principle" not a mere agent. Either way applying limited agency to Jesus is unbiblical.
@21crosscheck21 That isn't even a parallel. It would be that you'd cite three oneness Pentecostals to see the oneness view. So three Jews were cited for the Jewish view, but as I pointed out numerous other sources exist. Ivan had 15 minutes so could only provide so much.
I demonstrated the flaws in your video at the time. Jesus said "I can do nothing of myself," proving conclusively he is the intermediate agent. 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes this unambiguous.
@scrip It's a perfect parallel. We are talking about the dominant view of the day. Dave again you cite more and more non biblical literature you can cite. These are not authoritative books. Paul quoted a Greek poet... should I now quote mine the Greek philosophers and claim my view is right?
"I can do nothing of myself" Yes in his humiliated state and not to be applied to Genesis and 1 Cor 8:6 actually demonstrates 2 principles.. You simply proof texted and avoided the actual point. Con
@21crosscheck21 No it isn't, as multiple sects of Judaism have been referenced. I've made specific references of biblical examples and further biblical examples are found in my book. You assume Jesus' statement is limited to humanity, but you haven't proven it. Everything I have said comes directly from the bible, extra biblical Jewish literature only further substantiates it. Jesus is the divine, preexistent and begotten son of God, exalted above all creation.
@scripturaltruths Dave everything was made by him and for him... Jesus created you for him. Phil 2 and his request to be returned to the former Glory that he shared with His Father proves conclusively that his humility was limited. No assumption needed Jesus said it. Jesus was more then an agent Dave, more then an angel, more then Moses more then all. So limited comparisons to them and their limited attributes all fail. Explain how Jesus can create for all 4 himself yet only be an agent?
@21crosscheck21 Yes, God created through Jesus both for himself and His Son. This does not prove Jesus its not God's agent. Jesus was indeed exalted and previously humbled, yet this does not mean statements such as the one in question are exclusive to his humanity. This is your assumption and your burden to prove. I see no reason to accept such a limitation. Indeed, Jesus was and is more than an agent, but he is also an agent.
@scripturaltruths "This is your assumption" Lets be real Dave. I'M assuming?? The bible explicitly speaks of Jesus humbling himself at a specific point in time however never, as in never not once is the word "agent" applied to him. Who is the one assuming here? You present an Idea of Jesus (limited agency) virtually unheard of for 2000 years and the burden of proof is on me? cont....
@21crosscheck21 Yes, you are assuming that prior to that humbling he had certain abilities, and that its not necessarily so. If you want to go the "word" route, trinity isn't found in the Bible, neither is Gods the Son. Agency was a well established concept within Judaism, so out is nothing new. That Jesus so well fits the mold, albeit in a greater capacity, is either a joker that isn't funny or the truth.
@scripturaltruths So your answer is your assumption is better then mine even though mine is not an assumption but specifically and explicitly stated in scripture,,, I can't argue with that kind of logic.
@21crosscheck21 On the contrary, my argument is that the bible should be interpreted in its historical context, understanding how the authors used language and articulated ideas as Second Temple Jews. You divorce the Bible completely from this and treat it as if it were a modern text. If you compare it to liberals and conservatives in politics, I'd be the conservative focused on the constitution's original intent and you'd be the liberal focused on a modern meaning.
@scripturaltruths Nice diversion attempt Dave but what is explicitly stated does not need to be assumed as your agency idea is. I am well aware of historical context and I understand it's value but just because some 2nd temple Jews held to a belief does not make it true, By your standard we should all reject Jesus as Messiah because that's what most 2nd temple Jews did. He did not match their interpretation of the scriptures and could not be the Messiah, not a great track record. cont...
@21crosscheck21 You mean illustration, not a diversion. The fact is there are clear parallels between those texts and the NT with respect to agency. The amazing thing, and what is truly the most substantive is that you've offered nothing to refute this, instead you obfuscate and claim we should disregard this. Until you can provide a substantive argument on why it is won't you really haven't got an argument. All we have so far is your denial and groundless attempt to marginalize.
@scripturaltruths Your arrogance is unbelievable. You have no evidence and then demand I refute your baseless claims? Show me some early Christians who believed as you did and perhaps you have something Dave. Otherwise you have nothing but the speculation of some early Jews that rejected Jesus on your side.
@21crosscheck21 You are turning to insults so I see this discussion is over. I'd refer you to Ivan's intro for evidence, as well as my own blog. There are parallels upon parallels, simply because you must ignore them is beyond anything I can do to help. You might pick up McGrath's Only True God, for some good discussion, but when my Second Edition is done I'll be sure to send you a copy as it will discuss this in significant detail.
@scripturaltruths Dave parallels in extra biblical literature are not evidence. Do you at least admit the possibility that they may... and I say may have erred in their reasoning? If the answer is know I would ask why is there no possibility they could have erred? And if the answer is yes then I would ask are you sure you want to build your theology off of them. While the earliest evidence is the Church believed Jesus was God I do not base my theology upon that, I base it on the bible.
@21crosscheck21 They are evidence when interpreting the Bible in light of contemporary thought and language. Yes, they could have erred, but that the error was so wide spread we should expect the Bible to clarify and offer even a polemic against it. It certainly did against another one, gnosticism, but agency is closer to gnosticism than trinitarianism. One has to wonder how gnostic thought even entered the church were it trinitarian. Were it unitarian, however, it had room for entry.
@scripturaltruths I believe the bible does within itself contain polemics against the idea that Christ was a limited exalted messenger (angel) in Hebrews and John chapter 1 and other places. As far as wondering how gnostic thought could enter a trinitarian church the answer is simple.... men are sinful and will dream up all sorts of crazy philosophies. Scripture states that as well. Scripture also warns clearly about elevation non biblical books which you are doing.
@21crosscheck21 Actually, Mal. 3 calls him a messenger, but if your are implying I class him as a mere angel you are mistaken. I'm also not elevating any other work, as stated, I'm using them for a historical context in observation of possible parallels.
@21crosscheck21 "While the earliest evidence is the Church believed Jesus was God" - Perhaps - but we cannot account for all the manuscripts burned by Constantine & also subsequent to these councils. "the Victor writes history".
@21crosscheck21 Secondly you would be the liberal as you hold to an allegorical view of the scriptures as opposed to the strict construction of the conservative. You rely heavily upon extra biblical text and create doctrine from it yet you belong to and defend an organisation that claims it rejects traditions of men which is exactly what these books are. I am not sure why you would consider that conservative,.
@21crosscheck21 On the contrary, I would still be the conservative, using documents as the federalist papers to understand their intent. There is no allegory in my interpretation, just a consideration of how things were related. It is truly amazing that because you can't refute the argument you dismiss the methodology.
@scripturaltruths cont...Secondly, I am not trying to prove anything to you... God reveals himself to his children... I can't convince anyone. I can only proclaim, answer and pray that eye's will open and ears will hear. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 cor 2:14
@21crosscheck21 Cont... One day Dave you will stand before Christ and say what? I spent my life determined to tell people what you were not to make sure that they didn't over honor you or exalt you. and I based this on largely on extra biblical writings. Your a nice guy Dave but you unknowingly rob Jesus of his glory and speak against the Lord of Glory at every turn. Tell me, what is Jesus? Who is Jesus? The son of God? What does that even mean?
@21crosscheck21 That many different authors at different times and in different geographical locations can be so consistent in applying "G/god terms" to others besides Jehovah, I think, speaks in favor of viewing these documents and their teachings as representative of second temple monotheism.
@21crosscheck21 I don't see what uttering (or not uttering) the Divine Name has to do with applying "G/god terms" to others besides Jehovah. It seems these are two different issues. Anyhow, as I mentioned above, that different authors at different times in different locations can agree with each other in this aspect, indicates this idea or concept was prevalent in their circles and in the larger context of Judaism.
@IvanDefendingTruth 2nd Temple Jewsm of the time of Jesus who would not even utter God's name because it was so set apart and so holy will just give it to creatures?? I don't think that's logical.
Good Reasoning Ivan, we can also see the angel that spoke to Moses in the burning bush was spoken to and treated like he was Jehovah. So the angel was Jehovah, functionally.
@scripturaltruths So it was directed at Ivan and Mike or Just Mike? I actually believe that Ivan will indeed do his best to answer Mike directly as will Mike to Ivan. You comment in my view was very unfortunate at this point in the debate. A demeaning comment for no apparent reason. I perhaps should have not even mentioned it but I found it disappointing coming from you.
@scripturaltruths I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. My hope is that they both address each other as directly as possible (which I realize is limited given the 15 minute time frame and the amount of material each presented) as I think that would be most beneficial to the hearers. How about you hope along with me that you're wrong about that :') Hope your well Dave.
I like this video, and I was interested to see you mention Melchizedek. I quickly checked my book on the DSS of Q11. It says "Godlike" and "divine being". With respect to 1 Chronicles 29:20, the Greek says prosekunesan. Latreuo would have been preferred if worship, rather than bowing down to, was meant.
FluctuatingThought 3 weeks ago
Nice slides. I'm somewhat jealous. =P
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
The KJV and Catholic bibles took out Jehovah's Most Holy name! Jesus put it number one on the list of things to pray for=Matthew 6:9,10. Jesus said to pray to his Father, and our Father in the heavens. Jesus NEVER prayed to himself, but ONLY to his God, Jehovah -Matthew 11:25,14:19,23,15:36,26:2627:46,Mark 15:34,Luke 9:28,10:21,11:1,22:19,41,44,John 6:11,17:1,20:17. Jesus is God's SON, not God himself!
eternityandforever 3 months ago
@eternityandforever only one verse where Jesus says we should pray to him (Jesus): John 14:14: ""If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.". and 2 verses that make clear who the Almighty is: "Look, he is coming with the clouds,and every eye will see him, even those who PIERCED him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.So shall it be! Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:7, 8)
HeavenClear 2 weeks ago
@eternityandforever does the Father ever call his Son God?? Look at this:"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." This is what the Father says about the Son. But pls make sure you use your own WT Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures for all the verses, then you will see how the NWT changed God´s true Word!!! God Bless
HeavenClear 2 weeks ago
@HeavenClear sorry, that´s Hebrews 1:8 :)
HeavenClear 2 weeks ago
NOTICE: Isaiah 9:6-he is Prince of Peace. 'PRINCE' is the SON of a KING.Jesus is an eternal 'Prince',not eternal 'King'.He is 'The Mighty God', NOT"Almighty" -Jehovah is=Genesis 17:1,Rev.16:7, He'll be King 1,000 years,then hand rulership to his Father,Jehovah God=Matthew 25:31-46,Rev.20:1,6. Jehovah will be King forever=Zechariah 14:9. Jesus will be 'The Everlasting Father' because he took the place of Adam when he sacrificed his life to atone his sin. Heb.1:2 he is 'heir'=child
eternityandforever 3 months ago
The earliest evidence of who Jesus is ! is found in new testament manuscripts that Christians translated in to other languages.Back then,translators would have a clear understanding of how to translate one language to an other,especially if two languages are written and spoken in the same time period.The linguistic evidence clearly shows that early Christians believed that Jesus is Gods Son,and not God.Jesus is a creation not the main source of creation.He was used as a instrument in creation.
siicpaxsheechpaw 5 months ago
Thanks a lot for this video, AGAPE..Miq.4:5,6.
colima601 7 months ago
The Chronicles description is a "render to Caeasar what belongs to Caeasar" situation. David then would not be authorized to take the worship for himself (he was only a man like Peter..see Acts 10) but only what he deserves..and the rest goes to God. In fact David is pictured including himself among the worshipers (see 29:10). But in Rev 5:13 we see the Lamb is portrayed as an equal receiver and only on the receiving end of all of creations worship.
Hunley1961 7 months ago
Come on brother! Make that rebuttal already. My faith is weavering :P
bluefish704 7 months ago
@bluefish704 It's coming, it's coming... hopefully this week.. no guarantees though! Been quite busy..
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@patc1955 Still tough to say.... It has become a much more significant undertaking than I ever anticipated.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
In Gen 2 YHWH Elohim is concretely translated as "the eternal most mighty".
Interestingly a more accurate translation of Psalms 36:27 is found in the NEB.
"God's and men take refuge in the shadow of thy wings."
dunklaw 7 months ago
Jesus can never be called YHWH since the name (meaning character) "he who is" or "he exists" indicating the elohim eternal existence - see (Revelation 1:4) . . .“The One who is and who was and who is coming,” . . . - the three inclusive translations of YHWH (no vowel points).
ALWAYS replace "name" for "character" in the Hebrew & the Greek.
(Matthew 18:20) . . .For where there are two or three gathered together in "my name" (Jesus way of doing things), there I am in their midst.”
dunklaw 7 months ago
With regard to the sopherim emendations (genesis 18 and others) should be treated with extreme suspicion as the DSS Isaiah scroll does not include them in the text or as marginals. Case in point - GEN 18:22 - compare Gen 19:27 - also the is NO other example in scripture of a superior "standing before" a subordinate. This also puts the emendation in 18:3 under suspicion.
dunklaw 7 months ago
Hebrew name of God is YHWH. He's the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob.
Pronounciation was lost, but I believed it to be YeHoWaH & entirely different with Jesus Christ. Anyway, very nice presentation...
jandysanchez 7 months ago
Better to translate "The Father" as YHWH. See Isaiah 63:16.
dunklaw 7 months ago
The greek "Theos" has no direct relationship with the Hebrew since it means "shinning one" & not "mighty". John 1:1 is better translated through the concrete Hebrew to:-
In a beginning was WORD & WORD was facing Mightiest & mighty was the WORD. In no way does this relate to the personal name YHWH (he who is).
dunklaw 7 months ago
Interesting but a little convoluted. First see the akkadian equivalent word "En".
sron. nl/~jheise/signlists/list3.html
The basic definition on this page is not the concrete understanding which is actually "mighty". This is the straight equivalent to "EL" in Hebrew - also the plural En.En.En.(En.) (superlative in the Semitic sense) this directly relates the masculine plural "Elohim".
Therefore "EL" = mighty & "El.ohim" = mightiest - whether by relative degree or absolute.
dunklaw 7 months ago
You again ignore the context where Col 1:15 is found. Jesus is the creator of all things. The creator of all things cannot be a created thing. That is logically impossible.
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST To be technical, which is here important, Col 1:15ff presents the pre-existent Jesus as God's agent in creation, not the source of it (cf. Heb. 1:2).
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
The word "God" is found 4000-4200 times in our English Bibles (including "gods" etc.). Theos/Elohim always means deity. But congratulations in finding 3 exceptions out of the 4000-4200. And you quoted Psalm 82 out of context. Read verse 7. The "gods" mentioned are being taunted and will "die like men" in verse 7.
Since Jesus is called God many times in the Bible, you must water down the very meaning of God to save your doctrines.
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST Of course the exceptions always make clear that these other gods are under the one true God, so the same with Jesus (John 20:17, 28; Heb. 1:8-9).
Psalm 82 was not quoted out of context, as the appellation elohim was proper. This is evident in that the parallel is with "sons of the most high," which can in no way be sarcastic. If these are judges the meaning is simply they shall die a common death even with their appointed position, if these be angels the meaning is then obvious.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths Read all of Ps 82. It is about unjust judges (verse 2). It is also definitely not about angels. It is about Israelite judges. God is being sarcastic in verse 6 and tells these false judges "“Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes.” " (verse 7).
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST There are a number of reasons for taking this to be angels, but I do favor the idea that these are judges within Israel. That being said, I've already noted that the parallelism with "sons of the most high" refutes the sarcasm argument, as does the appellation in v. 1.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST I don't think one can make a blanket statement such as "Theos/Elohim always means deity," for there are clear examples that demonstrate otherwise. Each term has to be viewed with its context and relative to whom this term is applied.
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "for there are clear examples that demonstrate otherwise" Yeah I just said there are exceptions (a very FEW exceptions which can be explained anyway). But as for the use of Theos and Elohim in the Bible, it always means deity.
So you admit Jesus is called "God" in Scripture? And you see this as "no big deal"?
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST Does 2 Corinthians 4:4 "always means deity"?
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST By the way, I see no reason to limit Theos or Elohim to necessarily mean deity. This narrowing of their definition seems entirely unwarranted and theologically motivated.
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth
This error is seen when it is realized the Hebrew word EL is used to describe men, mountains, & trees. If EL was a word implemented to express deity we have divine men, mountains, & trees. This is not how the Hebrews used the word. EL was used to express the might, power, strength of ANYTHING. That Trin translators know this fact is revealed by some of their translations of Josh 22:22 & Ps 50:1 where they translate EL as "Mighty" when it refers to God. Ditto Elohim.
TheTrinityDelusion 7 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth I also see your attempt to water down the very meaning of "God" as theologically motivated. Everyone knows God means deity in any language. You use the few exceptions found in the Bible in order to change the meaning for the sake of your doctrines.
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST You can define "God" however you wish to, but I don't see a reason for not allowing the context, whether religious, historical or cultural, to define it for us. If Second Temple Monotheism allowed for a diverse application of Elohim, El, Theos, etc.. why not work from within that construct instead of limiting it for theological reasons?
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Ivan what evidence can you provide that the extra biblical literature you cited from a sect outside Jerusalem that was given to angelic exaltation or worship is representative of second temple Judaism?
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 I'd ike to interject here. This is not from a single sect, but from Philo as well as The Apocalypse of Abraham, both of which are not a part of the DSS, also cited. Additional sources can well be cited, such as the Targums and texts as Joseph and Aseneth. Ivan cited three distinct points of reference in addition to the Bible and others are available.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths "I'd ike to interject here" Of course you would Dave he is basically quoting you in the debate :')
Ok, multiple minor sects are quoted from often fanciful non biblical literature . How is this representative of second temple Jews who wouldn't even utter the name YHWH? Can you prove that these books that Ivan cited were held in esteem by second temple Jews as a whole? Cont.....
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 I would point out that scholars across the board accept this as representative of second temple lit., for if we do not accept the writings of second temple Jews as representative of their beliefs we have nothing to go by. Second, we specifically do not see polemics against these writings within the Second Temple period, which would be indicative of them coming from groups with strange ideas. It is not necessary for these books to have been esteemed, only the ideas accepted.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths cont... And "Scholars across the board" is not really an answer. I talked to a Hebrew Scholar from Moody Bible institute who would beg to differ. Secondly the lack of polemics against them is very likely an indication of just how marginalized this view really was. This is really an appeal to and an elevation of the "tradition" of "some" Jews which Jesus himself warned us against. You are now reading this tradition into the scriptures.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Well I have to question how well read this scholar is when you have Mcgrath, Hurtado, Witherington and countless others saying otherwise. Similarly, agency is found in the OT, NT, DSS, Targums, Philo, Josephus and the Pseudopigrapha. How much more diverse can one possibly get? I'd remind you that "logos" is based on Jewish tradition, but further w must consider how the Jews would haver understood these things as it was written by Jews.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths cont..... Secondly the "scriptural" evidence was so meager that the appeal to books outside the bible came in at just over 2 minutes in the video. I think such an appeal to a supposed authority outside Gods word so early in the presentation demonstrates the weakness of the argument. Some people abused God's name... do we create and base a theology on that? Second temple Jews didn't utter it... do you? Are you going to be consistent or pick and choose?
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 There is sufficient scriptural evidence by itself, there is just much more within second temple literature. It isn't that we just accept everything in other writings, but there are unambiguous parallels between them and the NT. The apostles were Sec. Temple Jews, so it would be an injustice to remove the NT from it's historical context. For example, if we ignore other writings we are left with a big blank ofn John's Logos or texts as Heb 1:3, quoting sec. temple lit.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scrip "There is sufficient scriptural evidence by itself" If this were true there seems little reason to abandon the scriptures in the first 2 minutes of the opening statement. I agree historical context is important but other then stating it you have yet to provide any factual evidence that these citations you have given Ivan 1: represent anything other then a minority view and 2: represent the thoughts of mainstream 2nd Temple Jews were likely the Pharisees teachings were dominant. cont..
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 You are poisoning the well. Scripture was never abandoned, just further verified. The angel of Jah is a prime example of agency (cf. Zech 1:7). Ivan cited three distinct sources, one from Qumran, another from the pseudopigrapha and a third from Philo, demonstrating this was not some minor, local view. I'm confident he will be citing more, varying sources to further confirm this. Your assessment is simply not accurate.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths "You are poisoning the well" No I am pointing out the obvious. I can find writings from 3 different oneness Pentecostals from across the US and then assume that the dominant view of Jesus in America is the oneness view? Certainly not.
In addition the video that I made about agency demonstrates beyond doubt that the bible teaches that Jesus is a "principle" not a mere agent. Either way applying limited agency to Jesus is unbiblical.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 That isn't even a parallel. It would be that you'd cite three oneness Pentecostals to see the oneness view. So three Jews were cited for the Jewish view, but as I pointed out numerous other sources exist. Ivan had 15 minutes so could only provide so much.
I demonstrated the flaws in your video at the time. Jesus said "I can do nothing of myself," proving conclusively he is the intermediate agent. 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes this unambiguous.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scrip It's a perfect parallel. We are talking about the dominant view of the day. Dave again you cite more and more non biblical literature you can cite. These are not authoritative books. Paul quoted a Greek poet... should I now quote mine the Greek philosophers and claim my view is right?
"I can do nothing of myself" Yes in his humiliated state and not to be applied to Genesis and 1 Cor 8:6 actually demonstrates 2 principles.. You simply proof texted and avoided the actual point. Con
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 No it isn't, as multiple sects of Judaism have been referenced. I've made specific references of biblical examples and further biblical examples are found in my book. You assume Jesus' statement is limited to humanity, but you haven't proven it. Everything I have said comes directly from the bible, extra biblical Jewish literature only further substantiates it. Jesus is the divine, preexistent and begotten son of God, exalted above all creation.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths Dave everything was made by him and for him... Jesus created you for him. Phil 2 and his request to be returned to the former Glory that he shared with His Father proves conclusively that his humility was limited. No assumption needed Jesus said it. Jesus was more then an agent Dave, more then an angel, more then Moses more then all. So limited comparisons to them and their limited attributes all fail. Explain how Jesus can create for all 4 himself yet only be an agent?
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Yes, God created through Jesus both for himself and His Son. This does not prove Jesus its not God's agent. Jesus was indeed exalted and previously humbled, yet this does not mean statements such as the one in question are exclusive to his humanity. This is your assumption and your burden to prove. I see no reason to accept such a limitation. Indeed, Jesus was and is more than an agent, but he is also an agent.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths "This is your assumption" Lets be real Dave. I'M assuming?? The bible explicitly speaks of Jesus humbling himself at a specific point in time however never, as in never not once is the word "agent" applied to him. Who is the one assuming here? You present an Idea of Jesus (limited agency) virtually unheard of for 2000 years and the burden of proof is on me? cont....
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Yes, you are assuming that prior to that humbling he had certain abilities, and that its not necessarily so. If you want to go the "word" route, trinity isn't found in the Bible, neither is Gods the Son. Agency was a well established concept within Judaism, so out is nothing new. That Jesus so well fits the mold, albeit in a greater capacity, is either a joker that isn't funny or the truth.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths So your answer is your assumption is better then mine even though mine is not an assumption but specifically and explicitly stated in scripture,,, I can't argue with that kind of logic.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 On the contrary, my argument is that the bible should be interpreted in its historical context, understanding how the authors used language and articulated ideas as Second Temple Jews. You divorce the Bible completely from this and treat it as if it were a modern text. If you compare it to liberals and conservatives in politics, I'd be the conservative focused on the constitution's original intent and you'd be the liberal focused on a modern meaning.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths Nice diversion attempt Dave but what is explicitly stated does not need to be assumed as your agency idea is. I am well aware of historical context and I understand it's value but just because some 2nd temple Jews held to a belief does not make it true, By your standard we should all reject Jesus as Messiah because that's what most 2nd temple Jews did. He did not match their interpretation of the scriptures and could not be the Messiah, not a great track record. cont...
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 You mean illustration, not a diversion. The fact is there are clear parallels between those texts and the NT with respect to agency. The amazing thing, and what is truly the most substantive is that you've offered nothing to refute this, instead you obfuscate and claim we should disregard this. Until you can provide a substantive argument on why it is won't you really haven't got an argument. All we have so far is your denial and groundless attempt to marginalize.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths Your arrogance is unbelievable. You have no evidence and then demand I refute your baseless claims? Show me some early Christians who believed as you did and perhaps you have something Dave. Otherwise you have nothing but the speculation of some early Jews that rejected Jesus on your side.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 You are turning to insults so I see this discussion is over. I'd refer you to Ivan's intro for evidence, as well as my own blog. There are parallels upon parallels, simply because you must ignore them is beyond anything I can do to help. You might pick up McGrath's Only True God, for some good discussion, but when my Second Edition is done I'll be sure to send you a copy as it will discuss this in significant detail.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths Dave parallels in extra biblical literature are not evidence. Do you at least admit the possibility that they may... and I say may have erred in their reasoning? If the answer is know I would ask why is there no possibility they could have erred? And if the answer is yes then I would ask are you sure you want to build your theology off of them. While the earliest evidence is the Church believed Jesus was God I do not base my theology upon that, I base it on the bible.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 They are evidence when interpreting the Bible in light of contemporary thought and language. Yes, they could have erred, but that the error was so wide spread we should expect the Bible to clarify and offer even a polemic against it. It certainly did against another one, gnosticism, but agency is closer to gnosticism than trinitarianism. One has to wonder how gnostic thought even entered the church were it trinitarian. Were it unitarian, however, it had room for entry.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths I believe the bible does within itself contain polemics against the idea that Christ was a limited exalted messenger (angel) in Hebrews and John chapter 1 and other places. As far as wondering how gnostic thought could enter a trinitarian church the answer is simple.... men are sinful and will dream up all sorts of crazy philosophies. Scripture states that as well. Scripture also warns clearly about elevation non biblical books which you are doing.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Actually, Mal. 3 calls him a messenger, but if your are implying I class him as a mere angel you are mistaken. I'm also not elevating any other work, as stated, I'm using them for a historical context in observation of possible parallels.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 "While the earliest evidence is the Church believed Jesus was God" - Perhaps - but we cannot account for all the manuscripts burned by Constantine & also subsequent to these councils. "the Victor writes history".
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Constantine_burning_Arian_books.jpg
And of course not all these book are necessarily "Arian" as the term is understood today from the victors writings.
dunklaw 6 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Secondly you would be the liberal as you hold to an allegorical view of the scriptures as opposed to the strict construction of the conservative. You rely heavily upon extra biblical text and create doctrine from it yet you belong to and defend an organisation that claims it rejects traditions of men which is exactly what these books are. I am not sure why you would consider that conservative,.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 On the contrary, I would still be the conservative, using documents as the federalist papers to understand their intent. There is no allegory in my interpretation, just a consideration of how things were related. It is truly amazing that because you can't refute the argument you dismiss the methodology.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths cont...Secondly, I am not trying to prove anything to you... God reveals himself to his children... I can't convince anyone. I can only proclaim, answer and pray that eye's will open and ears will hear. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 cor 2:14
Are you a child of God?
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Cont... One day Dave you will stand before Christ and say what? I spent my life determined to tell people what you were not to make sure that they didn't over honor you or exalt you. and I based this on largely on extra biblical writings. Your a nice guy Dave but you unknowingly rob Jesus of his glory and speak against the Lord of Glory at every turn. Tell me, what is Jesus? Who is Jesus? The son of God? What does that even mean?
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 That many different authors at different times and in different geographical locations can be so consistent in applying "G/god terms" to others besides Jehovah, I think, speaks in favor of viewing these documents and their teachings as representative of second temple monotheism.
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth Hi Ivan I saw Daves comment first but my response to you would be about the same so I wont repeat it. :')
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 I don't see what uttering (or not uttering) the Divine Name has to do with applying "G/god terms" to others besides Jehovah. It seems these are two different issues. Anyhow, as I mentioned above, that different authors at different times in different locations can agree with each other in this aspect, indicates this idea or concept was prevalent in their circles and in the larger context of Judaism.
IvanDefendingTruth 7 months ago
@IvanDefendingTruth 2nd Temple Jewsm of the time of Jesus who would not even utter God's name because it was so set apart and so holy will just give it to creatures?? I don't think that's logical.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST
Jesus is never called 'GOD' in the Scriptures.
Not once.
TheTrinityDelusion 7 months ago
@TheTrinityDelusion "Jesus is never called 'GOD' in the Scriptures.
Not once."
I'm gonna assume from this statement you have never read the Bible.
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST
I am going to assume from your reply that you have absolutely no inkling what the real facts might be.
TheTrinityDelusion 7 months ago
Good Reasoning Ivan, we can also see the angel that spoke to Moses in the burning bush was spoken to and treated like he was Jehovah. So the angel was Jehovah, functionally.
acerimmeh 7 months ago
Excellent presentation. Any response to this I anticipate will be loaded with dismissal, obfuscation and other fallacious argumentation.
scripturaltruths 8 months ago
@scripturaltruths Dave your comment seems to expose you as closed minded. Do you assume all trinitarians are in some way inept or deceptive morons?
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Not at all. But this is a debate, so my comments were within the context of the two debating.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths So it was directed at Ivan and Mike or Just Mike? I actually believe that Ivan will indeed do his best to answer Mike directly as will Mike to Ivan. You comment in my view was very unfortunate at this point in the debate. A demeaning comment for no apparent reason. I perhaps should have not even mentioned it but I found it disappointing coming from you.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 They were of Mike alone, but they didn't come from nowhere. I've had plenty of interaction with Mike to see him do this repeatedly.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. My hope is that they both address each other as directly as possible (which I realize is limited given the 15 minute time frame and the amount of material each presented) as I think that would be most beneficial to the hearers. How about you hope along with me that you're wrong about that :') Hope your well Dave.
21crosscheck21 7 months ago
@21crosscheck21 Agreed.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago