Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    That is the key question.
    
    My Unitarian background says No  Jesus is not God, but the son of God.
    I was thinking of that in regard to some other strings as well.
    
    It became clear to me that that is why Unitarians may be more inclusive
    in their inclusion of all world religions.  I believe that there is
    only one God, God the creator.  All other manifestations of the divine
    are just images or aspects of this one God.  I can compare Jesus with
    Budha, or Martin Luther King, Jr, or Mahatma ma Ghandi because I see
    each as fully human, each in their own way answering the call of God. 
    
    I do concede that I see Jesus as more closely related to the divine
    than other humans but I also concede that I see that because of my
    Christian upbringing.
    
    I don't know where this is leading.  Just rambling.
    
    
    Patricia

re .40

Oleg, 

The question "Is Jesus God or isn't he?" is as you point out a very
important one. FYI - Jehovah's Witnesses direct their worship to Jehovah 
God (Psalms 83:18 KJV) but this is done *through* their mediator Jesus 
Christ.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus has a special relationship with
his Father Jehovah, in that God created Jesus first (alone). The rest of
creation was created *through* Jesus (Colossians 1:15).

This can be a very emotional issue, and I'm not sure it can be discussed
without causing offense for the majority reading this conference who hold
that Jesus is God. This should be an individual question we should ask 
ourselves, as John 17:3 indicates that gaining everlasting life is 
dependent on knowing the Father the only true God and the one he sent
forth Jesus Christ.

Also it would be wise not to discount things just because they don't feel
right, as Proverbs 3:5,6 NWT reads "Trust in Jehovah with all your heart
and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways take notice
of him, and he himself will make your paths straight."

God communicates to all humankind through the pages of the Bible, with
Bible study one can come to know better Jehovah and Jesus. There maybe
somethings one finds very hard to accept and others alot easier.

Phil.

    
    Patricia

    I appreciate you sharing that with me. I like to learn where others
    stand in their faith and how we differ in our beliefs. 

    I personally believe that the word of God is where the absolute truth 
    is found, and I do admit that sometimes I run into difficulties in
    understanding some things, but I keep on searching for the truth.

    Whenenver I run into different translations of the word of God, and
    difficult/contradictory passages, I think it is wise to point it out
    to others who are truly searching for God's truth, as I am.

    I hope that at another time we can have a discussion about 
    the Unitarian beliefs, but I don't want want to drift away from
    the topic of this Notes file.

    Oleg.
    

    re .40 (7466::KLIMOWICZ)
    
>In the NWT we read that..  THE WORD WAS A GOD.
>                                        ^
>I hope that a red flag goes up when anyone reads this passage and asks
>this simple question:
>
>	Is Jesus God or isn't he? 
    
    The real question to ask is whether Jehovah God is a trinity (and thus
    whether Jesus is Jehovah).  The Greek underlying the expression, "the
    Word was God" doesn't mean what you think it does.
    
>In the NIV, John 1:1 reads:
> 	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
>	AND THE WORD WAS GOD.   14: ...and the Word became flesh...
    
    	I'm glad you juxtaposed these two verses, since together they help
    us see what John was really saying in John 1:1, by refering to Jesus as
    _theos_ ("God" in many translations; "divine" in a few; others vary
    even moreso).
    
    	The first use of _theos_ in the passage is preceded by the Greek
    definite article, making it _ho theos_; so the phrase literally means,
    "the Word was with the God".  _ho theos_ was almost universally
    understood to mean the Father, Jehovah, THE God; thus this means the
    Word was with Jehovah.  [Actually, it more literally means the Word was
    *toward* God, Jehovah -- which was a Greek idiom for a relationship
    between two obviously separate people.]
    
    	The second _theos_ does NOT have the Greek article, which means
    that it represented the kind of being the Word was while he was in
    heaven "with God".  When Jesus was on earth he was "flesh"; but while
    he was in heaven, he was "god" (for the capital "G" is only English
    convention).  Careful orthodox scholars will admit that saying "the
    Word was God" (while in heaven) is more or less equivalent to saying
    "the Word became Flesh" (while on earth), that is, "God" (in this
    instance) isn't a title of identity (=Jehovah), but rather a class
    identifier for the kind of being he was [for _theos_ didn't only apply
    to a lone, Almighty Being, but to any being that dwelt in heaven or the
    underworld].  It stands in contrast to "flesh" which also serves as a
    class identifier (for what humans are).
    
    	Only after careful, eye-glazing qualification, will candid orthodox
    scholars use the expression "the Word was God", since otherwise it
    misleadingly makes people think John was saying "the Word was Jehovah".
    Really, "the Word was God" is a poor translation since modern English
    speakers don't readily use the noun "God" to mean anything other than
    the One God of the Bible, Jehovah.  We DON'T use it, like the Greeks,
    to signify the general notion of any heavenly being.  English
    translators capitalize the "G" because if fits in nicely with
    trinitarian theology (i.e., few would complain about it), but it really
    DOESN'T fit in with John's original thought.
    
    	One Catholic Bible dictionary I have says John 1:1 should be
    "rigorously translated" as "the Word was a divine being".  This is a
    bit more explanatory than the NWTs "the Word was a god" -- but the NWT
    was attempting to be as literal as possible.
    
    	The bottom line is that John 1:1 is almost impossible to translate
    into English with a exact, literal match.  The NWT comes close, and is
    unambigous.  Some might argue that the KJV, and etc. are even closer,
    when properly understood, but the problem is "the Word was God" can be
    taken more than one way, and is usually taken the wrong way, which
    makes it the poorer translation.
    
>	Is Jesus God or isn't he? 
>
>After all, there is an infinite difference between the Creator and a 
>Creation!
    
    	True; but the Creator is Jehovah.  The question is, is Jesus
    Jehovah?
    
    	Does the fact that Jesus is _theos_ make him Jehovah (=_ho theos_)?
    
>The NWT, and the teachings based on the NWT, consistently treats Jesus 
>as being a creation (an Angel) and not as God, and for this reason I
>would not find this translation acceptable. There are also many other
>passages that I cannot agree with, but I'll leave it at this for now.
    
    	Christendom, having ceased to think of God by name, as Jehovah
    (which was how He was thought of originally in Judaism), and having
    adopted the more abstract practice (borrowed from pagan thought) of
    referring to him in a nameless fashion, only as "God", has set itself
    up for the problem of the trinity, to solve the confusion that resulted
    from the switch using philosophy, and not Biblical thought.
    
    	You're judging translation against the standards of modern orthodox
    theology, and not against the standards of the intent of the original
    Bible writers.  The early 'church Fathers' also taught that Christ was
    Jehovah's Angel  (the "angel of the LORD"), and was his first creation,
    since they were the inheritors of Jewish Christianity.  Modern
    orthodoxy receives its doctrinal heritage from the seeds of
    non-Biblical Greek thought; the later church Fathers having
    deliberately distanced themselves from Jewish thought.
    
    
    								-mark.

    This is about the 3rd time I've said this, but what the heck...
    
    John 1.1 can be accurately translated either way.  It is one of
    the reasons the gospel was the object of dispute in the canonization
    process.  Some suspected that the gospel of John was Gnostic in origin;
    in other words, heretical and to be omitted from the canon.
    
    But without John's gospel, we would not have the biblical "born again"
    expression and a lot of other truly popular stuff.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re .5 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>    This is about the 3rd time I've said this, but what the heck...
>    
>    John 1.1 can be accurately translated either way.  It is one of
>    the reasons the gospel was the object of dispute in the canonization
>    process.  Some suspected that the gospel of John was Gnostic in origin;
>    in other words, heretical and to be omitted from the canon.
    
    	I slightly disagree.  I think that grammatically, either
    translation can probably be justified -- but each translation conveys
    such different meaning that obviously both of them cannot accurately
    convey what John meant to say.
    
    	Since we can truthfully set grammar aside, the arguments really
    center around meaning, the question being does the NWT or the KJV best
    convey what John meant to say?  Some scholars say that John wasn't
    *just* saying the Word was "a god" -- as though this undertranslates
    the point; but the truth is that some scholars ALSO admit that the KJV
    and "the Word was God" actually OVER-translates it, adding meaning that
    isn't really there.
    
    	Without getting wordy (translator Williams says it means "the
    nature of the Word was the nature of God"), it's probably almost
    impossible to convey in English exactly what John meant, simply because
    we don't think exactly like Bible-time Greeks.  Thus, the question is,
    if a translator choses to be as brief as possible, should he
    under-translate the verse [to avoid adding meaning] or over-translate
    it [to satisfy the demands of orthodox dogma]?
    
    	Recently, someone on the USENET said to me that he was present when
    a very orthodox (Baptist) Greek scholar was asked whether the literal
    language of John 1:1 supported the trinity (and all the standard
    notions involved).  His answer was that they would have to ask a
    theologian about that.
    
>    But without John's gospel, we would not have the biblical "born again"
>    expression and a lot other truly popular stuff.
    
    	I agree.  John supplies us with information that we don't have
    repeated by any other source.
    
    	I think it ironic that so much of John's writings are used in
    support of the trinity when so many of the counter arguments ALSO come
    from John's writings.
    
    								-mark.

 First of all, I have several bible translations written in English,
 and translations in other languages such as Portuguese and Russian, 
 (which I know fairly well), and translations written in Spanish and 
 Italian, which I know enough to translate. (To the best of my knowledge 
 these are direct translations from the Greek).
 
 In the translations that I have, (with the exception of the NWT),
 The indication of the passages, (including John 1:1), is that Jesus
 is God.  As I translated John 1:1 from other languages into 
 english, I still came out with "... AND THE WORD WAS GOD..." (not A God).

 Also, to keep it in simple terms, (and to not let others believe that
 you have to be a Theologian to get to heaven), there are some common-
 sense conclusions which we can extract from reading the scriptures, 
 such as:

 In the Old Testament, there is a constant reminder that we are to 
 Worship only God!  But, as you advance into the New Testament, Jesus
 is Worshipped as the Babe in the manger. And, throughout his ministry,
 Jesus is worshipped directly, and Jesus never rebuked anyone.
 (The subject of worshipping Jesus is toned-down in the NWT)

 Also in John 8:58, Jesus identifies himself as the "I AM". The same
 devine name that spoke from the burning bush in EX 3:14. (In the NWT
 the devine name is "I SHALL PROVE TO BE")

 Here are a few other passages to confirm that Jesus is God...

 Rom 9:5  -  Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the 
	     human ancestry of Christ, WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, forever, 
	     praised! Amen.

 PHIL 2:5 -  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
      2:6 -  Who, being in very nature God, did not consider
	     equality with God something to be grasped,

 REV 1:17 - When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.
	    Then he placed his right hand on me and said: " Do not
	    be afraid. I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST.
       18 - I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive
	    for ever and ever!...

 REV 2:8  - To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the 
 	    words of him who is the First an the Last, who died and
	    came to life again.  
 
 REV 22-12 - "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I
	     will give to everyone according to what he has done.

        13 - I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, 
	     the Beginning and the End... (the "Beginning and the
	     End" continues speaking into verse 16:)

        16 - I, JESUS, have sent my angel to give you this testimony
	     for the churches...

 REV 17:14 - They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will
	     overcome them because HE IS LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS
	     and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful 
	     followers.

 REV 19:16 - On his robe and on his thigh he has the name written:
	     KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. 

 Contrast with Old Testament....

 ISA 44:6  - This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer,
	     the LORD almighty: I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST;
	     apart from me there is no God.
             (also ISA 48:12)
    

    re 907.7 (by 7466::KLIMOWICZ)
    
> First of all, I have several bible translations written in English,
> and translations in other languages such as Portuguese and Russian, 
> (which I know fairly well), and translations written in Spanish and 
> Italian, which I know enough to translate. (To the best of my knowledge 
> these are direct translations from the Greek).
> 
> In the translations that I have, (with the exception of the NWT),
> The indication of the passages, (including John 1:1), is that Jesus
> is God.  As I translated John 1:1 from other languages into 
> english, I still came out with "... AND THE WORD WAS GOD..." (not A God).
    
    	At the risk of sounding rude, might I suggest that you keep
    collecting translations, and perhaps actively look for those which
    render John 1:1 differently than "... the Word was God"?  Just because
    you don't yet have any doesn't mean they don't exist.

> Also, to keep it in simple terms, (and to not let others believe that
> you have to be a Theologian to get to heaven), there are some common-
> sense conclusions which we can extract from reading the scriptures, 
> such as:
>
> In the Old Testament, there is a constant reminder that we are to 
> Worship only God!  But, as you advance into the New Testament, Jesus
> is Worshipped as the Babe in the manger. And, throughout his ministry,
> Jesus is worshipped directly, and Jesus never rebuked anyone.
> (The subject of worshipping Jesus is toned-down in the NWT)
    
    	A couple of things, here.  The "babe in the manger" story is only
    recorded by Luke, and his account only says that the shepherds visited
    the baby and then told others what they saw.  The angel told them the
    baby was "a Savior ... Christ the Lord" (Lu 2:11 RSV).
    
    	Matthews records the visit of the pagan Magi (astrologers) -- which
    many mistakenly take as having happened at Jesus' birth, when instead,
    Jesus was about 2 years old.  When they arrived at King Herod's court,
    Herod had his scribes search the Scriptures for the place of his birth. 
    Micah's prophecy revealed it to be Bethlehem, and then added:
    
    		"for from you [Bethlehem] shall come a ruler
    		who will govern my people Israel" (Mat 2:6a
    		RSV; quoting Micah 5:2)
    
    According the prophecy itself, the ruler to come WASN'T Jehovah
    himself, but would be appointed by God to "govern [his] people",
    which is what the ancient Davidic kings did (remember, Gabriel said to
    Mary, "The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father" --
    Luke 1:32 RSV).
    
    	Many translations say the Magi came to "worship", but the Greek
    word used here has a literal meaning of "to bow before", and a
    broader meaning of showing honor for a higher authority.  It isn't
    limitted in the Bible to Jehovah alone.  As the designated ruler
    appointed by Jehovah, the "worship" or honor shown to him was
    appropriate, for Jesus wasn't honored as HIGHER than God, but as the
    one appointed BY God (to rule).
    
> Also in John 8:58, Jesus identifies himself as the "I AM". The same
> devine name that spoke from the burning bush in EX 3:14. (In the NWT
> the devine name is "I SHALL PROVE TO BE")
    
    	At John 8:58, Jesus was only revealing that he had existed before
    Abraham was born.  The tense of the Greek used by John was appropriate
    to denote continued existence from some time in the past.  According to
    the footnote in the NASB NT, the "I am" of John 8:58 more idiomatically
    means "I have been".  A number of translations say this (as does the
    NWT).  Anyone reading the whole passage can see Jesus wasn't suddenly
    pulling a divine name out of the air.
    
    	Ex 3:14 was written in Hebrew, not Greek; and is understood by many
    to mean "I will be what I will be" (not "I am what I am") -- to signify
    Jehovah's ability to make his will come true.   Actually, you can't
    literally say "I am" in Hebrew, since the Hebrew verb "to be" has no
    present tense.  The NWT's translation emphasized the causitive nature
    of the verb [for the Tetragrammaton is the causitive form of the verb
    "to be", and means "He causes to be" (Oxford Annotated RSV); which can
    also be taken to signify that Jehovah would prove his will and power to
    Israel and Egypt.

> Here are a few other passages to confirm that Jesus is God...
>
> Rom 9:5  -  Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the 
>	     human ancestry of Christ, WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, forever, 
>	     praised! Amen.
    
    	According to the RSV, the punctuation reads:
    
    		"to them ... is the Christ.  God who
    		is over all be blessed for ever.  Amen."
    
    This is understood as a concluding doxology (a phrase giving praise to
    God).  Christ is NOT called "God".  A mere change in punctuation makes
    a lot of difference.

> PHIL 2:5 -  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
>      2:6 -  Who, being in very nature God, did not consider
>	     equality with God something to be grasped,
    
    	According to the RSV, Jesus was "in the FORM of God", which is
    obviously spirit form.  This is a well-studied passage; the truth being
    that the word rendered "very nature" in your translation actually has
    to do with outward appearance, not internal quality.  Thus saying he
    was "in very nature God" is a pro-trinity, mistranslation.
    
    	However, as the rest of the passage goes on to show, he was quite
    clearly NOT God, since he "did not consider equality with God
    something to be grasped."  If Jesus WAS God, he wouldn't have to be
    grasping at equality WITH GOD.  The fact that he was "in God's form",
    but distinct from God, is what makes this make sense.  The passage
    continues that after his resurrection:
    
    		"God has highly exalted him" (v.9 RSV)
    
    If Jesus WAS God, this would be saying that exalted himself.  Clearly
    Jesus is distinct from God.

> REV 1:17 - When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.
>	    Then he placed his right hand on me and said: " Do not
>	    be afraid. I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST.
>       18 - I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive
>	    for ever and ever!...
    
    	This passage is clearly a reference to Jesus, pertaining to his
    experience of having died and having been resurrected to immortality.

> REV 2:8  - To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the 
> 	    words of him who is the First an the Last, who died and
>	    came to life again.  
    
    	Again, a reference to Jesus, having died and come to life again, he
    being the "first and last" to do so in a way that was unique to him
    alone.
 
> REV 22-12 - "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I
>	     will give to everyone according to what he has done.
>
>        13 - I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, 
>	     the Beginning and the End... (the "Beginning and the
>	     End" continues speaking into verse 16:)
    
    	This is a clear reference to the "Lord God," "the Almighty", who
    was identified as the "Alpha and Omega" in Rev 1:8.  He is the "first
    and last" in an unqualified sense.  Jesus is "first and last" only in a
    sense pertaining to his death and resurrection.
    
    	You're attempting to say Jesus is God because they share the title
    "first and last".   The context of each passage in question makes the
    identity of each clear, such that they are not equated.
    
    	In Revelation, Jesus is quite distinct from God.  In fact, Jesus
    calls him "my God" serveral times (3:2, 3:12 (3 times)).
    
    	
>        16 - I, JESUS, have sent my angel to give you this testimony
>	     for the churches...
    
    	But note that the order of speakers was this:
    
    		John			(v.1-5)
    		the angel, speaking
    		  for God		(v.6,7)
    		John again		(v.8)
    		the angel again		(v.9,10)
    		God via the angel	(v.12)
    		John again		(v.14,15)
    		Jesus			(v.16)
    		the spirit & bride	(v.17)
    		John again		(v.18 to the end)
    
    Jesus didn't say the words of v.12.

> REV 17:14 - They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will
>	     overcome them because HE IS LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS
>	     and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful 
>	     followers.
>
> REV 19:16 - On his robe and on his thigh he has the name written:
>	     KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. 
    
    	All clearly applying to Jesus.

> Contrast with Old Testament....
>
> ISA 44:6  - This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer,
>	     the LORD almighty: I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST;
>	     apart from me there is no God.
>             (also ISA 48:12)
    
    	An altogether different setting, in which Jehovah, through Isaiah,
    was proving the non-existence of the pagan gods.  This doesn't
    contradict the fact that Jesus is the Messianic Lord and King of God's
    Kingdom, ruling "on God's throne" as the ancient Davidic kings did.
    
    
    
    							-mark.

    The Deity of Christ will forever be argued... it has been since the day
    He was crucified...
    
    Why don't we just admit that regardless of JW, Baptist, Catholic or
    Seismologismists [I know], it's matter of choice.
    
    God gave us free will to choose.  Some of us choose right, others of us
    choose wrong.
    
    

   re:  .9  Nancy


   >The Deity of Christ will forever be argued...

   I know you probably didn't mean to say the above, as we both know the
   debate will soon be terminated by God himself.   

    
   >God gave us free will to choose.  Some of us choose right, others of us
   >choose wrong.
    
   To avoid choosing wrong, we must take in accurate knowledge.  At John 17:3
   the benefit of gaining this knowledge is shown, which is everlasting life.
   Also shown at John 17:3 is the identity of the only true God, the One who
   Jesus was praying to.  Jesus wasn't praying to himself.  He was praying to
   his Father, Jehovah God.  Closing one's mind to this obvious truth would be
   making the wrong choice.


   Steve

re Note 907.9 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     God gave us free will to choose.  Some of us choose right, others of us
>     choose wrong.
  
        Fortunately God does not demand that we choose the correct
        *doctrine* in order to be saved.
    
        Bob

 Mark and Phil,

 I commend you for your zeal in defending your belief. I wished that some
 of my Christan brothers and sisters showed as much zeal in defending the
 Gospel.

 I guess that the bottom line is, that I still hold to the position that
 Jesus is God in the Flesh, and that he is 100% human and 100% God, and
 that the scriptures that I specified confirm it. I take these passages
 literally, and believe that there can be only one God as identified by 
 various titles such as: "Alpha and Omega / King of Kings, Lord of Lords / 
 The First and Last "

 I have to run now, (I am in the middle of a heavy project)
 Oleg
    

Re:  .4

Hi Mark

    >The first use of _theos_ in the passage is preceded by the Greek
    >definite article, making it _ho theos_; so the phrase literally means,
    >"the Word was with the God". 

Right and wrong.  The article in Greek although sometimes correctly
translated "the" is oftentimes correctly translated " " (i.e. it
corresponds to no article in the English).  The reason is that the
article in Greek has a different purpose than in English.

    >The second _theos_ does NOT have the Greek article, which means
    >that it represented the kind of being the Word was while he was in
    >heaven "with God". 

WRONG.  WRONG.  WRONG!  Can you tell I feel strongly about this?  :-)

The ABSENCE of the article in this phrase means exactly one thing just
like the PRESENCE of the article in the previous phrase means exactly
one thing - it defines the SUBJECT and the OBJECT of the phrase.  THAT
is the purpose of the article.  It has NOTHING to do with whether
theos is definate or indefinate.  Greek is DIFFERENT than English in
this respect.  If you exchanged the position of the article (put it on
theos instead of logos), then you have transformed the phrase into
"God was the Word".  (Note that although word does NOT have an article
in this construction, that it is STILL translated "the word" since the
presence or absence of the article does NOT determine whether this the
English translation has the word "the".)

In the Greek, it says, "the word was with God and God was the Word"
(word for word translation).  Since "The Word" is more definate than
"God", then "The Word" is not the object, but is the subject of the
sentence.  Stylistically, placing the word "God" next to the word
"God" EMPHASIZES that this is a further description of God.  In
English, this is much harder to do.  Once the placement of the word
was made, the ONLY way to indicate what was the subject and what was
the object was to place the article before the subject and NOT place
it before the object.  The ONLY way.

Note that those who wish to claim that the indefinate article "a" is
required before God ALSO claim that the God talked about in the
third phrase in the sentence is NOT the same God talked about two
words earlier.  They wish to redefine God in a way that it is either
rarely or never used in a context similar to this (depending on how
you translate the Psalms) and certainly would be a totally out of place
meaning in the midst of this context.  But that's another story.  :-)

Collis

    re .13 (PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON)
    
    Hello Collis,
    
>    >The first use of _theos_ in the passage is preceded by the Greek
>    >definite article, making it _ho theos_; so the phrase literally means,
>    >"the Word was with the God". 
>
>Right and wrong.  The article in Greek although sometimes correctly
>translated "the" is oftentimes correctly translated " " (i.e. it
>corresponds to no article in the English).  The reason is that the
>article in Greek has a different purpose than in English.
    
    	I knew that ... but I'll admit to oversimplifying things a bit. 
    The Greek article has an idiomatic sense that is broader than the
    English "the", and also at times more subtle.  Often we drop the "the"
    in the English translation because English idiom doesn't provide an
    adequate parallel to the Greek.
    
>    >The second _theos_ does NOT have the Greek article, which means
>    >that it represented the kind of being the Word was while he was in
>    >heaven "with God". 
>
>WRONG.  WRONG.  WRONG!  Can you tell I feel strongly about this?  :-)
    
    	Do tell ...
    
    	Again, I was oversimplifying things a bit.
    
>
>The ABSENCE of the article in this phrase means exactly one thing just
>like the PRESENCE of the article in the previous phrase means exactly
>one thing - it defines the SUBJECT and the OBJECT of the phrase.  THAT
>is the purpose of the article.  It has NOTHING to do with whether
>theos is definate or indefinate.
    
    	I agree that the absense of the article makes it clear that _theos_
    is a predicate noun (thus, it's clear that the Word and _theos_ are not
    interchangable); but the lack of the article ALSO is a common way of
    expressing an indefinite, qualitative charcteristic of the subject.
    
    
                                   Greek is DIFFERENT than English in
>this respect.  If you exchanged the position of the article (put it on
>theos instead of logos), then you have transformed the phrase into
>"God was the Word".  (Note that although word does NOT have an article
>in this construction, that it is STILL translated "the word" since the
>presence or absence of the article does NOT determine whether this the
>English translation has the word "the".)
    
    	I agree with what you say here -- but, as we both know, only logos
    is preceded by the article.
    
>In the Greek, it says, "the word was with God and God was the Word"
>(word for word translation).  Since "The Word" is more definate than
>"God", then "The Word" is not the object, but is the subject of the
>sentence.  Stylistically, placing the word "God" next to the word
>"God" EMPHASIZES that this is a further description of God.  In
>English, this is much harder to do.  Once the placement of the word
>was made, the ONLY way to indicate what was the subject and what was
>the object was to place the article before the subject and NOT place
>it before the object.  The ONLY way.
    
    	Literally, the Greek says:
    
    		"the word was toward the god and god was the word"
    
    Capitalization is supplied as English convention.
    
    	That's an interesting theory, that the closeness of both occurances
    of _theos_ is meant to help us see that the second is an emphasis of
    the first, but I really think you've got the whole sense of the passage
    backwards.  John 1:1's primary emphasis is on the Word, not God.  Since
    the preceding clause makes a clear distinction between the Word (ho
    logos) and the God (ho theos), it's contradictory to say in the next
    phrase that the Word was God (in the sense that _ho logos_ was _ho
    theos_).  Thus, it's clear that the predicate is telling us something
    about the Word's nature, not about his identity.
    
    	I agree that emphasis is involved -- for placing the predicate
    clause first emphasizes the fact that the pre-existant logos possessed
    the quality or nature of _theos_ (just as on earth he possessed the
    nature of flesh, or _sarx_ [I think this is the word]).  I also agree
    that it's VERY HARD to exactly translate the sense of emphasis John is
    trying to convey.  BUT, translating it as "the Word was God" conveys a
    sense [to the average reader] that John did NOT mean, for most people
    read this to mean "the Word was THE God."  Many orthodox scholars admit
    that John did not mean this.
    
>Note that those who wish to claim that the indefinate article "a" is
>required before God ALSO claim that the God talked about in the
>third phrase in the sentence is NOT the same God talked about two
>words earlier.  They wish to redefine God in a way that it is either
>rarely or never used in a context similar to this (depending on how
>you translate the Psalms) and certainly would be a totally out of place
>meaning in the midst of this context.  But that's another story.  :-)
    
    	You'll notice that I didn't say that "a" was REQUIRED before "God"
    -- since that would have lead to accusations that I was making
    universal rules for all Greek predicate nouns that lack the definite
    article.  Watchtower critics make this accusation all the time, but
    really, they are stretching the point about John 1:1 farther than
    necessary.  I know why the NWT puts it there, and I think it's
    justified in this case [since it's closer to what John meant than if it
    was left out], but I'm not arguing that all anarthrous predicate nouns
    are indefinite and thus all require the addition of "a" when translated
    into English.
    
    	Scholars have argued back and forth over whether the anarthrous
    _theos_ of John 1:1 is definite or not.  A well known paper by E.C. [?]
    Colwell [I could be wrong about his first initials] has lead to
    "Colwell's rule" which is basically a statistical justification for
    concluding that _theos_ is definite [looking at other instances of
    definite predicate nouns that lack the article].  Other papers have
    been written to counter Colwell's thesis, to prove the opposite, that
    _theos_ is INdefinite and qualitative becase it lacks the article. 
    Once such article, by Philip Harner, was published in the same journal
    (Journal of Biblical Literature), though years later.
    
    	Unfortunately there just aren't very many instances of anarthrous
    _theos_ occurances in the Bible, so that a case study of many would
    give us a clearer picture of what it could mean in this instance. 
    However, anarthrous predicate nouns in general are well understood. 
    Some are definite, others are indefinite.  It just so happens that John
    1:1's theological impact tends to make either decision "loaded".
    
    	As far as the NWT's "redefining the meaning of God" goes ... the
    NWT has done no such thing.  The meaning the NWT gives it was in common
    usage among 1st century Greek speakers.  In my opinion, the dogmatic
    definition of God held by trinitarians is a REAL "redefinition of God." 
    Since the Bible predated the trinity doctrine by centuries, the Bible
    writers themselves were unconcerned with teaching and preserving a
    doctrine that didn't exist.  Translators who back-fudge the trinity
    into the Bible are the one's who are doing the Bible a disservice. 
    [But, enough editorializing.]
    
    
    							-mark sornson

        RE:  <<< Note 907.7 by 7466::KLIMOWICZ >>>
            -< I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST >-
    
    
    
 >>    First of all, I have several bible translations written in English,
 >>    and translations in other languages such as Portuguese and Russian,
 >>    (which I know fairly well), and translations written in Spanish and
 >>    Italian, which I know enough to translate. (To the best of my
 >>    knowledge these are direct translations from the Greek).
    
    
    Hi,
    
    
    It's very good to have different translations of the Holy Scriptures
    to make a careful and accurate study of the Bible.
    I have beside the NWT some other translations like the RVA, the
    Reina Valera translation, spanish translation.
    
    But, studying the bible, in the first place is to gain an accurate 
    knowledge to cause someone to grow in faith in the true living God.
    Examples in the past of great men who studied the Bible just for this
    reason were: 
    1> William Tyndale (The first one who restored the name of God
                        the tetragrammaton ==J.H.W.H.== JEHOVAH)
      
    2> William Whiston.(Better known for his translation of "The Works of
                        Josephus"  a Jewish priest, warrior and historian)
    
    3> Translator of RVA (Like William Tyndale this man was sentenced
                         (to death by the Inquisition.)
     There are more of such men, but I just mention a few of them.
    
    Take for instance William Whiston. He lost his job as a learned man
    because of his accurate knowledege he gained about the bible.
    Because of accurate knowledge he became an enemy of his collegues
    professors. Even his friend Isaac Newton (discover of the law of
    gravity) denied him. He had the courage Newton didn't has, to tell
    the society at that time that they were believer of a false religion.
    
    Whiston (through accurate knowledge of the bible) had to leave his
    job and live the rest of his life with hi family in total poverty.
    
    
    What secret did he find out in the Bible??
    ==========================================
    
    Yes, John 1:1 was clear to him that Jesus was the Son of Jehovah God
    and so "Jesus is not God"
    He discovered that Trinity is not part of the Holy Scripture but
    just philosophy. Also the Idea of burning in a hell, purgatory etc...
    was not what bible thought.
    
     
    As we can see, studying the Scriptures in an objective way, will lead 
    people to the real Thruth written in the Bible.
    
    Jesus said: "Your (Jehovah's) word is Thruth......   "
    
    It is therefore very important to not only read some passages of a
    biblebook (e.g: John) but all chapters.
    In this biblebook John , Jesus is praying to his father and says:
    1> You are greater than I.
    2> Jesus is begging to his father to help him in the difficult hour
       that just has come. (His death at that moment was near to come)
    3> And much more.....
    
    
    So,...If Jesus=God....WHY all this praying to someone else ??????
    
    
    That's the very secret William Whiston Came to, that desided him
    to leave that kind of thinking his fellow Professors, include Isaac
    Newton, did to maintain a theory not backed up by Scriptures.
    
    
    Ps: After Isaac Newton's dead they found the papers written by Newton
        himself that he also found the unthruth about Trinity, but was
        afraid to publish them because of his post as Felowship at
                "The Royal Academy Of Science"
        So he denied the Thruth and his friend Whiston just for wealth.
    
    
Regards Alex.
    
    
    

    
    Would you like to hear the story about the deer who ate the frog?
    
    Mom, is it a true story?
    
    Son, I only make up things that are true.
    
    
    I guess the part of this that really gets me of your story is the
    repetitious [the right interpretation], but you never once say how he
    came up with the right interpretation.. BASED on WHAT?
    
    

    >I know you probably didn't mean to say the above, as we both know the
    >debate will soon be terminated by God himself.
    
    Yeah... but how soon is the question. :-) :-)
    

    re .16 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)
    
>    I guess the part of this that really gets me of your story is the
>    repetitious [the right interpretation], but you never once say how he
>    came up with the right interpretation.. BASED on WHAT?
    
    	Based on having read the Bible, perhaps?  That seems a likely
    starting point (to me).
    
    
    								-mark.

 >> It's very good to have different translations of the Holy Scriptures
 >> to make a careful and accurate study of the Bible.

    Thank you Alex for agreeing with me on this, and I encourage you
    and others to ask a foreign friend on how their scriptures reads.
    And, if anyone out there reads/speaks other languages, I'd like to 
    ask you to reply to this note and tell me how John 1:1 reads in
    in your language. (The NWT translated into your language does not
    count...). I would just like to know how the rest of the world sits 
    on this one...

>>    Yes, John 1:1 was clear to him that Jesus was the Son of Jehovah God
>>    and so "Jesus is not God"
>>    He discovered that Trinity is not part of the Holy Scripture but
>>    just philosophy. Also the Idea of burning in a hell, purgatory etc...
>>    was not what bible thought.

 (I can cover Hell and Purgatory another time - It can be a HEATED issue)
    
The Trinity....( just a few verses - of many verses)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The FATHER...
   1 COR 8:6   - Yet for us there is but one God, THE FATHER, from whom
		 all things come and for whom we live; and there is but
		 one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things come
		 and through whom we live.  

   JHN 5:18    - ...but he was even calling God his own FATHER,
	         MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD. (speaking of Jesus)

   JHN 6:27    - ...On him GOD the FATHER has placed the seal of approval.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The SON...     - (look at .0 - there are plenty of passages there)

   LUK 18:19   - "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one
 		 is good-- except GOD alone.

The HOLY SPIRIT (The HOLY SPIRIT REALLY TALKS...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   HEB 10:15   - The Holy Spirit testifies to us about this, First he
	         says: 16: "This is the covenant I will make with them
	         after that time, says the Lord"... 

   JHN 14:26   - But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
	         will send in my name, will teach you all things...

   JHN 15:26   - When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you 
	         from the father, the Spirit of truth who goes out
		 from the Father, HE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT ME.

   ACT 5:3     - Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan
		 has filled your heart THAT YOU HAVE LIED TO THE
		 HOLY SPIRIT and have kept for yourself some of
		 the money you received for the Land?....
       5:4     - ...What made you do such a thing? YOU HAVE NOT
		 LIED TO MEN BUT TO GOD."  <-----

       9:31    - Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and 
		 Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengh-
		 tened; and encouraged by the HOLY SPIRIT, it 
		 grew in numbers...

   ACT 13:2    - While they were WORSHIPPING THE LORD and fasting,
		 the HOLY SPIRIT said, "Set apart for me Barnabas
		 and Saul for the work to which I have called them"      

>>  1> You are greater than I.
>>  2> Jesus is begging to his father to help him in the difficult hour
>>     that just has come. (His death at that moment was near to come)
    
>>  So,...If Jesus=God....WHY all this praying to someone else ??????

 I Think these passages should answer that...

 PHIL 2:5 -  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
      2:6 -  Who, being in very nature God, did not consider
	     equality with God something to be grasped,

 PHIL 2:7 -  But made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a
             servant, being made in human likeness...
    
    

    >Based on having read the Bible, perhaps?  That seems a likely
    >starting point (to me).
    
    That was an understood.  Many read the Bible, and we have seen the
    translations of the Greek/Heb in here of said verses...
    
    He implied that this person had further evidence either through perhaps
    a personal revelation from God or documentation or what???
    
    

Note 907.12 by 7466::KLIMOWICZ

> Mark and Phil,

> I commend you for your zeal in defending your belief. I wished that some
> of my Christan brothers and sisters showed as much zeal in defending the
> Gospel.

I hope you didn't mean this the way it came out.  For it sounds to me like
you're saying that Mark and Phil are not Christians and that they are not
defending the Gospel (as they understand it).

> I guess that the bottom line is, that I still hold to the position...

I, too, am a Trinitarian.

All the best on your project, Oleg.
    
Peace,
Richard

    re:  .17  Nancy


    >>I know you probably didn't mean to say the above, as we both know the
    >>debate will soon be terminated by God himself.
    
    >Yeah... but how soon is the question. :-) :-)

    
    You know the answer.  Matt. 24:36 says that nobody knows the day or hour,
    only the Father.  If Jesus is God, why doesn't he know?  Could it be that
    Jesus is not God, but that as which he identified himself, i.e. God's
    Son?


    Steve

    .22
    
    Quote the scripture correctly and it says "no *man* knoweth"
    
    no conflict, God is still on the throne!

    >Note 907.12 by 7466::KLIMOWICZ
    
    Bro, you are what Mark Turner a preacher I know very well would call a
    foamer! :-)
    
    The best part of a rootbeer float is the foam... that foam is a result
    of some activity or fizzing in the rootbeer... this is exactly what our
    spiritual life should be like.  We should be foaming [even if it's at
    the mouth] with God's love, His Truth and the power of the Holy Spirit
    to call right, right and wrong, wrong.
    
    If you have life inside it will bubble out.  When the rootbeer is
    fizzing the foam keeps coming to the top as it melts the icecream. 
    
    The icecream are the lost souls, the fizz is the life inside [or the
    Holy Spirit].
    
    There is no way to not be confrontational with the Gospel... and be
    right with God.  Why is this?  Because when the Truth is Declared that
    the only way to Salvation is through Jesus Christ... you certainly are
    being confrontational.  If you do not declare this, then you aren't right
    with God... very simple.  
    
    Jesus said you are blessed when shall revile and woe to those who have
    favor in the sight of man...
    
    Praise God that there are still men of God who will declare the word
    and love at the same time.  Confrontation dispels any hint of
    conformation to false doctrine.
    

    If no *man* knoweth, Nancy mighteth!
    
    %-}
    
    Richard
    

    > Quote the scripture correctly and it says "no *man* knoweth"
    
    NIV continues:
    
    "...nor the Son, but the Father only."
    
    KJV (the "real" word of God) omits "nor the Son", but ends the same;
    indicating that only the Father knows the hour.
    
    EM

    RE: Note 907.24 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    I'm not sure how much I agree with this, but for some strange reason
    I've got a hankerin' to head out to the nearest soda fountain. :^)

    Eric

    PS. I'm playfully teasing... No harm meant. :*}

    .27
    
    Well Eric, If the sodee fountin' could represent the Word of God... 
    
    
    
    eat 'em up, eat 'em up , YUM-YUM!

    .27 Be careful, Eric.  There's more fat than nutrition.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    > .27 Be careful, Eric.  There's more fat than nutrition.
      
    Mercifully, you haven't seen me in the flesh, "soda" speak.
    Or have you?!
    
    Eric "Two Frys" Myers

    .25
    
    Richard,
    
    Time is short for all of us on this earth...and this life.  As you are
    aware, very aware, at how quality of life is key in rising out of bed
    every day.  When one is weary, down-hearted, heavy laden, nothing can
    rise from that individual other then cynicism or optimism.
    
    If Christianity is to be equated with anything, I'd like to see it
    equated the OPTISMISTIC TRUTH.  That regardless of our trials, our
    heartache, that we can be comforted in God.  
    
    You are such a GREAT testimony of this fact...  May God continue to
    give you this strength... and a strong spirit.
    
    

Thank you for your reply, Mark.

Somehow, I just don't see how god doesn't mean god when
everyone says it means god when used earlier in the
sentence.  Particularly when god seems to mean god most
everywhere else in the Bible.  (I do understand that
your belief that both Jesus and God the Father can't be
god certainly create problems with assigning the normal
meaning, but there's really very little option as I see
it.)

So, the issue is not simply the presence or absence of an
(indefinate) article in the English language, it is also
the assumption that the word cannot have the meaning that
it has practically everywhere else in the Bible all to
promote a doctrine denied numerous other places in the
Bible.  At least, that's how I see it.  (Personally, I
think that worship that Jesus accepts is the best proof
of his deity, but there are so many proofs to choose
from.  :-) )

Collis

    re .33 (PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON)
    
>Thank you for your reply, Mark.
    
    You're welcome.
    
>Somehow, I just don't see how god doesn't mean god when
>everyone says it means god when used earlier in the
>sentence.  Particularly when god seems to mean god most
>everywhere else in the Bible.  (I do understand that
>your belief that both Jesus and God the Father can't be
>god certainly create problems with assigning the normal
>meaning, but there's really very little option as I see
>it.)
    
    	The point actually isn't all that hard to sort out; it's just
    subtle.
    
    	As I understand it, the Greek word for god, _theos_, as a title,
    serves 'double-duty' like a good many English words, e.g. king,
    president -- which, depending on context, can either refer to a generic
    office or a specific person (where "King" or "the King" is someone in
    particular); and it also serves as a class identifer for the nature of
    a being, just as the English word "man" can stand, not only for a
    particular adult male human, but as a designation of our 'kind', i.e.,
    "Man", is in "man or beast".
    
    	In ancient Greek religion, the gods were mighty beings who lived in
    heaven or the underworld.  Many Greek legends recounted visits to earth
    by the gods, as they took human form and walked among men.  The Greek
    religion (as did others) had a Supreme God, Zeus; and it was generally
    understood that when ONE spoke of _ho theos_, THE God, one was speaking
    about Zeus.  There were other gods, inferior to Zeus, but again, THE
    God, _ho theos_, was the Supreme God.
    
    	To Jews (and the first Jewish Christians), THE God of the universe
    was "the Father," Jehovah (or Yahweh).  Yet, since other spirit beings
    also existed in heaven, there were, in a very generic sense, other
    "gods" -- though "gods" more in the sense of mighty spirit beings,
    rather than in the sense of being objects of worship in competition
    with Jehovah.  [As a side note, Satan, though a usurper of power, was
    acknowledged as "the god of this world" (2Cor 4:4 RSV).]
    
    	As you know, John's gospel, uniquely among the four, emphasizes the
    fact that Jesus had a pre-human existence.  In the simplest of terms,
    according to common Greek thought, Jesus existed in heaven with THE God
    (_ho theos_), and was himself _theos_, god (or a god) [in the sense
    that a human is man, or a rabbit is animal].  In John 1:1, _theos_ isn't
    Jesus' title, as _ho theos_ is the title of Jehovah, it's a designation
    of what he was "in the beginning", long before he came to earth and
    "became flesh".
    
    	Since Jesus himself clearly expressed his inferiority and
    subjugation to the Father, Jehovah, the earliest Christians knew that
    his pre-human nature as _theos_ did not conflict with the stated truth
    that Jehovah, the Father, was the "only true God".  The earliest
    Christians could easily accept Isaiah's statement that there were no
    other gods but Jehovah, and still accept the notion that Jesus existed
    alongside _ho theos_ as _theos_ [in fact, they even called him "a
    second god"] because they knew that Jesus, as God's Son, wasn't in
    competition with Jehovah, and that those who lived in heaven were
    naturally classified as "gods" according to the Greek language.
    
    	It was only after Christianity jettisoned it's Jewish roots and
    began to adopt Greek philosophical concepts (including the notion that
    God was nameless and unknowable -- which led to the disuse of God's
    name, Jehovah, in Christian writings) that confusion began to creep in
    over the distinction between the supreme nature of the Father as _ho
    theos_ and the more generic nature of the Son as _theos_.   Christian
    philosophers began to equate the two, and eventually invented the
    trinity doctrine to resolve how there could only be "one God" [_ho
    theos_] but yet more than one being that was _theos_, as though all
    beings which were _theos_ had to be equal.
    
    	Pretty clear, no?  :-)
    
>So, the issue is not simply the presence or absence of an
>(indefinate) article in the English language, it is also
>the assumption that the word cannot have the meaning that
>it has practically everywhere else in the Bible all to
>promote a doctrine denied numerous other places in the
>Bible.
    
    	Close ... the word "god" ALSO has a sense that appears somewhat
    rarely in the Bible (though it's a sense that was common in the Greek
    language, for the Greeks believed in many "gods" -- and thus had a word
    to distinguish them, in kind, from men).
    
    	The Bible *does* promote the doctrine that the Father, Jehovah, is
    God (_ho theos_).  It also promotes the doctrine that Jesus is his
    unique (or "only-begotten") Son, and that Jesus existed in heaven with
    his Father before coming to earth.  On earth, Jesus was man
    (_anthropos_), a being of flesh  In heaven,  Jesus was god (_theos_), a
    being of spirit.
    
    	The Bible does NOT promote the doctrine that God is a trinity.  The
    truth that _theos_ as applied to the Word in John 1:1 has a different
    sense than _theos_ as applied elsewhere to Jehovah as a title (as _ho
    theos_) does NOT contradict anything else in the Bible, or serve to
    "deny" any other Bible teaching.
    
    	It only serves to "deny" the extra-Biblical teachings of
    trinitarian churches.
    
    
>Bible.  At least, that's how I see it.  (Personally, I
>think that worship that Jesus accepts is the best proof
>of his deity, but there are so many proofs to choose
>from.  :-) )
    
    	The first Christians spoke of Jesus as a deity in the simple sense
    that he was alive in heaven as a spirit (or 'one of the gods', as the
    pagan Romans would have easily understood).  Romans imagined that their
    rulers became deities, or gods, after they died.  Christians knew for a
    fact that Jesus was alive in heaven as 'a god'.
    
    	The "worship" that Jesus accepted was the rightful honor, or
    "homage" (REB) due to him as the Messiah, the one whom Jehovah had
    anointed to be King of His Kingdom.  That worship was relative to the
    worship of the Father, Jehovah, since Jehovah was the source of Jesus'
    authority.
    
    	Call it a form of "worship" if you will, but it's right to pay
    Jesus homage as the Lord over the earth, as the one appointed to rule
    the kingdom of "David his father", set up by Jehovah.  It's wrong to
    pay worshipful homage to Jesus as the equal of the Father, since that
    wrongfully elevates Jesus above his divinely constituted position, and
    wrongly lowers the Father to the status of equality with his Son.
    
    
    								-mark.

> I hope you didn't mean this the way it came out.  For it sounds to me like
> you're saying that Mark and Phil are not Christians and that they are not
> defending the Gospel (as they understand it).

    I do not have the right to judge anyone. Only God can judge our hearts.
    I also know that all those who seek God will find him, (and I hope this 
    is the case with all of us). 

    I had further comments to this same note, but decided to delete them
    when I realized that I might be getting into another sensitive issue.

    Oleg
    

 Phil,

 I thank you for pointing out to me that the claim that "Jesus is God"
 is a very emotional issue (on reply .2).

 Your statement finally started to sink into my brain when I stepped 
 back to examine myself. That's when I realized that I was trying 
 to make everyone accept this belief, and that I was also trying to 
 turn people to other bible translations.

 The fact is, that I cannot make anyone believe what I believe!
 Only God can open our eyes to the truth, but we have to be willing 
 to humble ourselves before him and ask him to open up our eyes to 
 the truth.

 Also, someday, when we are judged before his throne, we have to
 remember that each one of us will be accountable for ourselves. At 
 that time I don't believe that our particular bible translation, or 
 our personal beliefs, or our works, or our phylosophies, experiences,
 or the fact that I belonged to a particular religious organization,
 etc... will make me worthy of spending eternety with God.

 In my case, when I have to give him my account, my defense will be 
 Jesus Christ.  I belive that he died for me, and paid the price for 
 my sins on the cross. And because I accepted this sacrifice, and 
 surrendered my life to him, I am now his property - not my own.
 And that is how I will stand righteous before God.

 Again, to anyone who reads this, I am not trying to push this 
 belief on anyone. This happens to be my own personal testimony.

 Also, If I offended anyone, or if anyone wants to contact me for any
 reason, please send me mail. 

 Oleg
    

Re:  .34

I agree with you that the use of the term "theos" in the way
you talk about in .34 is rare in the Bible.  In fact, I would
say that it is non-existent.  To assume that this is what John
is doing here despite never having done it anywhere else
(and, again, to see that the same word in the same sentence
should be interpreted two different ways despite the fact that
the other interpretation is a very rare [if not non-existent]
Biblical meaning) is beyond reasonable belief (IMO).  But in
addition to that, you must also say that the indefinate article
"a" is a proper part of the translation, another stretch.

Finally, worship is reserved for God alone (see the 10
Commandments).  It is not right (certainly according to God/
the Bible) to ever worship ANYONE or ANYTHING other than God.
To pass off what prophets called worship of Jesus as "rightful
homage due to him as Messiah" is a complete distortion of what
worship is and what worship does.  The Bible is clear that there
is 1 God (on this we agree).  The Bible is also clear that worship
is reserved solely for God (on this I thought we agreed).  The
Bible shows several incidents where people worshipped Jesus with
Jesus' direct knowledge.  His response was to accept the worship.
Other examples of prophets of God receiving worship contain a
very consistent - and different - response.  They reject the
worship and say, "Don't worship me, only God is worthy of worship."

That's what I see in the Bible.  I can not in good conscience

  - redefine what "worship" means
  - redefine who worship is meant for
  - ignore the references to worshipping Jesus

Collis

    re .37 (PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON)/Collis
    
>I agree with you that the use of the term "theos" in the way
>you talk about in .34 is rare in the Bible.  In fact, I would
>say that it is non-existent.  
    
    	The closest example I can think of off-hand is John 10:33, which
    most translations render as:
    
    		"you, a man, are claiming to be God" (REB)
    
    The REB footnote points out that it could read "or are claiming to be a
    god" -- which is the way the NEB reads in the main text.  Wuest's
    translation (from memory) says it means, "you are deifying yourself".
    
    	In the Greek, both man (_anthropos_) and god (_theos_) are
    anarthrous -- without the Greek article.  Though the syntax involving
    the word _theos_ is not identical to John 1:1 (i.e., it's not a
    anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb), the meaning of the
    word "god", as it sits in contrast to "man", makes it clear that the
    dispute wasn't over Jesus' identity, but over his nature.  Was he just
    a man, or man, as he appeared, or was he a god, or god, having a real
    kinship with the Father?
    
>                              To assume that this is what John
>is doing here despite never having done it anywhere else
>(and, again, to see that the same word in the same sentence
>should be interpreted two different ways despite the fact that
>the other interpretation is a very rare [if not non-existent]
>Biblical meaning) is beyond reasonable belief (IMO).  
    
    	I gather you think that I'm making this stuff up about the meaning
    of _theos_ in John 1:1 -- that it isn't a reference to the Word's
    identity as THE God, but rather, is a reference to his nature, as
    divine, or "a divine being" (according to one Catholic Bible
    dictionary).
    
    	I don't have time for a quote war at the moment; so the best I can
    do is assure you that very orthodox Bible scholars DO recognize that
    John is using the word _theos_ in a qualitative way, the way I've
    described.  [These scholars don't necessarily agree that the way the
    NWT renders it, as "a god" really conveys John's meaning with precision
    -- but they DO basically argue what I'm saying, that it does NOT mean
    God, as a title, God as the personal identifier of Jehovah.]
    
>                                                      But in
>addition to that, you must also say that the indefinate article
>"a" is a proper part of the translation, another stretch.
    
    	On the general matter of how to interpret anarthrous predicate
    nouns, it's a well known fact that English translators have to use
    their own judgment when deciding whether such a noun is indefinite and
    appropriately rendered with "a", or not.  [John 10:33, mentioned above,
    is a good example -- although most translators choose to consider
    _theos_ as definite, "God"; however, they all realize that
    _anthropose_, man, is indefinite.]
    
    	This is a judgment call, pure and simple.  It's no grammatical
    stretch.  The REAL problem is that trinitarians realize that it breaks
    the rule of the trinity creed.
    
    	The truth is that the reading "the Word was God" really DOES
    stretch John's meaning to say something different than what he meant. 
    Saying "the Word was a god" may be a slight undertranslation, but it
    doesn't add MORE to the meaning, as "the Word was God" does.
    
    	If we could just be satisfied with a purely written translation,
    the translation "the Word was god" might do.  But as soon as this gets
    read out loud, it would be misunderstood as meaning "the Word was God".
    The NWT chose to add an "a" to add clarity on the qualitative aspect of
    the noun.  Capitalizing the "G", as many orthodox translations do,
    reads nice with trintarian theology -- but again, it adds meaning that
    isn't really present in the Greek.
    
    [continued next reply]
    
    								-mark.

    re .37 (PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON)/Collis

>Finally, worship is reserved for God alone (see the 10
>Commandments).  It is not right (certainly according to God/
>the Bible) to ever worship ANYONE or ANYTHING other than God.
>To pass off what prophets called worship of Jesus as "rightful
>homage due to him as Messiah" is a complete distortion of what
>worship is and what worship does.  

    	No, Collis, it isn't.  To the Jewish prophets, and to the ancient
    Jewish people as a whole, the Messiah wasn't God himself, but rather,
    the ruler that would be anointed by Jehovah, for that's what "Messiah",
    or "Christ" means -- anointed.  Jehovah's anointed rulers were always
    deserving of honor, or homage, for their theocratic position of
    authority -- since honor for the king signified honor for Jehovah, who
    installed the king and backed his authority.

    	You are viewing "worship" through the filter of trinitarian
    theology.  You both start and end with the supposition that Jesus is
    God as defined by the man-made trinity creed.  Worship, in Jewish
    thought, was broader than that.

    	The Greek word often translated _worship_ means what I previously
    said it means, namely homage.  In fact, The Revised English Bible,
    1989, which was produced by VERY orthodox scholars of the English
    church, renders the aforementioned Heb 1:6 to read:

    		"Let all God's angels pay him homage."

    Honoring the representative as one honors the original sender is NOT
    an "abuse" of the Biblical concept of worship.  Jesus himself said:

    		"In very truth I tell you, whoever receives
    		any messenger of mine [i.e., human disciples]
    		receives me; and receiving me, he receives the
    		One who sent me."  (John 13:20 REB)

    This is a very well known form of ancient, eastern thought.  A legal
    representative of a ruler bore the same authority as the ruler himself. 
    The way one treated a representative showed how one felt about the
    actual ruler.  (I'm also paraphrasing an Anchor Bible quote, here.)

>                                   The Bible is clear that there
>is 1 God (on this we agree).  

    	There is one Supreme God, Jehovah; so if this is what you mean, we
    agree.

>                              The Bible is also clear that worship
>is reserved solely for God (on this I thought we agreed).  

    	Absolute worship belongs to Jehovah.

    	However, it's still a fact that the Greek word for worship,
    _prokeno_, legitimately bears a sense that is broader than what we
    normally think of when we use the English word "worship".

>                                                           The
>Bible shows several incidents where people worshipped Jesus with
>Jesus' direct knowledge.  His response was to accept the worship.

    	All those instances involved _prokeno_, which literally means _to
    bow down [before]_, and pay homage to.  Bowing down before superior
    authorities was a well understood custom back then.

    	Again, note Jesus' words:

    		"Again, the Father does not judge anyone, 
    		but has given full jurisdiction to the Son;
    		it is his will that all should pay the same
    		honour to the Son as to the Father. To deny
    		honour to the Son is to deny it to the Father
    		who sent him."  (John 5:22,23 REB)

    Jesus' wasn't claiming the right to honor on the basis of being God
    himself, but rather, was claiming it as the duly appointed
    representative of the Father, who had been given "full jurisdiction" 
    to wield legal, theocratic authority.  It is the "Father's will" for us
    to honor Jesus -- because, as Jesus' words make plain, we honor the
    Father by honoring his Son.

    	Thus there is nothing illegal about showing _prokeno_ to the Son,
    as though it would make us guilty of false worship if he isn't God,
    since we have it from Jesus' own mouth that such honor is approved by
    his Father.  Although Jehovah is a "jealous God" in many respects, he
    ISN'T jealous of this honor to his Son, since He Himself has commanded
    it, and it's NOT a form of honor that elevates the Son to equality with
    the Father.

    	[By contrast, it's an honor that Satan is jealous of, since Satan
    wishes worshipful honor that belongs, not just to the Son, but to
    Jehovah.  Satan was even bold enough to demand such worship from Jesus
    himself.]


>Other examples of prophets of God receiving worship contain a
>very consistent - and different - response.  They reject the
>worship and say, "Don't worship me, only God is worthy of worship."

    	If I get the time, I'll provide a word study on _proskeno_ to show
    that instances DO exist in the Bible when _proskeno_ before men was
    appropriate, and NOT mistaken for absolute, reverential worship of the
    sort which rightfully belongs to Jehovah alone.

    	It's true that sometimes the action was rejected, but the reason
    has to do with the intent of the one showing the honor, not the form
    itself.


    								-mark.

  re:  .23  Nancy
    
  >Quote the scripture correctly and it says "no *man* knoweth"
    
  Quote it correctly?  OK.  The New International Version, The Revised Standard
  Version, The New English Bible, The Jerusalrm Bible, The New American
  Standard, The Living Bible, The New World Translation, The American Standard,
  The Emphatic Diaglott, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, and The Zondervan
  Parallel New Testament all say "nobody", "no one", "the angels", the Son",
  "only the Father".  None of them say "no man".  All of them say "not even the
  Son" knows.  It only shows further proof that the KJV was "tweaked" in an 
  attempt to support the false doctrine of the trinity.  So who "authorized"
  the "Authorized Version" (KJV) of the Bible?  A worldly political ruler, King 
  James of England.  The way some people view it, you'd think that Jehovah
  himself carved the KJV out on stone tablets.


  Steve

    .40
    
    Could you print the different verses in here for me?

Oleg,

You speak words of wisdom when you say...

;In my case, when I have to give him my account, my defense will be
;Jesus Christ.

Interestingly, from Jesus' viewpoint in Matthew 25:31-46 in the 
illustration of the "sheep and the goats" persons will be judged
as sheep or goats by how they treat Christ's brothers and sisters.
Jesus feels so strong about his relationship with his brothers &
sisters that he likens, how people treat them as being done to him
personally. 

As judgement befalls all at this time, some receiving adverse judgement
and others are judged righteous. A question one may ask oneself is who 
are Christ's anointed brothers?. One thing for sure, is that they will 
be carrying out God's will just as Jesus did. Also it is not a question 
to be taken lightly, for just as Jesus was persecuted by the religious 
leaders of his time, Jesus said, likewise his brothers would be persecuted 
(Compare John 16:2,3). In fact those persecuting will feel they are 
rendering sacred service to God, just as Saul did prior to his conversion. 
To such ones, Jesus will say "I never knew YOU! get away from me, YOU 
workers of lawlessness." (Matthew 7:21-23 NWT)

The goal for everyone surely would be to receive a positive judgement from
Jesus.

Phil.

    re:  <<< Note 907.19 by 7466::KLIMOWICZ >>>
              -< Yes, there is a TRINITY! >-
    
    
    Hallo Oleg,
    
    Here I'am again .
    
    You're right when it comes upon searching, in all translations 
    of the bible, for John 1:1.
    
    You'll definitly find "The Word Was God".
    Except a few one i.e: The Emphatic Diaglott and NWT.
    We can argue endlessly about that, but as we read carefully all
    the writings Mark Sornson and Phil Yerkess wrote , we have to agree
    on the long term that, :
                              
           ======= No, there is not a TRINITY! ======     ;-) ;-)
    
    
    
    Regards, 
    Alex 

Re:  .38

    >The closest example I can think of off-hand is John 10:33, which
    >most translations render as:

    >            "you, a man, are claiming to be God" (REB)
  
Since "god" in this verse means "god", I fail to see why this
is an example of theos meaning something different than what
the ordinary meaning it has throughout the Bible - particularly
when the speakers are those who were saturated in Jewish
theology talking to a Jew.  Although it may be technically
possible to translate this "a god", this would be somewhat
inconsistent based on the context (Jews who believe in 1 god).
In either case, the meaning of "theos" is the same.

In Bauer, it does indeed give as the fourth possible definition
of theos "one worthy of respect".  Personally, I find the
few Biblical examples that it cites as unconvincing (and there
are only a few) as the word theos makes perfect sense given the
other definitions.

  >The REAL problem is that trinitarians realize that it breaks
  >the rule of the trinity creed.

The real problem for JW is that it breaks their "Jesus is just
an angel" creed.  :-)

It is not simply a judgment call.  The vast majority of times
anarthrous predicate nouns are translated as definate.  Also,
there is often strong contextual evidence when it is to be
translated as indefinate.  It has been and continues to be a
reach to both 

  1) translate this as indefinate

  2) apply a meaning to theos which is rarely if ever used in
     the Bible to this context

Re:  .38

Yes, proskeneO can possibly mean something other than worship
that should only apply to God.  This, again, is a much less
common meaning in the Bible.  I expect you also believe that
Thomas meant something different than the obvious when he
proclaimed Jesus his "lord and god".  :-)

Collis

Phil and Alex,
    
 Thank you for your comments,

 What I am seeing is that we both believe in the scriptures, but it is
 quite curious how the interpretations about God, Jesus, the trinity
 and other subjects vary in these notes.

 I have provided you and others with many scripture passages offering
 proof that Jesus is God, and that there is a trinity.  However, what I 
 am getting in return are responses that complicate the simplicity of
 the scriptures. What I would like, is to get a few scripture passages 
 which defends your views.

 Please provide for me a few scripture passages that will clearly
 show me...

 - Who is Jesus?
 - Who is the father?
 - Who is the Holy Spirit?
 - How is one Saved?

 May we search for the truth in the word, and not your word against
 mine.

 Oleg
    

    - Jesus accepted worship as God (Luke 5:17-21, Luke 4:8, Hebrews 1:6, 
      John 5:17-18).
    - The fullness of the Deity resides in Christ Jesus (Colossians 2:9).
    - Throughout the OT, God tells us that He is the "First & Last" or
      "Alpha & Omega."  In Revelation 1:8,17-18, Jesus Christ makes these
      claims for Himself.  In Revelation 2:8, God tells us that the "First
      & Last" was dead and has come to life.  Only Jesus has done that -
      Jesus is God!
    - In several places the Bible says God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy
      Spirit are ONE (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 48:12-13,16, Matthew
      3:16-17).
    - Jesus Christ presented Himself to men as Eternal God during His earthly
      ministry (John 5:18, 8:58, 10:30-33).  He calls Himself the "I AM" or
      YHWH, which is the God of the OT.  This means He's the eternal,
      uncreated God of Isaiah 44:6.
    - In Genesis 22:8, God promised Abraham that He would provide *Himself* the 
      *Lamb* to atone for the sins of the world.  Remember, it was a *RAM*
      caught in the thicket.
    - He will be called Immanuel - or "God with Us"
    - Isaiah 9:6 is a Messianic prophecy stating that He will be the Mighty
      God and the Eternal Father!
    
    I could go on and on and on...
    
    In Christ,
    Mike

 " Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the
 Holy Spirit has made you overseers to shepard the Church of God which He
 purchased with His own blood"  Acts 20:28 NASB



 

 Jim

    .46 reply to Mike.
    
    Amen brother, that's the way I read it also, and stated several
    of these same verses earlier!
    
    Oleg 
    

  re:  .41  Nancy
    
    
  Here are various renditions of Matt 24:36, as you requested.


  The New International Version:

  "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels, nor the Son, but
  only the Father."


  The Revised Standard Version:

  "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor
  the Son, but the Father only."


  The New English Bible:
  The Jerusalrm Bible:
  The New American Standard:

  I don't have immediate access to these Bible translations, only the Strong's
  Exhaustive Concordance.  The key word comparison shows that the NEB says,
  "not even the Son," where the JB and NAS say, "nor the Son."  Since the word 
  translated "no one" or "nobody" is a word in the neuter form, I'd venture to 
  say that none of these versions say "man."  If anybody has one of these three
  versions, please feel free to correct me.


  The Living Bible:

  "But no one knows the date and hour when the end will be -- not even the
  angels.  No, nor even God's Son.  Only the Father knows."


  The New World Translation:

  "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens
  nor the Son, but only the Father."


  The American Standard:

  "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven,
  neither the Son, but the Father only."


  The Bible in Living English (Steven T. Byington):

  But as to that day and hour nobody knows, not even the angels of heaven
  nor the Son, but the Father alone."


  The Complete Bible:  An American Translation (J.M. Powis Smith)

  "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven nor
   the Son, but only the Father."


  The Emphatic Diaglott, literal word for word translation from the Greek text
  according to Dr. J.J. Griesbach, followed by the reading of the Vatican Manu-
  script, No. 1209 and Alexandrian MS:

  "About the day that and hour no one knows, nor the messengers of the heavens,
  except the Father alone."
  "But no one knows concerning that day and hour; no, not the angels of the 
  heavens, nor the Son, but the Father only."


  The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, literal word for word translation from
  the Greek text of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort -- 1881:

  "About but the day that and hour no one has known, neither the angels of the
  heavens nor the Son, if not the Father only."


  The Zondervan Parallel New Testament, word for word translation of Nestle's 
  Greek New Testament (based on a comparison of the texts edited by Tischendorf
  (1869-72), Wescott and Hort (1881), and Bernhard Weiss (1894-1900):

  "But [the] day that and hour no one knows, neither the angels of the heavens
  nor the Son, except the Father only."  (The bracketed word [the] was there in 
  the Greek text, but not in the English interlinear.)


  The interesting thing is that the Emphatic Diaglott shows the MS on which it
  is based says nothing about "the Son", but the MSS (Vatican and Alexandrian)
  which relate to it do include "the Son".  There are two other versions that
  I found that also don't mention "the Son".


  Douay:

  "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the 
  Father alone."


  The Bible:  A New Translation (James Moffatt):

  "No one knows anything of that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, 
  but only my Father."


  Out of all these translations/versions, only the KJV uses the phrase "no man",
  instead of "no one" or "nobody".  The word in all MSS from which all above
  quotes were taken, contain a neuter form of word there, not masculine.  The
  KJV shares in common with the Douay and Moffatt versions the omission of 
  reference to "the Son".  I would have to say that they were translated using
  the same MS.  It would also be my opinion that the writers of the King James
  Version "tweaked" the wording from a neuter to masculine word, and omitted
  reference to "the Son" in order to give the impression that Jesus knew the 
  "day and hour" due to his being God, or part of the trinity.  I also think
  there is abundant evidence against that position.


  Steve

    
    
    If Jesus is NOT God, how could he pay the price of Redemption ?
    
    The offence against a person is measured by the status of the person
    offended. 
    	The offence against God perpetrated by Adam and Eve was of infinite
    proportion. If it wasn't then why was the punishment transferred to us
    all ?
    
    The punishment was an infinite offense against the Almighty, how could
    a mortal man, or ANY created thing pay back or redeem. It required the
    intervention of God Himself, the Father sent His only Son. 
    
    If I am the son then I inherit everything from my father. If I am
    infinite then my son is infinite.
    
    "Before Abraham was, I AM "
    
    
    Peace,
    
    		Tom

From "The Navarre Bible", a commentary by the Faculty of Theology of the
University of Navarre, Spain:

Christ's divinity is affirmed in various ways in [the Gospel according to
Matthew].  From the conception of Jesus by the action of the Holy Spirit
(Mt 1:20) to the trinitarian formula for Baptism at the end (Mt 28:19),
the first Gospel asserts and stresses that Jesus, the Christ, is the Son
of God.  In numerous passages it mentions the relationship between the
Father and the Son: Jesus is the Son of the Father, the Father is God,
and the Son is equal to the Father.

Some passages also place the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit on the
same level (the most famous being that just mentioned: Mt 28:19).  What
this means is that the revelation of the Blessed Trinity, a revelation
expressly made by Jesus Christ, is affirmed in St. Matthew's gospel by
the revelation that Jesus is the Son of the Father, and God like him.

In the light of this essential truth, that Jesus is the Son of God, all
the other messianic titles which the Old Testament used in prophecies
about the Saviour fall into place -- Son of David, Son of man, Messiah,
Lord.

    re .50 (VERVAN::FYFE)
    
>    If Jesus is NOT God, how could he pay the price of Redemption ?
    
    	Why does Jesus have to be God in order to pay the price of
    Redemption?  He isn't redeeming beings who themselves are God's, right?
    
    	If Jesus *IS* God, who is he paying the Redemption price to? 
    Himself?
    
>    The offence against a person is measured by the status of the person
>    offended. 
>    	The offence against God perpetrated by Adam and Eve was of infinite
>    proportion. If it wasn't then why was the punishment transferred to us
>    all ?
    
    	Although Adam had the potential to sire an infinite amount of
    children and grandchildren, Adam was still human, not an "infinite
    being" himself.  The Bible says:
    
    		"... sin came into the world through one
    		man [Adam] ... but the free gift of that
    		one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."
    		(Rom 5:12,15 RSV)
    
    Here and in other places the Bible ascribes the ransom value of Jesus'
    life as having to do with him being a "man" (not God).
    
    		"If, because of one man's tresspass, death
    		reigned through that one man, much more
    		will those who receive the abundance of
    		grace and the free gift of righteousness
    		reign in life through the one man Jesus
    		Christ."  (Rom 5:17 RSV)
    
    		"Then as one man's tresspass led to condemnation
    		for all men, so one man's act of righteousness
    		leads to acquittal and life for all men."
    		(Rom 5:18 RSV)
    
    Thus, despite the "infinite potential" Adam had to give life, the Bible
    itself teaches that the act of redemption was performed by "one man" --
    not God.  It doesn't reason, as you do, that the offense committed by
    Adam was "of infinite proportion", thus requiring the ransom of an
    'infinite being'.
    
>    The punishment was an infinite offense against the Almighty, how could
>    a mortal man, or ANY created thing pay back or redeem. It required the
>    intervention of God Himself, the Father sent His only Son. 
    
    	The punishment for Adam's sin was simply death; a one time change
    of state from life to nothingness (Adam went "back to the dust").
    What was lost was something created in perfection; thus all that was
    needed was something of equal value, equal potential to the life Adam
    lost, in exchange.  Jesus, as a perfect human, corresponded to the
    sinless life Adam was created with; thus the Bible calls him the "last
    Adam" (1Cor 15:45 RSV).
    
>    If I am the son then I inherit everything from my father. If I am
>    infinite then my son is infinite.
    
    	The Bible doesn't say that Jesus inherits "everything" that the
    Father has.  It simply says all that Jesus inherited he inherited from
    the Father -- but that doesn't mean that his Father gave him EVERYTHING
    that the Father himself had (like equal status as Almighty). 
    Furthermore, the fact that Jesus had to "inherit" his elevated position
    proves that there was a time when he didn't possess it -- but yet, how
    could the Creator of all things inherit anything?  Who could hand God
    something as an inheritance, as though there was something he didn't
    possess as Creator and Almighty?
    
    	Terms like "infinity" aren't used by the Bible writers, for they
    didn't reason like philosophers and logicians.  They simply recorded
    what was revealed to them through inspiration.
    
>    "Before Abraham was, I AM "
    
    	As a footnote in the NASB NT says, this means "Before Abraham was,
    I have been" -- meaning that Jesus was simply claiming a life prior to
    coming to earth.  It didn't mean he was claiming to be Jehovah God.
    
    	In the same passage that Jesus said the above, he also identified
    the God of the Jews as his Father:
    
    		"... my Father glorifies me, of whom you 
    		say that he is your God."  (John 8:54 RSV)
    
    Jesus didn't claim to be their God, for he said his Father was.  Jesus
    only claimed to have existed long ago, before Abraham's time (at
    startling claim itself).
    
    
    								-mark.
    
    								-mark.

    RE:              <<< Note 907.45 by 7466::KLIMOWICZ >>>
                            -< Search for the truth >-
    
    
    
    Hallo Oleg,
    
    A:
    Before providing you with Scripture passages,that there is certainly no
    trinity, I will give some facts already discussed in this conference a
    couple of years ago, about trinity.
    
    [ Topics were: Ante Nicean churchfathers, Roman Emperor Constantin,
      and Athanasius].
    
    B:
    Although trinity will ever stay a point of discussion between
    unitarians and trinitarians I will provide you with a few passages
    to defend our point of view as JW's not believing in trinity.
    
    
    A:             About Trinity
    ===================================
    
    It is interesting to know that trinity is not only part of Christianity
    nowadays but, also excisted in other religions long before
    Christianity.
    
    Trinity worshipping in other religions is even  older than trinity
    worshipping in Christianity.
    
    A few examples are:
    -------------------
    
    1) Ancient Egypt: Worshipping of the trinitarian Gods
                      Isis, Osiris and Horus.
    
    2) Ancient Babylon: Worshipping of the Triade
                        Ishtar, Shin and Shamash.
    
    3) Assyrian triade: Ea, Enlil and Anus.
    
    4) Hindu Triade:    Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu.
                        They are still worshipped in our times.
    
    Some dictionaries and encyclopedias call these religions "pagan
    religions"
    
    The dictionary of Religious Knowledge even says that trinity, according
    many, a shism from pagan or heathen religions accepted and grafted on
    
    Christianity.
    
    Another authority "The paganism in our Christianity" declares:
    the root of trinity is from pagan origin.
    
    The encyclopedia Americana says; The fourth century teaching of three
    persons (Father Son and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead is a Deceive
    of early Christian era.
    The whole development of trinity in Christian religion was founded
    in Western Europe by Scholasticism through philosophical and
    theological speculations.
    
    
    B:          About Scripture passages:
    
    ===========================================
    
    Like the Bereans, Apostle Pauul's contemporaries, JW's are
    bible examiners.
    They based their believes through Thouroughly
    and accurate knowledge of the bible and what has been found in
    archeology and history, that backed up bible knowledge.
    And of course a thouroughly examination of the truth about such things
    like,
    trinity, heavenly life for everyone, burning in hell, soul and body.
    If these things are not backed up by Scripture, they are rejected.
    And believe me, it is not one night examination.
    
    1.  Jesus, the Son of Jehovah God.
    ============================================
    
    John Chapter 14: gives JW's a clear understanding about the
    relationship between Jesus and his father Jehovah.
    
    In Proverbs 8:22-29 JW's understand that Jesus was the first creation
    of his father Jehovah.
    
    
    In Proverbs 8:30 it is for JW's  a fact that while Jehovah is the
    Architect of the Universe in creation of including Angels and the 
    human-race, Jesus was the Master-worker.
    For JW's Jesus is the beginning of creation while his father is
    eternally.
    
    
    2.  Jehovah God is the Universal Souverain.
    ============================================
    
    Isaiah 45:18 Declaration of Jehovah,that He has life in his self.
    There is no-one equally to him.
    
    3.   The Holy Spirit.
    ======================
    
    Psalms 51:11  It is obvious that the holy spirit is absolutely
    not a person.
    It is the strength Jehovah God gives to a righteuous person to
    carry on in difficult times.
    A very good example is the biblebook Job.
    
    
    Holy Spirit can be compared as the energy given by a powerplant,
    where generators convert heat energy into electrical energy.
    At last this energy will give light in the form of the bulb or
    gives machines the power to rotate.
    
    As this illustration shows, the Holy Spirit give people the
    strenght to continue walking on the cramped road.
    Please read Matthew 7:13-14 for a better understanding.
    
    3.     To be saved.
    ======================
    
    Of course no one at this moment will surely know if he/she is
    or is not saved but, Matthew 28:18-20 (the way JW's see this)
    shows us the way to go into the footsteps of
    " The greatest man ever lived"  Jesus Christ.
    
    
    Millions of people are right now practising Matthew 24:14.
    A prophesy coming out right now.
    
    It is not important as how one is saved but, it is how one can live
    doing the will of the true living God Jehovah.
    His will is Matthew 22:36-40
    
    Oleg, No-one can convince anyone. This writing is just to show you
    the way Witnesses practice the truth gained from the Scriptures.
                                                                    
    Regards,
    Alex
    
    
    

 Alex, 

 Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my request.
 It is important to me to know how one stands in their belief before
 I can draw any conclusions on our differences.

 From reading your response and the responses of other Jehovah's Witnesses,
 I am coming to the conclusion that some of you believe in a different Jesus.

 I and others have provided several bible passages that verify plainly
 and simply that Jesus is God, and that God dwelt among us in the flesh.
 However, it appears that some of you are not believing what you are 
 reading.

 The same is true for the Father and the Holy Spirit. Do the scriptures
 mean what they say or don't they?  Please, let's not pour different 
 meanings into what is written in black and white!

 I will make another attempt to simplify the scripture passages I gave.
 This is as simple as I can put it. (The full passages can be read in
 previous replies)

 Is it impossible for God to take on the appearance of man?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 JESUS = GOD 

 ROM 9:5    ..Christ who is God over all..		CHIRST = GOD

 PHIL 2:6   ..(Jesus) ..Being in very nature God..	JESUS  = GOD

 COL 2:9    ..For by him all things were created..	JESUS  = CREATOR
	      (Not "all other things" as in NWT)

 JHN 1:1    ..the Word was God :14 ..the Word became 
              flesh					WORD = GOD = FLESH
 
 REV 1:8    .."I am the Alpha and the Omega says the 
	       Lord God.."			        ALPHA/OMEGA = GOD

 REV 22:12  .."I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First
	       and the last.. 16: I Jesus (ID)	        ALPHA/OMEGA = JESUS     

-------------------------------------------------------------------
 HOLY SPIRIT = GOD 
    
    > Psalms 51:11  It is obvious that the holy spirit is absolutely
    > not a person.
    > It is the strength Jehovah God gives to a righteuous person to
    > carry on in difficult times.
    > A very good example is the biblebook Job.

    > Holy Spirit can be compared as the energy given by a powerplant,
    > where generators convert heat energy into electrical energy.
    > At last this energy will give light in the form of the bulb or
    > gives machines the power to rotate.

 Does a chair, table, lamp or energy talk? encourage? testify?
 appoints men for service?     Read what it says...

   HEB 10:15   - The Holy Spirit testifies to us about 
		 this, First he says: 16: "This is the  
		 covenant I will make...		 

			HOLY SPIRIT = HE (he talks and testifies)

   JHN 14:26   - But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
	         will send in my name, will teach you all things...

		        COUNCELOR = H.S. (will teach)

   JHN 15:26   - When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you 
	         from the father, the Spirit of truth who goes out
		 from the Father, HE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT ME.

			COUNCELOR = H.S. = HE (He will testify)

   ACT 5:3     - Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan
		 has filled your heart THAT YOU HAVE LIED TO THE
		 HOLY SPIRIT and have kept for yourself some of
		 the money you received for the Land?....
       5:4     - ...What made you do such a thing? YOU HAVE NOT
		 LIED TO MEN BUT TO GOD."  <-----

			HOLY SPIRIT = GOD

       9:31    - Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and 
		 Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengh-
		 tened; and encouraged by the HOLY SPIRIT, it 
		 grew in numbers...

		         encouraged by HOLY SPIRIT 

   ACT 13:2    - While they were WORSHIPPING THE LORD and fasting,
		 the HOLY SPIRIT said, "Set apart for me Barnabas
		 and Saul for the work to which I have called them"      

			HOLY SPIRIT APPOINTS MEN to do his work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 FATHER = GOD (one of the many passages)

   JHN 6:27    - ..On him GOD the FATHER has placed the seal 
		 of approval.

			GOD = FATHER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 BEING SAVED

    > 3.     To be saved.

    > Of course no one at this moment will surely know if he/she is
    > or is not saved but, Matthew 28:18-20 (the way JW's see this)
    > shows us the way to go into the footsteps of

 I AM SAVED! And the reason I know this is because the Bible tells me so!
 Jesus died for me on the cross, as he did for the world, (Jhn 3:16) but 
 we have to accept the gift of that sacrifice!

 You too can have the assurance of eternal salvation! starting now!

 I can supply you with dozens of scripture passages that will give you
 that assurance, but if one does not believe what is written, than a
 person's salvation is at stake! Please take heed to what is written 
 in black and white! Be carefull with long, confusing explanations
 that some may offer you to simple/straight forward scripture passages.
 
 ACT  4:12	Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no
		other name under heaven given to men by which we
		must be saved.

 Please accept Jesus's invitation,

 REV 3:19	Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be
		earnest, and repent.
      :20	HERE I AM! I stand at the door and knock. If
		anyone opens the door, I will come in and eat
		with him, and he with me,
      :21       To him who overcomes, I will give the right to
		sit on my throne, just as I overcame and sat
		down with my Father on his throne..

 On the Trinity... 

 I admit that I cannot fully comprehend the trinity; I can only
 apprehend it. I have never seen a Spirit (especially to see
 the Spirit of God and live), and I do not understand how a Spirit
 can be made-up of three separate personal entities living
 eternally.  Some things are difficult for us to understand, but
 again if the word of God tells me so, I'll take God's word for it.

 I pray that everyone accept the gift of salvation, but this can 
 only be attained through Christ Jesus.

 May the Lord give you courage to make that decision. And remember
    one day...
    
    PHL 2:10	..at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in 
    		heaven and under the earth,
         :11    and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    		to the glory of the God the Father.
    
 Oleg 
    

    Oleg,
    
    Having read most of the New Testament again over the last year with the
    thought specifically of answering the question
    
    Does the Bible define Jesus as God, I found many more instances where
    it is obvious that Jesus and God are two separate people.  Unitarian
    Christians are insistent that the Bible offers clear evidence that
    Jesus is not God.  I did find some ambiguos references which seem to
    treat Jesus, God, and the Spirit as the same.  Some of the references
    which you provide(Romans 9:5) for instances depend very much on the
    version of the bible used.
    
    There is no way that one can read the New Testament and say that the
    Bible consistently says Jesus and God are one.  Jesus usually talks
    about being sent by his father, having known his father, praying to his
    father, being forsaken by his father.  The Synoptic Gospels in
    particular show Jesus' life as very separate from his fathers.
    
    I agree that there is evidence for your perspective as well as mine. 
    Your conclusions are far from the only ones that can be drawn from the
    divergent material in the New Testament.
    
    Patricia
    

    
	RE. .52
    
    re .50 (VERVAN::FYFE)
    
>    If Jesus is NOT God, how could he pay the price of Redemption ?
    
    	Why does Jesus have to be God in order to pay the price of
    Redemption?  He isn't redeeming beings who themselves are God's, right?
    
    	If Jesus *IS* God, who is he paying the Redemption price to? 
    Himself?

>>> Mark. God is infinite Wisdom, Mercy, Love and Justice. The work of 
	redemption is the buying back, the paying of a price. The price is
	the insult to the infinite dignity of God which by the demand of 
	infinite Justice required reparation. 
	He is paying the price owed by us to God. The race of man owed the
	price but obviously could not pay. If indeed anyone could have payed
	the price why not have just forgiven us ? Why did we have to have a
	Redeemer ? Could not Adam himself have atoned for his sin, and spared
	us the effects ? He could not or else that surely would have been the
	case and all would be well again in the Garden.
	
	Man owed but couldn't pay, God could pay but didn't owe - impasse.
	But God's wisdom is infinite and his love for mankind is infinite. He
	sent his son to be one of our race to become man and being man could
	atone for the injustice caused and being God could fulfill the 
	requirements of infinite Justice.

    
>    The offence against a person is measured by the status of the person
>    offended. 
>    	The offence against God perpetrated by Adam and Eve was of infinite
>    proportion. If it wasn't then why was the punishment transferred to us
>    all ?
    
    	Although Adam had the potential to sire an infinite amount of
    children and grandchildren, Adam was still human, not an "infinite
    being" himself.  The Bible says:
    
    		"... sin came into the world through one
    		man [Adam] ... but the free gift of that
    		one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."
    		(Rom 5:12,15 RSV)
    
    Here and in other places the Bible ascribes the ransom value of Jesus'
    life as having to do with him being a "man" (not God).
    
    		"If, because of one man's tresspass, death
    		reigned through that one man, much more
    		will those who receive the abundance of
    		grace and the free gift of righteousness
    		reign in life through the one man Jesus
    		Christ."  (Rom 5:17 RSV)
    
    		"Then as one man's tresspass led to condemnation
    		for all men, so one man's act of righteousness
    		leads to acquittal and life for all men."
    		(Rom 5:18 RSV)
    
    Thus, despite the "infinite potential" Adam had to give life, the Bible
    itself teaches that the act of redemption was performed by "one man" --
    not God.  It doesn't reason, as you do, that the offense committed by
    Adam was "of infinite proportion", thus requiring the ransom of an
    'infinite being'.

>>> This has nothing to do with the infinite potential or otherwise of Adam. 
	The fact that Adam sinned we inherited the effects of this since Adam 
	is our father. The point being made is that Jesus being 'man' could 
	atone for our sins precisely because he is also God.
    
>    The punishment was an infinite offense against the Almighty, how could
>    a mortal man, or ANY created thing pay back or redeem. It required the
>    intervention of God Himself, the Father sent His only Son. 
    
    	The punishment for Adam's sin was simply death; a one time change
    of state from life to nothingness (Adam went "back to the dust").
    What was lost was something created in perfection; thus all that was
    needed was something of equal value, equal potential to the life Adam
    lost, in exchange.  Jesus, as a perfect human, corresponded to the
    sinless life Adam was created with; thus the Bible calls him the "last
    Adam" (1Cor 15:45 RSV).
    
>>>>  This is where you are wrong Mark, the punishment for sin was not
	simply death, it was separation. We could never attain heaven because
	we were in sin, unredeemed sin. By Jesus's death and resurrection, he
	dropped the ladder from heaven to earth for us, he opened the door that
	was closed because of disobedience and sin. He overturned Adam's sin
	by his obedience and he conquered death by his resurrection, and by
	his passion he atoned for the sin of Adam. When we sin we offend the
	Almighty as much as Adam did in the Garden of Eden, but now we have a
	path to heaven through repentance and the Blood of the Lamb whose
	sacrifice was acceptable to God. We could not repay that debt no
	matter how good we were or how hard we tried. The Levites had to offer
	up sacrifices repeatedly for the atonement of sin - why ?
        Christ's sacrifice however was only required once - because he atoned
	perfectly in his infinite fashion for the sins of the world.
	

>    If I am the son then I inherit everything from my father. If I am
>    infinite then my son is infinite.
    
    	The Bible doesn't say that Jesus inherits "everything" that the
    Father has.  It simply says all that Jesus inherited he inherited from
    the Father -- but that doesn't mean that his Father gave him EVERYTHING
    that the Father himself had (like equal status as Almighty). 
    Furthermore, the fact that Jesus had to "inherit" his elevated position
    proves that there was a time when he didn't possess it -- but yet, how
    could the Creator of all things inherit anything?  Who could hand God
    something as an inheritance, as though there was something he didn't
    possess as Creator and Almighty?
    
    	Terms like "infinity" aren't used by the Bible writers, for they
    didn't reason like philosophers and logicians.  They simply recorded
    what was revealed to them through inspiration.
    
>>>>	This is where language doesn't completely satisfy or describe 
	adequately the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
	The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, not made, but because
	He IS the Son he has everything the Father has - "the Father and I 
	are ONE", in the love of the Holy Spirit. 
	He is uncreated ONE with the Father and the Holy Spirit. His is the
	name above all names, the only name by which and through which you can 
	be saved. 

>    "Before Abraham was, I AM "
    
    	As a footnote in the NASB NT says, this means "Before Abraham was,
    I have been" -- meaning that Jesus was simply claiming a life prior to
    coming to earth.  It didn't mean he was claiming to be Jehovah God.
    
    	In the same passage that Jesus said the above, he also identified
    the God of the Jews as his Father:
    
    		"... my Father glorifies me, of whom you 
    		say that he is your God."  (John 8:54 RSV)
    
    Jesus didn't claim to be their God, for he said his Father was.  Jesus
    only claimed to have existed long ago, before Abraham's time (at
    startling claim itself).
    
>>>> Jesus did claim to be God by that very statement, the Jews understood
	perfectly well that's what he was saying and were going to stone him
	for blaspheming.
	Jesus calls his Father, God - that is what he is, by indicating that
    	he is the same as his Father he is saying that he too is God. He
	was not claiming just to have existed long before Abraham (which is
	your interpretation) he was claiming to be God as the Jews quite 
	understood. God gave Moses this title when Moses asked him, and Jesus 
	was claiming it for himself.    
    		   
	Peace,

		Tom

    I realize this is a heady topic for some, one not easy to restrain
    oneself.  However, I would remind all participants to please make a
    conscientious effort to keep their replies to the 100 line guideline.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
    

    Patricia 

>    Does the Bible define Jesus as God, I found many more instances where
>   it is obvious that Jesus and God are two separate people.  Unitarian
>   Christians are insistent that the Bible offers clear evidence that
>   Jesus is not God.  I did find some ambiguos references which seem to
>   treat Jesus, God, and the Spirit as the same.  Some of the references
>   which you provide(Romans 9:5) for instances depend very much on the
>   version of the bible used.
    
>    There is no way that one can read the New Testament and say that the
>   Bible consistently says Jesus and God are one....

 The reason I believe that Jesus is God, is because the scriptures
 say so, and because I rely on the scriptures. One thing that I am
 learning is that the more that I try to learn about God, about the
 universe and even about my own existance, the more I realize how 
 little I know, and how I just need to trust in what God says. 

 Refer to .54 and other prior replies.

   Should I trust what those passages say about Jesus being God, or 
   shouldn't I??

 Here is one for you..  I am not trying to explain the trinity, but
 just thought I'd give you an illustration of how we can go off into
 "THE TWILIGHT ZONE" discussing the concept of TIME...

   When did TIME begin, and when will it end?
   Will the PRESENT have a problem in making itself into the PAST?
   Will the FUTURE have a problem showing some of itself to us?
   Did not some of the PAST make itself known to us as the PRESENT?

   Can I say that TIME revealed itself to me as TODAY?
   But then, how is it that it can also be revealed as YESTERDAY ?, 
   and as TOMORROW ?  

   Can I explain how TIME equates itself as the PAST, PRESENT and 
   FUTURE?  or as YESTERDAY, TODAY and TOMORROW? 
   How can all three be in one?

   I don't have much explanation for time, but it constantly
   reveals itself to me...

 Maybe if you can give me a better explanation for time,.. Who
 knows, maybe then I'll be able to give you a better explanation
 for God. But for now, I believe that God revealed himself in
 the flesh, and I'll take the word of God for it.

 Oleg

    Coming to memory for me is the Biblical verse
    
    Abba, Abba, why have you forsaken me?
    
    This does not sound like God talking to himself.
    
    How do you explain all the examples of Jesus talking about his father
    as a separate person?
    
    Patricia

Both the OT and NT proclaim the triune nature of God - Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.  They are co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal, three Persons of the
same Substance (John 1:1-3, 14:26).  God is a personality who can speak and who
possesses a mind and will (Genesis 1:1,26, Jeremiah 29:11, Ezekiel 18:30).
God's character is eternal (I Timothy 1:17), omnipotent (Revelation 19:6),
omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12), omniscient (Romans 11:33), perfect (Deuteronomy
32:4), and holy (I Peter 1:16).  More supportive Scriptures can be found in I
Corinthians 8:6, Isaiah 43:10, Exodus 3:14, I Timothy 2:5, Psalm 90:2.

    .59  It's actually "Eloi, Eloi, <something mumblefratz>"
    Jesus on the cross echoes the 22nd Psalm.  This is where
    some people thought Jesus was calling Elijah.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

"Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?"

    So, who is Jesus Calling?
    
    Himself? 

>    So, who is Jesus Calling?
>    
>    Himself? 

Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, is calling his Father, the first
person of the Trinity.

/john

		Trinitarian Theology made simple (but not easy)

The Son is not the Father		The Father is not the Son
The Father is not the Holy Spirit	The Holy Spirit is not the Father
The Holy Spirit is not the Son 		The Son is not the Holy Spirit 

The Son is God				God is the Son
The Father is God			God is the Father
The Holy Spirit is God			God is the Holy Spirit

Any Clearer?  .-)

Jim

    So 
    
    G=S
    G=F
    G=H
    
    But S Not equal F
        S Not equal H
        F Not equal H
    
    But S=G  F=G  H=G
    
    Clear as mud to me.
     
    All I have to do is turn my logical mind off and but on my spiritual
    mind.        (:|)

    Weeell, yer gettin' there.
    

 Let's not get frustrated....

 1 COR 1:18   - For the message of the cross is foolishness
		to those who are perishing, but to us who are
		being saved it is the power of God.
        :19    - For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom
		of the wise;  the intelligence of the 
		intelligent I will frustrate."
        :20   - Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar?
		Where is the philosopher of this age?
		Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the
		world?
	1:21  - For since in the wisdom of God the world through
	   	its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased
		through the foolishness of what was preached 
		TO SAVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE.

 I believe...
 Oleg
    

    In John 17:5, Jesus is praying to God to return to Him the glory they
    shared before the world was created.  In Isaiah 42:8, God says He
    doesn't share His glory with anyone.  

    If there is one God then he is schizophrenic. Or there is more than one
    god, but taken as a group you get God. Sort of like the "horse" in a
    vaudevillian skit: two men in one costume for a singular entity (i.e. the
    "horse"). So too three beings (gods?) bound as a unit create the
    singular God.
    
    	Eric

    Oleg,
    
    I love those verses in first Corinthians.
    
    Perhaps it is the human Wisdom of the trinity that is foolishness?
    
    That is what I believe.
    
    And in God's own word we are told about such foolishness.
    
    
    Amazing.
    
    Patricia

    I don't think its foolish to believe in the trinity... :-)
    
    

    Neither do I.  If there is more than one god, what are we repeatedly
    told throughout both testaments that there is 1 God?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Just a reply to say that I won't be able to comment for awhile. I don't want
you to think that I'm avoiding anyone.

But, I'd like to make a quick comment and Richard's comment in .76

;I would add that I believe there is only one God.

Jesus referred to his Father as the only true God (John 17:3), there are other
gods mentioned in the scriptures that are *real*. For example, an angel mentioned
in 2 Corinthians 4:4 is called a god. There are many gods but only one Almighty
God (Exodus 6:3).

Phil.

    Phil,
    
    You raised an issue that I have thought about too.
    
    Is Christianity truly Monotheistic?  What does that term mean.
    
    
    God/Christ/ Jesus  Angels Demons  Satin  Apostles  Mere Humans.
    
    How is   this different than the Polytheistic hierarchy of gods?
    
                                  Patricia
    
    

Re:  2 Cor 4:4  "god of this age"

Satan is indeed a god, albeit a false god.  He is worshipped
and served (sometimes intentionally, sometimes unknowingly)
by many.  This is consistent with how the term "god" is
used in the Bible.  Those who are worshipped and served
as gods are sometimes referred to as gods in the Bible.
However, the determination must then be made whether they
are false gods or the true god.

We need to make the same decision about Jesus - is he a false
god or the true god.

Collis

  Hi,

    I really haven't read this string, but I have a couple really
    fundamental thoughts.

    One is the concept of _preponderance of evidence_.

    One of the best examples I can think of is the question of the
    deity of Christ.  We know that Jesus is called God (as in Hebrews
    1 and I believe Thomas said "My Lord and my God!")  And I have
    heard the 'argument' in response to this that Jerusalem is called
    Jehovah and since it is obvious that Jerusalem is not God, it 
    follows that just because Jesus is called God, this need not 
    necessarily be so.

    The above is perfect logic.  I accept logic like that.  In fact,
    I appreciate logic like that.  (Not to suggest that we don't need 
    oil when we partake of bread, i.e. rational thought is not enough!)

    But, did anyone ever kneel before Jerusalem and worship it?  Did
    the Bible ever also state that everything that was made was made
    by Jerusalem?

    I honestly believe that we can take individual texts and we can
    formulate perfectly logically acceptable postures.  A person who
    does not believe Christ is God can present excellent arguments to
    specific texts (such as the Jerusalem item mentioned above) and
    a person who believes Jesus is God can present excellent arguments
    based on specific texts.

    I don't think keying on specific texts is really the answer.  I
    really believe its the preponderance of evidence.  That when several
    texts are weighed _in unison_, THEN a clear picture begins to emerge.

    Its not keying in the John 1 text and then going over to Hebrews 1
    and to this and to that.  Its looking at the Bible as a whole.

    For example...

    Hebrews 1 calls Jesus God within the context of the book essentially
    saying..."You NEED to know your High Priest"  (Heb. 3:1,8:1).  When
    Chapter 2 is looked at, one really gets a picture.  Christ is a 
    Mediator, chapter 2 is devoted to His humanity and chapter 1 is 
    devoted to His 'other' aspect of which He is a Mediator between 2.
    And esconched within this context, He is called "God."  To summarize,
    the FLAVOR of Hebrews 1,2 is precisely identifying who Christ is so
    when it says "Thy throne O God..." within this flavor...that is
    SUBSTANTIAL (Heb. 1:8).

    A couple of texts declare that everything that was made was made by
    Christ.  Couple this with the frequent use of scripture differentiating
    the true God from all other gods by this one characteristic; God is
    the Creator.

    Jesus is worshipped.  Thomas kneels before Him.

    Jesus is our Saviour.

    Jesus uses the telltale, "I AM" which is what God said to Moses:
    "I am that I am."  

    That's what I think.  When the sum total of scripture is looked at
    and not isolated texts, the truth of who Christ is begins to emerge.

    I'll continue...

  Hi,

    I just want to share my ideas on why Jesus and the Father are
    God.  The reality of this is perhaps unfathomable.  I happen
    to believe they are utterly distinct.  I think of members of
    the Godhead of which Jesus is One.

    Picture the Father before He created.  Through foreknowledge,
    He knows that sin will enter the universe.  He knows that
    while the fallen angel's fall from grace will eventually be
    such that they cannot be redeemed, man (for whatever reason)
    can be drawn back to Him.

    He knows all this.

    So what does the Father do?

    In His infinite wisdom, He sets about the plan of redemption 
    "before the foundation of the world."  He knows that the perfect
    Mediator is One who knows both sides because He IS both sides;
    God and man.  He also knows that One will have to come who will
    walk earth and who will demonstrate an obedience that can be
    accomplished by any man - He must have no advantages we cannot 
    have.  Faith must be His means and humanity His condescension.

    Because He is agape, He can do no other than be the sacrifice.
    God Himself must be the Lamb for agape could make no other 
    choice.

    If the above is taken into account, a rational explanation for
    multiple members of the Godhead begins to emerge.  One Member
    will condescend to walk this earth and perform a redemptive 
    work.  He will empty Himself of all divine attributes.  Coincedent
    with this is the need for complete dependence on God - all at the
    same time!!

    I do not believe we hear that Christ was created; He was begotten.
    What I see is that by very essence, God is omnipotent, omniscient,
    immortal (preexistent and postexistent), etc.

    Imagine God represented by a piece of paper.  I see the strong
    possibility that the Father (in a sense) gave birth to the Son,
    i.e. the Son was begotten of the Father.  In other words, part of
    the essence of divinity itself proceeded from the Father and
    became the Son.  (Imagine cutting a section of the paper and detaching
    it from that original piece.)

    And because the essence of divinity has those qualities mentioned
    above, the Son was preexistent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

    This is honestly what I see.   I see that the Father in infinite
    wisdom foresaw a need for redemption and in response to that need,
    He begat the Son.  And the Son, being of same essence of the Father,
    was/is God really and actually.

    The only reason I posted this was to offer a rational basis for
    WHY a Godhead with multiple members.  That is the only reason.

    I'll continue... 

  Hi,

    I want to finish by saying one thing which I believe is a 
    source of mistaken support for the position that Jesus is
    not God.

    That is the many references to Jesus' limitations during His
    earthly sojourn.  I believe Jesus had to be emptied of all 
    divine attributes at His incarnation and during His entire
    earthly life.  He must walk as we can.  It must be all of faith.
    Yes, Jesus had faith from the beginning of His earthly life.
    Yes, it was unintermittantly operative.

    Anyway, I really believe that to pick out things during His 
    earthly life and to conclude: "God is not limited in such a
    way and thus He is not God" is to not realize some of the 
    necessities of the incarnation and what Jesus needed to do in
    order to redeem man.

    I really believe the greatest liabilities of the posture that
    Jesus is not God are:

      1) A failure to see _preponderance of evidence_ and while
         formulating excellent rational thought to individual trees,
         not quite realize the expanse of individual trees that
         seem to plainly point to Christ's divinity.  In other words,
         the forest is missed.

      2) To find the Godhead idea irrational and thus to reject it on
         such (rather than scriptural) grounds.  This is why I tried
         to give the divinity of Christ a rational basis.

      3) Misusing texts that point to Jesus' humanity as proof that He
         could not be divine.  This fails to see the uniqueness of Christ
         during His special earthly, redemptive mission.

      4) Not understanding agape more fully (not to say I do!) and thus
         not seeing that agape itself could no none other than be the
         Sacrifice.

    Lastly, I believe this doctrine is VERY important.  But, thank God
    I believe I am called to love everybody - to be no respector of
    persons.  If any of you do not believe Jesus is God, I may be con-
    cerned, but I am FREE to love you as God loves.  Maybe some day, by
    God's grace I would be willing to give up my salvation for anyone's
    sake (though that would never be required of me, but please see
    Exodus 32:32, Romans 9:3).

    And I appreciate the concern of those who believe Jesus is not God;
    I mean the concern for me.  God looks on the heart.  While the 
    concern I feel is misplaced, it is a virtuous quality and God (Jehovah)
    bless you.

    By the way, these are my first entries in this Conference.

    HI!!!

                                                   Love and God Bless,

                                                   Tony

    
    Another view...
    
    It depends upon the state of consciousness that Jesus was in when he
    spoke the words he spoke that are recorded in the Bible.  When in the
    state of duality (separation), he speaks accordingly.  For example, the
    words on the Cross (Why hast Thou forsaken me?), are from the
    perception that he is separated from his Father, in darkness and
    uncertainty.  Or referring to His Father in Heaven in a way that is
    separate from Himself.  
    
    When he is in the state of nondual consciousness, he is truly God,
    speaking completely as God.  Then He and the Father are One.
    
    The problem with words on paper (or a screen) is that there's no way to
    know exactly from which perception Jesus is speaking from at any point
    in the writings.
    
    I write this from my own experience of having experienced both dual 
    and nondual states of consciousness to some degree. However, if you've
    never experienced nondual consciousness to any degree, then this note 
    probably won't make much sense, and you are free to push the 'next 
    unseen' key.
    
    Cindy

      Hi,
    
        The more I think of it, the more Hebrews seems to be so 
        powerful so far as this topic is concerned.  The book
        lays out perfection as the ultimate characteristic of
        the generation just before the coming of Christ.  It says
        that one thing is vital to the church growing up in such 
        a way; they need to know their High Priest.
    
        Hebrews 1 and 2 are the summary of Jesus' dual nature.  Heb 2
        absolutely _labors_ in referring to Christ's humanity.  Heb 1
        speaks of Christ other 'aspect' (for want of a better term).
    
        And right there in Heb 1, it says, "Thy throne O God..."
    
        The last thing the author is trying to do is confuse.  He is
        trying to be as clear and direct as possible.  
    
                                                      Tony

    Hello, Tony!
    
    	Take a moment when you've a chance and introduce yourself in
    topic 3.
    
    	The letter to the Hebrews is indeed important in pointing out
    the superiority of Christ to anything that had occurred before Christ.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      Hi Richard!,
    
        Done.  And thank you!
    
        Boy...I'd have thought I might have generated a response or
        two to this topic.  What happened?  It just died!
    
                                                  Tony

    .86  :-}
    
    It's hard to predict Notes.  It's like being a weather forecaster
    in Colorado Springs.
    
    Hang on, though.  It sometimes takes a couple of days.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    	Is Christianity truly monotheistic - YES, there is only one God,
    who has revealed Himself in the three Persons of the Holy Trinity,
    Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    
    	Everything, angels, demons, satan etc., are created beings.
    
    Peace,
    		
    		Tom

    Is Paganism then Monotheistic?
    
    If a Pagan believes that there is one spiritual reality, revealed to
    humanity by all the God's and Godesses, can that be called Monotheism
    the same way Christianity calls Monotheism God revealed in three
    separate persons?
    
    I'm trying to get at the essential differences between Christianity and
    Paganism.
    
    Patricia

The Trinitarian Theology of Christianity sees one God, one Will, in three
Persons.

Paganism usually sees many gods acting with distinct and conflicting wills.

/john

    John,
    
    That is a helpful distinction. I may even agree with it.
    
    Patricia
    

    
    I'm not sure about Paganism (though I tend to disagree with the
    multiple gods/conflicting wills statement), however Hinduism is the 
    same as Christianity in that there is only One God, with many 
    manifestations.
    
    There is an ancient Sanskrit saying which is, "Truth is One, the 
    saints call it by many names."  Also, "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" - The 
    Whole World Is One Family".
    
    Cindy

    re .84 (LUDWIG::BARBIERI)/Tony
    
    	As much as I hate to skip other outstanding replies, this one is
    just too easy to address ...
    
>        Hebrews 1 and 2 are the summary of Jesus' dual nature.  Heb 2
>        absolutely _labors_ in referring to Christ's humanity.  Heb 1
>        speaks of Christ other 'aspect' (for want of a better term).
>    
>        And right there in Heb 1, it says, "Thy throne O God..."
    
    Tony ... just look in a few more translations (not even the NWT) --
    especially editions with footnotes.  The _Oxford Annotated RSV_ ftn
    says an alternate rendering is:
    
    			"God is thy throne"
    
    meaning that God is the source or authority underlying Christ's throne.
    Some translations even render it this way in the main text.
    
    	Heb 1:8 is a quote from Ps 45:6.  This is taken as a royal wedding
    Psalm (with Messianic import).  The RSV renders it this way:
    
    			"Your divine throne endures for
    			ever and ever. ..."
    
    The footnote reads, "Or *Your throne is a throne of God*, or *Thy
    throne, O God*" [which gives us both alternatives of Heb 1:8 in the
    main text and footnote].
    
    	This Psalm was originally addressed to the human king.  It's worth
    noting that Ps 45:7 (quoted in Heb 1:9) makes a distinction between the
    king and God:
    
    			"Therefore God, your God, has anointed
    			you will the oil of gladness above your
    			fellows."
    
    If you only look at translations which lean toward the trinity in all
    the major proof texts, you're bound to come away thinking the trinity
    doctrine is pretty clearly supported by the Bible.  However, if you
    widen your search, you'll find that most, if not all of the verses
    (let's say, as rendered in the KJV) have alternate renderings (in
    fairly orthodox translations) which to not give such a strong
    trinitarian import from the passages.
    
    	If you look at the context of Psalm 45 as a whole, since it was
    addressed to the earthly anointed king(s), since they clearly aren't
    God (Jehovah), the parallel application to Jesus would also mean that
    he is not God, either.
    
    
    								-mark.

    I'm surprised nobody has addressed .71 yet (John 17:5 and Isaiah 42:8).
    
    Mike

    re .71 (FRETZ::HEISER)
    
>    In John 17:5, Jesus is praying to God to return to Him the glory they
>    shared before the world was created.  In Isaiah 42:8, God says He
>    doesn't share His glory with anyone.  
    
    According to the RSV, Jesus' request was:
    
    		"Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence
    		with the glory I had with thee before the
    		world was made."
    
    All this says is that Jesus is asking for a return to the glory he
    possessed while in heaven with the Father.  It doesn't say that Jesus'
    glory (while in heaven) was EQUAL to the Fathers.  Some translations
    say Jesus is asking for the glory he had "alongside" the Father.
    
    	Speaking of sharing glory, Jesus said that he shared HIS glory with
    his disciples:
    
    		"The glory which thou hast given me I have
    		given to them, that they may be one even
    		as we are one."  (John 17:22 RSV)
    
    If God shares his glory with no one, and Jesus shares his glory with
    others, then Jesus isn't God.
    
    
    								-mark.

 
1John 5:7

 "for there are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
 the Holy Ghost, and these three are one".





Jim

    what's the RSV?  
    
>    All this says is that Jesus is asking for a return to the glory he
>    possessed while in heaven with the Father.  It doesn't say that Jesus'
>    glory (while in heaven) was EQUAL to the Fathers.  Some translations
>    say Jesus is asking for the glory he had "alongside" the Father.
    
    Neither doesn't it say it wasn't equal.  If God doesn't share His
    glory, how could Jesus have glory with Him in the pre-existence?
    
>    	Speaking of sharing glory, Jesus said that he shared HIS glory with
>    his disciples:
>    
>    		"The glory which thou hast given me I have
>    		given to them, that they may be one even
>    		as we are one."  (John 17:22 RSV)
>    
>    If God shares his glory with no one, and Jesus shares his glory with
>    others, then Jesus isn't God.
    
    ...and following that logic, God wouldn't be God either.
    
    Mike

Re .79

Collis,

A dictionary definition for "god" would agree with what you wrote in your
reply....."2) A being or object believed to have more than the natural
attributes and powers (eg the control of a particular aspect of reality)
and to require human beings' worship." The Penguin Pocket English
Dictionary.

From my own study I have come to know that "god" means powerful or mighty
one. The Bible also gives us those that are called "gods" that are not
to be worshipped. Take for example the angels, Our creator made them 
more powerful than mankind so to us they are "gods" and the Bible 
identifies them as such in Psalms 8:5 (cross reference scripture being
Hebrews 2:6-8) , some translations use "God" and others "god-like ones".
However, though angels are like gods to us humans it is wrong to worship 
them as brought out in Revelation 22:8,9.

The same is true of imperfect humans, at Psalm 82:1-6 the Bible called the 
judges in Israel "gods" (Hebrew, elo-him'; Greek, the-oi' at John 10:34).
The quotation in John 10:34 was from Jesus himself who had earlier told
Satan that it was Jehovah God alone whom one should worship (Matthew 4:10).
Now why would Jesus refer to such an example as the Israelite judges, whom
God's word referred to as "gods" if such ones were worshipped (surely if
your definition for "god" is right then such a referral from Jesus would be
a bad example). We know that the Bible always shows that it is Almighty God
alone who should be worshipped.

Another who was told to serve as "God" to Aaron and Pharoah, was Moses 
(Exodus 4:16,7:1). This did not mean that they were to worship Moses, or 
that in anyway Moses appointment was a false one.

So the determination must be "to whom must one worship", for we would not 
want to oppose "gods" (angels or human judges) that have Jehovah's authority 
by calling them false.

Another indication that there are many gods and some who occupy a lesser
or inferior position to Jehovah is found in that the Bible calls him
"Almighty". This would have little, if no, significance if there were
no other "gods" but Jehovah alone.

Also my own thoughts on 2 Corintians 4:4, here the Bible does not use
the term "false god" but "god", it would be a dangerous position to
think Satan does not have authority because he is false. Paul is
indicating here that Satan is powerful, so much so, that he is blinding 
the minds of the unbelievers. He is a powerful adversary to be reckoned 
with. (btw I'm not saying Satan is not a false God, but that he is the
real "god of this age" as you mentioned from your translation.)

Phil. 

    re .97 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    what's the RSV?  
    
    	The Revised Standard Version.  It's a decendant of the KJV and
    English Revised Version.  It was produced betweeen 1946-1952, with its
    second edition having been released in 1971.  Although it's been
    revised again and released (a year or two ago, I think) as the New
    Revised Standard Version [which I have, but not with me at work], it's
    been a standard translation for many mainstream Protestant branches of
    Christendom.  A version was even released in joint agreement with the
    Roman Catholic Church (maybe just of the NT; I forget).
    
>    Neither doesn't it say it wasn't equal.  
    
    	But we're talking about what it *does* say, not what it doesn't
    say.
    
>                                             If God doesn't share His
>    glory, how could Jesus have glory with Him in the pre-existence?
    
    	Why is it necessary for Jesus to be God in order for him to have
    had glory while in heaven?  Since Jesus was God's "only begotten Son"
    while in heaven, that was obviously a glorious position.  At the
    outset, John wrote:
    
    		"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among
    		us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld
    		his glory, glory as of the only Son from the
    		Father."  (John 1:14 RSV)
    
    As we know, John goes out of his way to emphasize Jesus' true place of
    origin, heaven; but he teaches us that Jesus, while in heaven, was not
    Jehovah God, but the Son of God.  Ancient eastern culture held high
    regard for first-born male children, especially when they were only
    sons.  Thus John is helping us appreciate that Jesus held a uniquely
    glorious position as "the only Son from the Father".  It isn't glory
    equal to the Father's glory; but it's glory greater than that which
    belongs to any other being (other than the Father himself).
    
>>    If God shares his glory with no one, and Jesus shares his glory with
>>    others, then Jesus isn't God.
>    
>    ...and following that logic, God wouldn't be God either.
    
    	Not at all, for Jehovah God doesn't share his glory with others in
    the sense that anyone else is his equal.  Jehovah himself may and does
    choose to give glory to others, but that doesn't mean that when he does
    he's always bestowing glory equal to his own.  
    
    	As the Highest Authority in the universe, there's no one else
    better qualified to bestow honor and glory upon others.  However, that
    glory is always relative to his own.  As the oft quoted Philipians 2
    helps us appreciate, 
    
    		"God ... highly exalted him [Jesus] ... that
    		at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
    		... to the glory of God the Father."  (2:9,10,11 RSV)
    
    Though God "highly exalted" Jesus, it wasn't to a position EQUAL to his
    own.  The honor shown to Jesus is still relative, for it ultimately
    glorifies God the Father, his superior (for "the head of Christ is God"
    1Cor 11:3 RSV).
    
    	We could probably both agree that God has no superior, no "head",
    but yet, the Bible plainly states that the exalted, heavenly Christ has
    a head, "God".  In fact, what's meant by this is all the more plain
    when we consider the context, which says:
    
    		"the head of every man is Christ, [and] the
    		head of a [married] woman is her husband" (RSV)
    
    That the parties involved are so distinct (particularly man and Christ)
    helps us appreciate the clear distinction between Christ and God.
    Although we might truthfully talk about Jesus having a divine nature
    (_theos_), Jesus ISN'T God in the sense that Jehovah, the Father, is. 
    Jesus is Jehovah God's Son and Christ; but his Father is still his
    "head", his superior.  That Paul juxtaposes Christ and God in his
    distinction between them in the headship arrangement proves all the
    more definitively that Jesus ISN'T God.
    
    							-mark.

    re .96 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>1John 5:7
>
> "for there are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
> the Holy Ghost, and these three are one".
    
    In the RSV (and most modern translations) this reads:
    
    		"And the Spirit is the witness, because the
    		Spirit is the truth.  There are three witnesses,
    		the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these
    		agree." (5:7,8)
    
    I'm sure this passage has been beaten to death somewhere else in this
    conference; but if not, what the KJV does is translate what is now
    called the Johanine Comma, which is recognized as an insertion into the
    original Greek text.  In reality, it only is present in a handful of
    late Greek manuscripts (8th century and later), though it's been traced
    back to earlier Latin works, and is thought to have been a gloss added
    by a Spanish Catholic scholar.
    
    	There are those who defend the clause about "the Father, the Word,
    and the Holy Ghost [being] one" with a passion; but most modern
    scholars (and nearly ALL modern translations) consider this to be a
    spurious addition to the Bible text.  Although JWs and the NWT agree
    with this, it isn't something that WE made up out of thin air just to
    deny the trinity.  Check it out for yourself.
    
    								-mark.

    Mark,
    
    Thank you for the time and thought in writing your replies.  They have
    been helpful to me as I try to search the Bible and understand where
    the trinitarian notion came from.  I know  William Ellery Channing who
    is one of the Fathers of American Unitarianism makes the statement that
    there is no evidence supporting the trinity in the Bible.  I have not
    read enough of Channing to know how he supports that conclusion other
    than the clear references in the Synoptic Gospels from Jesus himself
    acknowledging that his authority and power comes from his father.
    
    It is interesting to understand that this is something that us UU's and
    Jehovah Witnesses share in common.
    
    
    Patricia

 It is apparent in this discussion that there are some that are
convinced tht Jesus is not God in the flesh regardless of the
many scripture passages many of us have presented. 

I personally believe that he is God in the Flesh, and that my 
eternal salvation is secure by surrendering my life to
"this Jesus".

 In fairness - rather than just denying that he is God in the flesh,
I'd like to turn the tables and ask those who do not believe that he
is God, to specify who he is:

 I understand that the JWs refer to him as "Michael the Ark Angel".
(Am I correct in this? and please present support for this)

 The Unitarians believe that he is the Son of God. Does this mean
that he possesses the deity of God?  Are there others that possess
this same deity?) Please explain.

 There are those that believe that Jesus was just one of many great 
prophets... 

 What was his purpose on this earth, and what was the meaning of 
his sacrifice?

 What is your way of salvation?  Again, please be specific on the 
name of the person, place or thing that you rely on for your 
eternal salvation.

 I don't think I am being unfair by asking these questions.

Thanks,
Oleg
    

re Note 907.102 by MARLIN::KLIMOWICZ:

> I don't think I am being unfair by asking these questions.

        No, you are not being unfair;  these are good questions.


>  In fairness - rather than just denying that he is God in the flesh,
> I'd like to turn the tables and ask those who do not believe that he
> is God, to specify who he is:

        Of course, you are asking those who do not hold the Trinity
        as a Scriptural doctrine to engage in the same exercise that
        probably led to the doctrine of the Trinity, i.e., specify
        (come up with a concise but detailed statement of) who Jesus
        is.

        It just may be that the exact answer is not given, perhaps
        not comprehensible to us humans.  If that is the case, human
        reasoning may nevertheless attempt to answer the question,
        and may come up with multiple answers.


>  It is apparent in this discussion that there are some that are
> convinced tht Jesus is not God in the flesh regardless of the
> many scripture passages many of us have presented. 

        It is clear to me, after this discussion and the contribution
        of both sides, that Scripture is *not* clear and unambiguous
        on this issue.  Perhaps we are not meant to know the precise
        explanation.  Perhaps the precise explanation is beyond our
        understanding and hence the various answers to the question
        "who is Jesus" are like the projections of a
        higher-dimensional object into 2 or 3 dimensions -- there are
        more than one, we don't see how they can be of the same
        object, yet actually are describing the same thing.

        Bob

    re .102 (MARLIN::KLIMOWICZ)/Oleg
    
>I personally believe that he is God in the Flesh, and that my 
>eternal salvation is secure by surrendering my life to
>"this Jesus".
    
    	Aside from our differences over whether Jesus is really "God in the
    flesh", JWs agree with you that eternal life is only possible by
    'surrendering our lives' to God through Jesus.
    
> I understand that the JWs refer to him as "Michael the Ark Angel".
>(Am I correct in this? and please present support for this)
    
    	Ha ... that's "archangel" (Jude 9).  There are only two angels
    identified in the Bible by name, Gabriel and Michael.  Michael is the
    only one called "archangel", in this one verse in Jude.  Jewish and
    Christian tradition name other angels (even Satan!), and even call some
    of them "archangels" as well; but the Bible only identifies Michael as
    such.
    
    	Michael is mentioned 5 times in the Bible.  Three times in Daniel
    (10:13, 10:21, 12:1), once in Jude (9), and once in Revelation (12:7).
    In Daniel, he is the "great prince who has charge of your [Daniel's]
    people."  Jude tells us he was involved in a dispute with Satan of
    Moses' body.  Revelation depicts him as leading a great war in heaven
    against Satan and his angels, coming of victorious, throwing Satan down
    to earth for a short time [before the end].
    
    	The angel told Daniel that Michael will come to the rescue of God's
    people during a "time of great trouble" (12:1 RSV), which seems to
    correspond to the "great tribulation" that Jesus predicted (Matt 24:21;
    cf. Rev 7:14).  This is evidently at the "time of the end" (Dan 12:9
    RSV).  The account in Revelation also is apparantly set in the time of
    the end.
    
    	"Archangel" literally means 'chief messenger'; and thus could be
    taken as chief messenger, or chief over God's messengers (for "angel"
    literally means "messenger").
    
    	Whereas Daniel's words seem to give God's people salvation hope via
    Michael, the Christian writings give Christian's salvation hope through
    Jesus.  Naturally, in Daniel's time, Jesus hadn't come to earth and
    been revealed as the one whom:
    
    			"God exalted ... at his right hand as
    			Leader and Savior, to give repentance to
    			Israel and forgiveness of sins."  
    			(Act 5:31 RSV)
    
    But still, it's not likely that the Bible would give TWO pre-existing,
    heavenly beings credit for saving God's people (both Michael and
    Jesus).
    
    	Angels, naturally, carry God's word to man.  The Bible tells us
    that Jesus was the last and greatest messenger of God's word:
    
    			"In many and various ways God spoke
    			of old to our fathers by the prophets;
    			but in these last days he has spoken
    			to us by a Son, whom he appointed the
    			heir of all things ..."  (Heb 1:1,2 RSV)
    
    Jesus, as the "Word of God" (Rev 19:13; John 1:1), is obviously God's
    greatest, or chief spokesman, or messenger.  Jesus is also the
    commander of God's angels when final judgment is brought upon the
    world:
    
    			"... the Son of man [will come] in his
    			glory, and all the angels with him ..."
    			(Matt 25:31 RSV)
    
    			"... the Lord Jesus [will be] revealed
    			from heaven with his mighty angels in
    			flaming fire ..." (2Th 1:7 RSV)
    
    The actions of Michael seem to correspond exactly with the actions of
    Jesus.  It's not really in keeping with Christian thought to give
    credit to angels (like Michael) when the credit for the fulfillment of
    all of God's promises are said to come through Jesus; but if Michael is
    the prehuman, or heavenly name of God's Son, then there is no
    contradiction.
    
    	Early, post-Biblical Christian tradition held that Jesus was really
    the Angel of Jehovah (or Angel of the LORD) recorded in the OT as 
    appearing to faithful men.  Eusebius (and I think Justin Martyr) wrote
    that Jesus was actually the angel who appeared to Joshua as the
    "commander of the army of the LORD" (Josh 5:14 RSV; "prince of the
    army" NWT).  Although the Bible doesn't identify this angel by name,
    Daniel's record of him being the "great prince who has charge of
    your people" would suggest that this was Michael as well.
    
    	The name Michael means "Who is like God?".  The name Jesus means
    "Jehovah is salvation".  In Bible times, servants of God sometimes had
    their name changed by God (Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel) when they
    took on a new role in God's purpose.  Since God's Son clearly existed
    long before humans were ever created, and long before there was ever
    any need for anyone to be saved, it's not likely that his name, while
    in heaven, was "Jesus".  Although the Bible doesn't say it, it would be
    fitting if his name were Michael, as a statement affirming God's
    Supremacy.
    
    	Some might point to Hebrews 1:5 as proof that Jesus could not be an
    "angel", for it reads:
    
    		"For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art
    		my Son, today I have begotten thee"?" (RSV)
    
    but the truth is that this verse was fulfilled in Jesus while Jesus was
    a human, on earth, at a time when he existed in a form "a little lower
    than the angels" (Heb 2:7 RSV).
    
    	"Archangel" is as much a term of function as it is of nature, thus
    there's no need to assume that it's application relegates Jesus to any
    unduly low position -- for the Bible record itself is clear that Jesus
    DOES both command angels and serve as God's Chief Spokesman.
    
    	If the absolute truth is that Jesus and Michael are two separate
    beings, that still won't change the Witness view on who and what Jesus
    is; but given what the Bible says about Michael [and Revelation gives
    no clear indication that he's taking orders from Jesus] it appears that
    they are one and the same.
    
    								-mark.

Re:  Psalm 8:5

  "You made him [man] a little lower than the
   heavenly beings and crowned him with glory
   and honor"

hardly makes your case.  It says very little.

Psalme 82:1-6 does indeed contain a sarcastic reference
to men who set themselves up as false gods.

In John 10, Jesus is accused of claiming to be God.  He
does not refute the accusation.  On the contrary, he
accepts that he does indeed claim it.  Jesus then confuses
the issue (since his time had not come, in my opinion)
by pointing out this reference to false gods in Psalm 82.

Aaron served the function of Moses' mouthpiece much the
same way that the prophet's served as God's mouthpiece.
Moses clearly was not god, but "it will be AS IF he were your
mouth and AS IF you were God to him".  This is an analogy,
pure and simple, and does not distort the meaning of god.

RE:  Almighty

I agree with you that there are plenty of false "gods".
What I disagree with you is that "theos" means something
OTHER than god (a true or false god), that it can mean what
you apparently want to mean which is the attributes of god
without being a god.

Satan is clearly a false god because he is not the one, true
God and there is only 1 god.  I'm glad you agree.  Satan *is*
a god - he is worshipped by some, for example and he rules
over this world in its present condition.  However, he is a
false god and will not stand.

Collis

    As to the Unitarian Universalist position,
    	
    	THere is no Unitarian Universalist position.  Every UU is
    responsible for her/his own faith.  The UU congregations recognize
    multiple divergent views.  There are in fact UU Humanists, UU
    Christians, UU Pagans, UU Jews.  Most UU congregations have some of
    each.  Most UU's affirm that diversity is beautiful and fully workable
    within our organizations.
    
    	Except when I am hounded too much by my orthodox Christian
    Friends(most of whom I know from this conference), I call myself a
    Christian Unitarian Universalist.  THis implies that my first
    allegience is to the UU principles and purposes and Christian symbols
    and Scriptures provide me nuturance for these principles and purposes.
    An example is the Princple and purpose.
    
    "We believe in the worth and dignity of every human being"  My belief
    in that principle of my Faith Community takes precedence over what the
    Bible may say or imply or how others may interpret what the Bible says.
    
    I believe that the Bible itself contains multiple, divergent faith
    statements.  I believe that to try to align multiple divergent faith
    statements produces interesting, non defensible results.
    
    The Jesus of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke identify a Jesus who is
    a fully human Son of God and Messenger.  
    
    I have not figured out the Gospel of John yet.
    
    Paul waffles.  Most often God and Christ are clearly separate
    individuals but sometimes he uses the terms God, Christ, and Holy
    Spirit in a way that seems to be interchangeable and therefore implying
    the trinity.
    
    James, Jesus is fully human.
    
    Jude and Revelations has little meaning for me other than as an
    interesting curiousity. 
    
    The Old Testament identifies just one God.  The messiah predicted in
    the old testament is fully human.
    
    These are my views only.
    
    Now as to salvation.
    -My theology is more this worldly than otherworldly.  I do not know
    what happens to us after we die.  
    
    -Salvation is through a higher power of one's chosing.  An
    acknowledgement that a power greater than one's self will restore one
    to sanity, will free one from isolation and alienation, will connect
    one to the forces of goodness surrounding each of us.
    
         Since I believe that there is only one spiritual reality, I
    believe that every approach to this spiritual reality is valid.  Faith
    is faith.  Faith is the surrender to this spiritual reality.  Faith is
    a living  acknowledgement that there are forces of good around us that
    each one of us can tap into.  Christianity offers a viable approach to
    this spiritual reality.  Judaism offers a viable approach, Hinduism,
    Bhudism, Paganism, offer a viable approach.  Secular Humanism in its
    loftiest forms may be able to offer such an approach.  Paul Tillick and
    James Luther Adams and others identify God with our highest concerns or
    ultimate concerns.  Secular humanists who believe in the collective
    goodness of all humanity and devote themselves to the assistance of
    others are responding to a higher power outside of themselves.  
    
    Salvation is in connectedness; in community; in loving relationships.
    
    Salvation does not require adherence to a body of doctrines.  Salvation
    is living one's life in harmony with one's ultimate principles.  living
    one's life in communion with that which is Most Holy.
    
    Just my thoughts as one Unitarian Universalist on one day of my life.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    re .105 (PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON)
    
    I assume you were replying to Phil's previous reply ...
    
>Re:  Psalm 8:5
>
>  "You made him [man] a little lower than the
>   heavenly beings and crowned him with glory
>   and honor"
>
>hardly makes your case.  It says very little.
    
    I'm guessing that Phil had the NWT reference Bible in front of him at
    the time, which renders Ps 8:5 as:
    
    		"you proceeded to make him a little less
    		than godlike ones" -- ftn "godlike ones"
    		Heb. me-elohim
    
    I suppose "gods" is the most literal translation; "godlike beings" or
    "heavenly beings" being a bit more general.  The RSV assumes it means
    "God" [vis-a-vis the plural of majesty].
    
>In John 10, Jesus is accused of claiming to be God.  He
>does not refute the accusation.  On the contrary, he
>accepts that he does indeed claim it.  Jesus then confuses
>the issue (since his time had not come, in my opinion)
>by pointing out this reference to false gods in Psalm 82.
    
    	Not all scholars believe Psalm 82 is a reference to these men as
    false gods.  Some say it's a reference to Israel's rightfully appointed
    theocratic judges who were not exercising their office of oversight
    with righteousness.  Frankly, given that Jesus used this as a proof
    text to counter the arguments against him, it doesn't seem likely that
    this text would carry much weight if the reference was to FALSE gods,
    since FALSE gods aren't gods at all.  Jesus seems to be saying that the
    Scriptures RIGHTLY call these ones "gods", so why should his critics
    get all bent out of shape over Jesus calling himself God's Son?
    
    	The thought seems to be that judges, like his critics, can rightly
    be given the theocratic title "gods"; so if they rightly bear it, why
    not Jesus himself?  [Actually, one work I remember reading pointed out
    that "son of God" could actually be taken as a LESSER title than "god",
    so for Jesus to take a lesser title than Israel's theocratic judges
    should have given his accusors no grounds for complaint.]
    
>I agree with you that there are plenty of false "gods".
>What I disagree with you is that "theos" means something
>OTHER than god (a true or false god), that it can mean what
>you apparently want to mean which is the attributes of god
>without being a god.
    
    	I actually lost a previous reply on this to a TPU bug (to your
    last reply to me) ... so pardon me for not replying earlier.
    
    	We're NOT just making up a new definition for the word "god".  It
    *can* signify godlike attributes when applied to theocratic human
    judges or kings, and it also signifies a kind of being; "a god" in a
    general sense (i.e. a spirit being in heaven).
    
    	You're argument seems to be that when it doesn't mean "false god"
    it ONLY means "true god" in the sense of Jehovah God.  Since you seem
    to see it this way, it's understandable why you don't see our point of
    view; but I think your view is unduly restricted by your theological
    position.  The words themselves have the breadth of meaning that we're
    talking about.
    
    	Gotta go.
    
    								-mark.

    Re: Michael being Jesus    
       
    Nowhere is Michael said to have become Christ or vice versa; the Bible
    sharply distinguishes between angels and the exalted office of Christ
    (Hebrews 1:1-4).  Scripture tells us that Jesus is God (John 1:1), that
    He created all things and is before all things (Colossians 1:15-17),
    and that He was never an angel (Hebrews 1:5).
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        In Genesis, there is unmistakable proof that God is referred 
        to as a _malek_ or messenger or (as rendered typically in the
        KJV) angel.  I'll find the text for you, but it is unmistakable.
    
        The Hebrew and Greek words translated into angel (usually) are
        more generic in their root meaning than angel as referring to
        the created 'angels'.
    
        John the Baptist is called an angel in terms of the literal Greek -
        exact same Greek word used to refer to angels.  In this case, it
        is rendered 'messenger.'
    
        When the generic Hebrew and Greek is understood, I find no problem
        with Christ being Michael the Arch-angel.  My reasons are:
    
        1) The generic meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words typically
           rendered in English as 'angel'  means _messenger_.
    
        2) Jesus is also a messenger, indeed He is the greatest of all
           bearers of a message.
    
        3) Arche literally means _chief_.  Given that malek means
           messenger, Jesus is a messenger, and He is the chiefest among
           ten thousand, Jesus would have to be the Chief-messenger.
           No one but Christ can have that title.
    
        4) I believe Michael resurrected Moses from the grave.  Jesus
           is He who resurrects.
    
        5) I believe Christ is He who banished the unfallen angels from
           heaven.
    
        6) The dead hear the voice of the archangel and are ressurected.
           It is Christ's voice they hear.
    
        7) Michael literally means "one who is like God."
    
      Mike, if you could see that malek means messenger and does not 
      always refer to created beings as your title ("Jesus is not an
      angel") implies, then I don't think there is any problem with God
      Himself being the chief messenger.
    
      I believe Jesus is God.  I believe Jesus is a bearer of a message
      and thus is an angel according to the generic meaning of the Hebrew
      and Greek.  Thus Jesus is the Chief-Messenger.  Michael is the Chief
      Messenger.  Nothing in the Hebrew or Greek necessitates that this
      title cannot refer to God Himself.
    
      Michael is God is Jesus Christ.
    
                                                     Tony

 Re: .104  - Mark, 

 Thanks for your reply and for helping me understand your position
 on who Jesus is.  However, I cannot agree that he is angel.
 
 HEB 2:7 	You made him (Jesus) a little lower than the angels;
		You crowned him with glory an honor
      :8	and put everything under his feet...
      :9	But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
		the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because
		he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he
		might taste death for everyone.

 HEB 1:14	Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve
		those who will inherit salvation?
		(interesting verse...)

 1 COR 6:2	Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?
		And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent
		to judge trivial cases?

        :3	DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT WE WILL JUDGE ANGELS? ...
    
  - If Jesus is an angel, will the saints judge him? I don't think so!
  - The imperfect judging the perfect lamb of God??? I don't think so..!
    
     Oleg
  
    

    re .110 (MARLIN::KLIMOWICZ)/Oleg
    
> Thanks for your reply and for helping me understand your position
> on who Jesus is.  However, I cannot agree that he is angel.
    
    	You're welcome ... but I see that I wasn't as clear as I should
    have been.
    
    	JWs do NOT (repeat NOT) believe that Jesus is "an angel" in the
    sense that he is just one of many such angels (like Gabriel, or all the
    other millions of angels who are not named in the Bible).  Jesus is
    Jehovah's "firstborn Son", and has a unique relationship with his
    Father, Jehovah, that no 'ordinary' angel shares.  Jehovah's Witnesses
    agree that Jesus is God's agent of creation, and that all things that
    exist [apart from Jehovah and Jesus] were created through Jesus.
    
    	If you read the Bible carefully, you'll see that it only calls
    Michael "the archangel" -- it never refers to him by the lesser
    designator "angel".  We today (modern English speakers) usually think
    the word "angel" refers to a type of being, but in Hebrew its literal
    meaning was "messenger", designating their function in Jehovah's
    service.  "Angel" does, of course, stand for *what* they are in a
    generic sense (depending on the context), but still, it's not a term
    applied to Michael all by itself.
    
    	Michael, as "archangel", is Jehovah's Commander over the angels. 
    The prophetic depiction in Rev. 12 shows him in such a role.  You may
    argue that if he's an "archangel" (though the Bible only identifies him
    as THE archangel), he must also be an "angel," but the Bible itself
    doesn't say that.  Gabriel's account in Daniel 10 indicates that
    Michael is superior (in strength) to ordinary angels, and looked up to
    by them, since Michael had to assist Gabriel in his struggle with the
    demon "prince ... of Persia" (Dan 10:13).
    
> HEB 2:7 	You made him (Jesus) a little lower than the angels;
>		You crowned him with glory an honor
>      :8	and put everything under his feet...
>      :9	But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
>		the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because
>		he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he
>		might taste death for everyone.
    
    	All true.  But what is said here are all points of contrast to
    previous states of rank that Jesus held.  Before coming to earth as a
    man, as one "a little lower than angels", Jesus lived among them in
    heaven, evidently NOT possessing the honor that he was given AFTER his
    resurrection.  After all, note that it was upon his resurrection that
    Jesus was "crowned ... with glory" with "everything [put] under his
    feet".  BEFORE coming to earth, he evidently did NOT hold this honor.
    
    	Hebrews 1:4 indicates that Jesus used to hold a rank that was NOT
    all that much more superior to angels, for it says:
    
    		"[3] ... he sat down at the right hand of the
    		Majesty on high, having BECOME as much superior
    		to angels as the name he HAS obtained [after his
    		resurrection] is more excellent than theirs." (RSV)
    
    In order for this statement not to have been superfluous [for if Jesus
    were God, he would ALWAYS have had a "name" that was more superior to
    the angels], Jesus must NOT have held this position of honor at one
    time.  When the scripture says he had "become as much superior to the
    angels," it means that at one time he was NOT "as much superior" to
    them.  That he has "obtained" ("inherited" REB) this "more excellent"
    name obviously means that at one time he did NOT possess such a
    glorious position.  If he were God, he would have always possessed it.
    That he "obtained" it, or [I think more accurately] "inherited" it
    proves that it wasn't something he possessed outright, before he came
    to earth.
    
> HEB 1:14	Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve
>		those who will inherit salvation?
>		(interesting verse...)
    
    	True ... but the overall point of Hebrews is meant to explain
    Jesus' elevation to High Priesthood in heaven after he lived on earth
    as a man.  Jesus is identified distinctly from the angels for having
    been made known to humanity as that man.
    
    	Now, perhaps it could be that there was a propensity among some to
    "worship angels" (Col 2:18 RSV) and confuse Jesus with all the
    'ordinary' angels.  However, the author isn't writing to diffuse
    [perhaps pagan] misconceptions about Jesus being an angel, but rather,
    is writing to diffuse primarily Jewish misconceptions that the Messiah
    would carry out his office as a man here on earth.  Hebrews, as a
    thesis, states the truth that Jesus serves as High Priest in heaven by
    right of theocratic appointment, and proves the legality of those
    claims against the framework of the Jewish Law.
    
    	As I said in my previous posting, the Scriptures which state that
    Jesus, as God's Son, is the recipient of God's theocratic appointment
    as heavenly High Priest in distinction from the angels [Heb 1:5] had
    their fulfillment upon Jesus while he was a MAN, on earth.  Heb 1:5
    didn't apply to Jesus in his prehuman existence.
    
    	Of course, by right, Jehovah *could* have made any angel High
    Priest right in heaven, right from the start, since Hebrews makes the
    point that high priests may be appointed by Jehovah at any time OUTSIDE
    the framework of the Mosaic Law (as was the case with Melchizedek). 
    But he didn't; he made his Son High Priest, having done so AFTER Jesus
    became human (and after he died and was resurrected).  Although Jesus
    was, from then on a heavenly being, as were the angels, the point is
    that humanity had first-hand experience with their High-Priest to be,
    and that he had experience as a human, which is something no angel (who
    never came down to earth in the way Jesus did) had.
    
> 1 COR 6:2	Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?
>		And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent
>		to judge trivial cases?
>
>        :3	DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT WE WILL JUDGE ANGELS? ...
>    
>  - If Jesus is an angel, will the saints judge him? I don't think so!
>  - The imperfect judging the perfect lamb of God??? I don't think so..!
    
    	Good questions, but the JW viewpoint ISN'T that "Jesus is an
    angel".  He is God's Son, whom the angels were  created though. 
    However, the evidence suggests that his pre-human heavenly name was
    Michael, and that he served Jehovah as his "archangel" -- as the
    commander of Jehovah's angelic armies [archangel having the sense of
    "general"], as well as being his chief messenger (as the "Word" of
    God).
    
    							-mark.

      Correction to .109: 
    
      I meant to say Christ banished _fallen_ angels (and not unfallen
      ones!).
    
                                                  Tony

    Jesus Christ presented Himself to men as Eternal God during His earthly
    ministry (John 5:18, 8:58, 10:30-33).  He accepted men's worship toward
    Him as *THE* GOD!
    
    The Bible expressly forbids the worship of angels.  Every angelic 
    appearance in the Bible, where a man started worshipping that angel,
    had that act of worship condemned/redirected to God by that angel.  Deut
    26:10, 2Kings 17:36, 1Chron. 16:29, Psalm 29:2, 95:6, 96:9,
    99:5, Zech 14:17, Matt 4:10, John 4:24, Rev 14:7, 15:4, 19:10, 22:9.
    
    In Isaiah 9:6, we're told the Messiah will be the "Mighty God" and the 
    "Eternal Father."   There's only 1 God - Jesus Christ.
    
    There is one God (Deut. 6:4), but three distinct Persons in the Godhead,
    the Father (Philippians 2:11), Jesus Christ the Son (John 5:18), and
    the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4,9).   Christ the Son is eternal, uncreated
    God (John 8:58, Revelation 1:17-18, 2:8, and Isaiah 44:6).
    
    I'll repeat again:  *Nowhere* is Michael said to have become Christ or
    vice versa; the Bible sharply distinguishes between angels and the 
    exalted office of Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4).  Scripture tells us that Jesus 
    is God (John 1:1), that He created all things and is before all things 
    (Colossians 1:15-17), and that He was never an angel (Hebrews 1:5).  An
    angel *CANNOT* be the Creator and the *fullness* of the Deity *CANNOT*
    dwell in an angel (Colossians 2:9).
    
    Mike

re: Note 907.113 by Mike "no D in Phoenix" 

>    In Isaiah 9:6, we're told the Messiah will be the "Mighty God" and the 
>    "Eternal Father."   There's only 1 God - Jesus Christ.

Does this mean that the Father = the Son?  That would not sit well with 
trinitarian theology.
    
Peace,

Jim

    re .113 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>                               -< God <> Angel >-
    
    Well, since you already claim God == Man, I'm not sure what the big
    deal is (just kidding); but JWs agree with you that "God <> Angel" --
    though it DOES happen to be true that the "angel of Jehovah" often
    represented Jehovah directly, and spoke as though Jehovah himself were
    speaking.
    
>    Jesus Christ presented Himself to men as Eternal God during His earthly
>    ministry (John 5:18, 8:58, 10:30-33).  He accepted men's worship toward
>    Him as *THE* GOD!
    
    	John 5:18 happens to be John's summary of the false accusations
    against Jesus.  John wrote:
    
    		"This made the Jews all the more determined
    		to kill him, because not only was he breaking
    		the sabbath but, by calling God his own Father,
    		he was claiming equality with God." (Revised English Bible)
    
    Since the Bible says that Jesus NEVER sinned, had he REALLY broken the
    sabbath, he WOULD have been guilty of sin, which would then make the
    scriptures about his sinlessness false.  Therefore, Jesus NEVER
    actually broke the sabbath.  He didn't pay heed to many human
    traditions about the sabbath, but he NEVER actually broke the sabbath
    laws that are recorded in the Bible.  Accusations of sabbath breaking
    were false.
    
    	Jesus DID "call God his own Father", but Jesus' own words prove that
    he WASN'T claiming "equality with God":
    
    			"... I am going to the Father; for
    			the Father is greater than I am." (REB)
    
    For that matter, John 5:18 doesn't prove that Jesus "presented Himself
    to men as Eternal God" because this verse does NOT literally say Jesus
    was claiming to BE God -- in only says he was claiming "equality with
    God" -- and this being a supposition based on Jesus' literal claim that
    God was his Father.  Since John himself recorded both verses, it's
    simply impossible for John to have meant Jesus WAS actually claiming
    equality with God.  John knew full well that Jesus EXPLICITY disclaimed
    any sort of equality with "God," his Father -- for John heard the words
    come right from Jesus' own mouth (which he wrote down).
    
    	John 8:58 only tells us that Jesus existed before Abraham was born
    (which is a striking claim, in and of itself).  Reading more into the
    "I am" statement of Jesus' is a pure, trinitarian fantasy.
    
    	John 10:30-33 tell us that Jesus claimed that God was his Father. 
    The charge that Jesus was "claiming to be God" (10:33 REB; "claiming to
    be a god" REB ftn) was only the hostile, and false charge of those who
    were seeking to kill Jesus.  The words out of Jesus' own mouth say that
    he claimed:
    
    			"I am God's son."  (v.36 REB)
    
    Saying that this means Jesus was God puts words into Jesus' mouth that
    he never said.  Instead, it puts you on the side of his accusors.
    
>    In Isaiah 9:6, we're told the Messiah will be the "Mighty God" and the 
>    "Eternal Father."   There's only 1 God - Jesus Christ.
    
    	If you broaden your 'translation horizons' a bit, you'd be amazed
    at what you can find out.  The Revised English Version (1989) renders
    this as:
    
    			"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero,
    			Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
    
    A number of other translations render it as "Divine Champion" or
    "divine in might" (ftn _Oxford Annotated RSV_).
    
    	If Adam had stayed faithful, HE would have been the eternal father
    of the human race.  Since he didn't, Jehovah appointed his Son to
    ransom back the lives of dying humans from sin's grasp, making him the
    "last Adam" (1Cor 15).  Once Jesus, as the "bridegroom" (John 3:29),
    marries the "bride" (Rev 21:2,9,17), the anointed "Church",  in the
    heavenly "marriage of the Lamb" (Rev 19:7), that new relationship will
    bring true life to the rest of mankind on earth (cf. Rev 21:2-4),
    restoring the life Adam lost.  Jesus will thus become "father," or
    "Eternal Father" to the human race.
    
>    I'll repeat again:  *Nowhere* is Michael said to have become Christ or
>    vice versa; 
    
    	If you were reading along carefully, you'd have noticed that I
    didn't say the Bible directly said this, either.  It's a supposition
    of faith, and that's all.  Quite frankly, it makes more sense to draw
    this conclusion than the one that says that God is a trinity, for the
    Bible doesn't literally say that, either.  Your stretch of faith is
    greater than mine.
    
>                       and that He was never an angel (Hebrews 1:5).  
    
    	I've already commented on this, but you obviously aren't reading
    what I am writing.  At this point, your words don't address mine; they
    just reiterate a previous assertion which I've already addressed.
    
    	Perhaps this topic thread is worn out.
    
    								-mark.

>    Well, since you already claim God == Man, I'm not sure what the big
    
    I've never claimed that God is a man.  The Bible says that God is not a
    man in John 4:24, Luke 24:39, Psalms 90:2, Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19, 
    Romans 1:22-23, and Deuteronomy 4:35.  Jesus is the God-man,
    fully-human, fully-God (in whom dwells the fullness of the Deity).  
    
>    though it DOES happen to be true that the "angel of Jehovah" often
>    represented Jehovah directly, and spoke as though Jehovah himself were
>    speaking.
    
    The Angel of the Lord in the OT is typically considered to be Jesus.  I
    think the Greek term for OT appearances of Jesus is "Christophene." 
    The 4th figure in the fiery furnace is an example.
    
>    	Jesus DID "call God his own Father", but Jesus' own words prove that
>    he WASN'T claiming "equality with God":
    
    And he also said He and the Father are ONE:
    
                     "I and my Father are one." John 10:30  
    
>    For that matter, John 5:18 doesn't prove that Jesus "presented Himself
>    to men as Eternal God" because this verse does NOT literally say Jesus
>    was claiming to BE God -- in only says he was claiming "equality with
>    God" -- and this being a supposition based on Jesus' literal claim that
>    God was his Father.  Since John himself recorded both verses, it's
>    simply impossible for John to have meant Jesus WAS actually claiming
>    equality with God.  John knew full well that Jesus EXPLICITY disclaimed
>    any sort of equality with "God," his Father -- for John heard the words
>    come right from Jesus' own mouth (which he wrote down).
    
    Even if you don't believe He staked a claim to Deity, you cannot deny
    his stake to the claim to the Messiahship, and claimed His resurrection
    would prove to be the final sign that He is the Messiah.  The problem
    with this (obviously not for me) is that the Messiah is God.
    
>    (which is a striking claim, in and of itself).  Reading more into the
>    "I am" statement of Jesus' is a pure, trinitarian fantasy.
    
    "I AM" = YHWH = God's name which occurs throughout the OT manuscripts.
    It appears you think the Jews were ready to stone Jesus for
    fantasizing.  They were more than aware of the implications of His
    statement.
    
>    			"I am God's son."  (v.36 REB)
    
    And the Jew's also considered this equality with God and were going to
    stone Him for this as well.  I think it's best not to take the
    seriousness of the Jews' reactions too lightly.
    
>    	If you broaden your 'translation horizons' a bit, you'd be amazed
>    at what you can find out.  The Revised English Version (1989) renders
>    this as:
    
    I use several versions, but prefer the KJV and NAS.  The NIV is easy
    reading, but not as accurate for deep study.  No offense intended Mark,
    but from what I've seen of the RSV postings, I wouldn't use it.  The
    32-member committee of the RSV, and their policy for continual updates
    and revisions have diluted God's Word (IMHO).
    
>    			"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero,
>    			Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
>    
>    A number of other translations render it as "Divine Champion" or
>    "divine in might" (ftn _Oxford Annotated RSV_).
    
    Here's a prime example of what I don't like about the RSV.  The most
    accurate translations are considered to be the KJV and NAS.  This
    translation is a slap in the face to the Deity of Christ.  Hero? 
    Champion?  No offense, but I find it laughable.
    
>    	If you were reading along carefully, you'd have noticed that I
>    didn't say the Bible directly said this, either.  It's a supposition
>    of faith, and that's all.  Quite frankly, it makes more sense to draw
>    this conclusion than the one that says that God is a trinity, for the
>    Bible doesn't literally say that, either.  Your stretch of faith is
>    greater than mine.
>    
>    	I've already commented on this, but you obviously aren't reading
>    what I am writing.  At this point, your words don't address mine; they
>    just reiterate a previous assertion which I've already addressed.
    
    Mark, actually I have been reading your entries.  I agree that the
    angel debate is a supposition of faith, but I believe it's taken out of
    context with regards to the entire Word of God.  In such serious
    doctrinal issues, it's too dangerous to take just the verses that
    support your supposition without considering the whole Bible in
    context.  As for the Trinity concept, there are several verses that
    present the Godhead as One, as well as several that present it as
    separate.  There are also several clues that talk about the divine
    characteristics of the Messiah, and the workings of the Holy Spirit. 
    When you tie all of these characteristics together in context of the
    whole Bible, I believe God revealed the Trinity concept to the early 
    church.  Both the OT and NT proclaim the triune nature of God - Father,
    Son, and Holy Spirit.  They are co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal, 
    three Persons of the same Substance (John 1:1-3, 14:26).
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I think the Michael discussion isn't real significant...He
        is only mentioned maybe three times.  But, as you seem to 
        agree, the 'Angel of the Lord' is at least sometimes (if not
        all the time) Jesus Christ.  In Genesis 31:11-13, the Angel
        of the Lord says, "I am the God of Bethel..."
    
        The Bible does not explicitly state that Michael is an angel
        in the sense that He is of the created variety.  It does not
        explicitly state that Michael is an Angel in terms of being Jesus
        Christ.  However, Genesis 31 allows for the latter to be possible.
        We need to look elsewhere for answers.
    
        Even though Genesis allows for the latter to be possible, I would
        tend to figure that Michael is an angel in the sense of a created
        being - that is if there was nothing else to go on.  However, 
        Michael banishes the fallen angels from heaven, the dead in Christ 
        hear the voice of the archangel and are raised (and only the Word 
        of God has such power), arche literally means _chief_, Christ is the 
        chiefest among ten thousand, and Michael literally means "one who 
        is like God."
    
        Given the above, I personally believe that Michael the Arch-Angel
        is the chiefest bearer of any message to earth (or any other place
        for that matter), is He who's voice will raise the sleeping saints,
        is none other than Jesus Christ, and is God.
                              
                                                      Tony

    re .116 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>>    Well, since you already claim God == Man, I'm not sure what the big
>    
>    I've never claimed that God is a man.  The Bible says that God is not a
>    man in John 4:24, Luke 24:39, Psalms 90:2, Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19, 
>    Romans 1:22-23, and Deuteronomy 4:35.  Jesus is the God-man,
>    fully-human, fully-God (in whom dwells the fullness of the Deity).  
    
    	It's funny ... but you seem to be making my point for me.  The
    does clearly say that God is not a man.  Yet Jesus was a man. 
    Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jesus ISN'T (and cannot be)
    God.  Saying "Jesus is the God-man" is an unscriptural dodge, since it
    STILL doesn't answer the question of how Jesus could be God and NOT be
    in contradiction with the scriptures which say God isn't a man.
    
    	On a related train of thought, John himself wrote that "no one
    [speaking of humans] has ever seen God" (John 1:18 REB).  Saying Jesus
    is God, or even "the God-man" contradicts this scripture, for people
    surely DID see Jesus.  If they saw him, and he was God, they surely
    WOULD have seen God [literally].
    
>>    though it DOES happen to be true that the "angel of Jehovah" often
>>    represented Jehovah directly, and spoke as though Jehovah himself were
>>    speaking.
>    
>    The Angel of the Lord in the OT is typically considered to be Jesus.  I
>    think the Greek term for OT appearances of Jesus is "Christophene." 
>    The 4th figure in the fiery furnace is an example.
    
    	I'm glad to see that you're familiar with these thoughts.  Do you
    actually believe these to be appearances of Jesus?  If so, again, you
    seem to be making my point for me, since the Bible DOES identify [most
    of] these as appearances of angels (i.e. the text literally says these
    were "angels").  If any of these *were* appearances of Jesus, it's
    undeniable that the Bible is calling him an "angel" in these instances.
    
    	You've said that Hebrews 1:5 makes it impossible for Jesus to be
    be (or to be called) an angel; but yet, here we have the Bible doing
    so.   Therefore, either Jesus IS "an angel" and we have a genuine
    conflict with Heb 1:5, or we both have to agree that the word "angel"
    in Heb 1:5 is more generic of all the beings we naturally think of as
    angels, and that the application of the term to Jesus (as the O.T.
    "angel of Jehovah") is a functional term, and not one which lowers his
    standing and nature as God's Son.
    
>>    	Jesus DID "call God his own Father", but Jesus' own words prove that
>>    he WASN'T claiming "equality with God":
>    
>    And he also said He and the Father are ONE:
>    
>                     "I and my Father are one." John 10:30  
    
    	But Jesus ALSO said:
    
    		"... Holy Father, protect them by the power
    		of your name, ... that they [his disciples]
    		may be one, as we are one."  (John 17:11 REB)
    
    Since his disciples aren't "one" in any trinity-like sense, and Jesus
    likens their oneness to the oneness between himself and his Father, we
    see that Jesus is talking about spiritual unity; unity of purpose and
    thought.
    
    							more later,
    							-mark.
    
    P.S. Thanks for the reply.

    I think this Michael discussion is fascinating.  IN fact I think that
    this string is one of the best I have seen in this conference.  I am 
    truly learning a lot and I thank all the participants for the quality
    of the information and the quality of the discussion.
    

    re .101 (AKOCOA::FLANAGAN)/Patricia
    
>    Thank you for the time and thought in writing your replies.  They have
>    been helpful to me as I try to search the Bible and understand where
>    the trinitarian notion came from.  
    
    	You're welcome.  As you can tell, I've been giving some thought for
    a while.
    
>                                       I know  William Ellery Channing who
>    is one of the Fathers of American Unitarianism makes the statement that
>    there is no evidence supporting the trinity in the Bible.  I have not
>    read enough of Channing to know how he supports that conclusion other
>    than the clear references in the Synoptic Gospels from Jesus himself
>    acknowledging that his authority and power comes from his father.
    
    	I've been slowly schlogging through a book on the history of
    Unitarianism.  The modern movements easily trace their roots back 400
    years or so, to the Reformation in Europe.
    
    	It's been my experience that every pro-trinitarian proof-text has
    an alternate non-trinitarian explanation.  On the other hand, not all
    non-trinitarian proof-texts have good pro-trinitarian explanations. 
    Having read the Bible all the way through purposely looking for such
    evidence (pro and con for either side), my conclusion is that the
    evidence AGAINST the trinity far outweighs the evidence for it.
    
>    It is interesting to understand that this is something that us UU's and
>    Jehovah Witnesses share in common.
    
    	Although Jehovah's Witnesses have never been as formally recognized 
    as the UU movement [i.e., we've never had a clergy or a string of
    theological universities], our organization grew out of an atmosphere
    similar to that in the unitarian churches of the 19th century.
    
    
    								-mark.

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Thanks!
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        Ya know...I still give a lot of credibility to a couple
        things that you don't and they do cause different thoughts
        on the matter.
    
        1) The Condescension of Christ.
           I elaborated on this in one of my three-fold reply (my
           first entries here).  And I did state that part of the
           plan of the incarnation was for Jesus to be emptied of
           all divine attributes.  
    
           So the reasoning that people could look on Jesus and thus
           He could not be God doesn't hold much water for me.  In
           fact, Jesus is a Mediator and if we follow on to know Him,
           the veil is being lifted more and more until the time comes
           (if sin is completely rooted from our hearts) that the
           veil would be rent.  I believe the rent veil is seeing the
           full glory of agape which is the full glory of the cross.
           (That's when Jesus Himself saw through to the Most Holy as it
           were.)   "The path of the just is a shining light that shines
           more and more..."
    
           But, anyway, I don't agree with your reasoning as I believe
           it does not adequately factor in the condescension of Christ.
           In fact, perhaps a small further support for what I am saying
           is the fact that when people saw Christ, they could not see 
           at all the Christ as He was previous to the incarnation.  Thus
           to apply your reasoning, He could not have been who you consider
           Him to have been before the incarnation for they could not see
           THAT.  And yet you require that He was something different prior
           to the incarnation, but this is self-defeating to your reasoning.
    
           Do you follow, Mark?
    
        2) Christ As Mediator
           I have not studied through Heb 1:8 (forgot actually!!), but the
           book of Hebrews still clearly portrays a DUAL Christ.  Hebrews
           1 seems to point to a Christ whom the angels worship.  Again,
           Christ was two in One - is there any debate about that?
    
           And it seems to me that the perfect Mediator is He who can
           represents both sides BECAUSE HE IS BOTH SIDES!!
    
        3) Christ as Creator.  Everything that was made was made by
           Christ.  In fact, perhaps one of the most telling
           characteristics of God is that His word accomplishes what it
           says.  Everywhere it seems to be the Word of Jesus Christ.
           It creates, it resurrects.
    
           So here we have Jesus' Word creating and the admonition that
           the telltale sign of who God is is that it is God who creates.
           Chapters like Heb 1 and Col 1 seem to portray Christ as the
           'Agent' who created "all things."
    
      These are really foundational for me Mark.
    
                                                     God Bless,
    
                                                     Tony
           

    re .116 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    Even if you don't believe He staked a claim to Deity, you cannot deny
>    his stake to the claim to the Messiahship, and claimed His resurrection
>    would prove to be the final sign that He is the Messiah.  The problem
>    with this (obviously not for me) is that the Messiah is God.
    
    	Not only can I not deny his claim to the Messiahship, I positively
    affirm it.  (Surely you don't think that JWs deny that Jesus is the
    Messiah, do you?)
    
    	But, as to his being the "Messiah", it strikes me that YOU don't
    appreciate fully what the "Messiah" was [according to Jewish thinking].
    As you may know, "messiah" means "anointed" [as does the word
    "Christ"].  The anointing [whether by literal oil, as was poured upon
    the earthly Jewish kings, or by holy spirit, as was poured out upon
    Jesus at his baptism and the disciples at Pentacost] signified that God
    had confirred legal, theocratic authority upon the recipients.  Being
    anointed didn't make one God -- it made one authorized to represent
    God.
    
    	I don't mean to be rude or nasty, but to say "the Messiah is God",
    or "God is the Messiah" -- aside from being non-Biblical -- is
    superfluous, and really non-sensical, since God needs no "anointing". 
    He doesn't need authority confired upon him, for he IS the Ultimate
    Source and backer of all legitimate theocratic authority.  Speaking
    prophetically of the future rule of Christ, Revelation says:
    
    		"I heard a loud voice in heaven proclaim:
    		'this is the time of victory for our God,
    		the time of his power and sovereignty,
    		when HIS Christ comes to his rightful rule."
    		(Rev 12:10 REB)
    
    The Bible doesn't speak of God AS Christ, or God BEING Christ; it
    speaks of God and HIS Christ, "his Christ" being the one He anointed to
    hold rightful authority over the earth [remember Gabriel told Mary that
    God would give Jesus the throne of David his father].  Christ and God
    are separate beings.
    
    	You have to look at "Messiah" as more than just a mere title, but
    instead consider it for what it actually means.  The Messiah, by
    definition, cannot BE God, for the anointer and anointee are always two
    separate beings, the one anointed being the self-evident inferior of
    the one doing the anointing.  Much of the point of Hebrews is to prove
    that Jesus holds/wields his authority because he has, in fact, been
    directly appointed and anointed by God.  If he WERE God himself, there
    would be no need to establish his rightful authority by way of
    anointing; for again, God needs no anointing to hold authority over
    man.
    
>>    (which is a striking claim, in and of itself).  Reading more into the
>>    "I am" statement of Jesus' is a pure, trinitarian fantasy.
>    
>    "I AM" = YHWH = God's name which occurs throughout the OT manuscripts.
>    It appears you think the Jews were ready to stone Jesus for
>    fantasizing.  They were more than aware of the implications of His
>    statement.
    
    	Nope nope nope ... God's name, YHWH, is the causitive form of the
    Hebrew verb, to be, and means "He causes to be" (Oxford Annotated RSV
    ftn on Ex 3:14).  It means "creator" -- the one who makes things come
    to be.  There IS no Hebrew verbal form of "to be" which means "I am". 
    Hebrew verbs don't have a first person present tense.
    
    	The context of John 8:58 makes it clear that Jesus wasn't claiming
    to be The Creator.  As the Living Bible puts it, Jesus meant:
    
    		"I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."
    
    This isn't a claim to being God, though it IS a claim to having existed
    in heaven before he was born a man on earth.
    
>>    			"I am God's son."  (v.36 REB)
>    
>    And the Jew's also considered this equality with God and were going to
>    stone Him for this as well.  I think it's best not to take the
>    seriousness of the Jews' reactions too lightly.
    
    	It's even better not to assume that the Jews who were about to
    stone him had all the right ideas about Jesus and his claims.  Just
    prior to a previous stoning attempt (John 8:59), Jesus said to them:
    
    		"Your father is the devil and you choose
    		to carry out your father's desires.  He was
    		a murderer from the beginning, and is not
    		rooted in the truth; there is no truth in
    		him ... for he is a liar and the father of
    		lies."  (John 8:44 REB)
    
    In fact, Jesus made it clear that they WERE NOT understanding him
    correctly, for he said just before this:
    
    		"Why do you not understand what I am saying?
    		It is because my teaching is BEYOND your grasp."
    		(John 8:43 REB)
    
    Therefore, in light of the above, rather than assuming that those who
    were about to stone him had a clear and accurate understanding of who
    Jesus was and what he was teaching about himself, it seems wiser to
    recognize that they were NOT correct, either in their actions or in
    their reasons for those actions.
    
    							to be continued
    							-mark.

      re -1
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        This all (again) resorts to necessitating that Jesus had
        'operational' divine attributes during His earthly mission.
        So, it doesn't so anything for me because I believe He had
        to condescend and to walk even as we can walk.  He had to
        rely 100% on the Father by faith.
    
        While on earth, He needed to be annointed.
      
                                                    Tony

>        Given the above, I personally believe that Michael the Arch-Angel
>        is the chiefest bearer of any message to earth (or any other place
>        for that matter), is He who's voice will raise the sleeping saints,
>        is none other than Jesus Christ, and is God.
                              
    Tony, this is out of context of the whole Bible.  If this is true,
    the Bible wouldn't condemn the worship of angels.  The angels
    themselves condemned it.  Jesus Christ, on the other hand, accepted
    men's worship toward Him as God.
    
    doesn't wash in full context,
    Mike

    re .116 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>>    	If you broaden your 'translation horizons' a bit, you'd be amazed
>>    at what you can find out.  The Revised English Version (1989) renders
>>    this as:
>    
>    I use several versions, but prefer the KJV and NAS.  The NIV is easy
>    reading, but not as accurate for deep study.  No offense intended Mark,
>    but from what I've seen of the RSV postings, I wouldn't use it.  The
>    32-member committee of the RSV, and their policy for continual updates
>    and revisions have diluted God's Word (IMHO).
    
    	I'm not offended.  Speaking in general, all translations have their
    pluses and minuses.
    
    	As to whether the RSV has "diluted God's Word" due to updates and
    revisions, I think there's an obvious flip side of this argument.  It
    might be said that these newer translations really do give us a more
    accurate understanding of the original text, but that opposition to
    this new information comes from those who see support for their
    doctrines erode when they're exposed to the light of scholarship that
    is free from the dictates of orthodox dogma.
    
    	Of course, the greater irony is that these translations mostly come
    from religious bodies which are, ostensibly, "orthodox".
    
>>    			"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero,
>>    			Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
>>    
>>    A number of other translations render it as "Divine Champion" or
>>    "divine in might" (ftn _Oxford Annotated RSV_).
>    
>    Here's a prime example of what I don't like about the RSV.  The most
>    accurate translations are considered to be the KJV and NAS.  This
>    translation is a slap in the face to the Deity of Christ.  Hero? 
>    Champion?  No offense, but I find it laughable.
    
    	Laugh if it makes you feel better ... but these other translations
    do exist.  Rather than laugh them off, why not consider why they
    say this?
    
    	As to being "a slap in the face to the Deity of Christ"; I think
    these other translations chip away at the false notions about Christ
    that have been built up by the trinity doctrine, but these translations
    do NOT deny that Jesus is Jehovah's heavenly Son.
    
>    Mark, actually I have been reading your entries.  I agree that the
>    angel debate is a supposition of faith, but I believe it's taken out of
>    context with regards to the entire Word of God.  
    
    	OK ... but I'm glad to see that you *have* read my replies.  It
    just didn't seem that way at first (since you didn't address any of my
    points).
    
>                                                     In such serious
>    doctrinal issues, it's too dangerous to take just the verses that
>    support your supposition without considering the whole Bible in
>    context.  
    
    	It seems that we can agree that "the whole Bible" should be taken
    "in context".  However, you and I are obviously 'keeping score'
    differently, since I see the Bible evidence as supporting the truth
    that God is NOT a trinity.
    
>              As for the Trinity concept, there are several verses that
>    present the Godhead as One, as well as several that present it as
>    separate.  
    
    	I don't know of any verses that speak of God as a collective
    "Godhead" -- though I suppose that there probably are one or two
    pro-trinity translations that have felt bold enough to insert the term.
    There are, of course, many verses which speak of the unity between
    Father, Son, and holy spirit.
    
>               There are also several clues that talk about the divine
>    characteristics of the Messiah, and the workings of the Holy Spirit. 
    
    	But those clues should be viewed in their true, Jewish context, and
    not the add-on context of post-Biblical, trinitarianized Christian
    theology.
    
>    When you tie all of these characteristics together in context of the
>    whole Bible, I believe God revealed the Trinity concept to the early 
>    church.  Both the OT and NT proclaim the triune nature of God - Father,
>    Son, and Holy Spirit.  They are co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal, 
>    three Persons of the same Substance (John 1:1-3, 14:26).
    
    	Jesus said the Father was greater than he was.  They are
    immediately provable as not co-equal.
    
    
    								-mark.

>    	It's funny ... but you seem to be making my point for me.  The
>    does clearly say that God is not a man.  Yet Jesus was a man. 
>    Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jesus ISN'T (and cannot be)
>    God.  Saying "Jesus is the God-man" is an unscriptural dodge, since it
>    STILL doesn't answer the question of how Jesus could be God and NOT be
>    in contradiction with the scriptures which say God isn't a man.
    
    I think it's sad that you don't use the context of the whole Bible to
    form your conclusions.  No man could've done all of what Jesus did - that 
    is the ultimate logic.
    
>    	On a related train of thought, John himself wrote that "no one
>    [speaking of humans] has ever seen God" (John 1:18 REB).  Saying Jesus
>    is God, or even "the God-man" contradicts this scripture, for people
>    surely DID see Jesus.  If they saw him, and he was God, they surely
>    WOULD have seen God [literally].
    
    You simply can't keep picking out verses to support your stance while
    ignoring the rest of the Bible.  
    
    John 6:46  "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God,
                he hath seen the Father."
    John 14:9  "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and 
                yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath 
                seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"
    
    Using your logic, the above would prove that Jesus wasn't human since
    He has seen God.
    
>    	I'm glad to see that you're familiar with these thoughts.  Do you
>    actually believe these to be appearances of Jesus?  If so, again, you
>    seem to be making my point for me, since the Bible DOES identify [most
>    of] these as appearances of angels (i.e. the text literally says these
>    were "angels").  If any of these *were* appearances of Jesus, it's
>    undeniable that the Bible is calling him an "angel" in these instances.
    
    In every case where Jesus is concerned, it's "Angel of the Lord."  The
    archangels, Michael and Gabriel, are always mentioned by name.  There
    is a clear distinction between the two classifications.  I've never
    done a Hebrew study on the phrase "Angel of the Lord," but I'm sure
    there is more to the phrase than what the English is providing.  For
    example, the "sons of God" in Job 38:7 is a substitute for "angels." 
    You wouldn't know that without studying it in the Hebrew context.
    
>    	You've said that Hebrews 1:5 makes it impossible for Jesus to be
>    be (or to be called) an angel; but yet, here we have the Bible doing
>    so.   Therefore, either Jesus IS "an angel" and we have a genuine
>    conflict with Heb 1:5, or we both have to agree that the word "angel"
>    in Heb 1:5 is more generic of all the beings we naturally think of as
>    angels, and that the application of the term to Jesus (as the O.T.
>    "angel of Jehovah") is a functional term, and not one which lowers his
>    standing and nature as God's Son.
    
    That's correct, there is a conflict.  That's why I believe a deeper
    study on "Angel of the Lord" is required.  In taking the whole Bible
    into context, there are rare instances when this could happen without
    further study.  I believe that Scripture will never contradict Scripture.  
    The best interpretation of Scripture is Scripture.  Remember, all Scripture
    is inspired by God, it is God-breathed.  Therefore, Scripture will never
    contradict itself.  When 2 or more truths that are clearly taught in the 
    Word seem to be in conflict, remember that we as humans have finite minds.  
    Don't take a teaching to an extreme that God doesn't.  Simply humble your 
    heart in faith and believe what God says, even if you can't fully 
    understand or reconcile it at the moment.  However, this isn't an
    excuse as I plan on checking some references to see if more
    clarification can be obtained for "Angel of the Lord."
    
>    Since his disciples aren't "one" in any trinity-like sense, and Jesus
>    likens their oneness to the oneness between himself and his Father, we
>    see that Jesus is talking about spiritual unity; unity of purpose and
>    thought.
    
    This is spiritual unity, but I believe it is through the Holy Spirit. 
    Believers in Jesus Christ are sealed with God's Holy Spirit.  That is
    the common bond that unifies us as Christians in the family of God (or
    Church, whichever body description you prefer).  Paul wrote about this
    in I Corinthians 12:12-13,27.
    
    more later,
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Its just not a big enough deal for me, but a final thing I
        want to say is simply that we are not to worship created
        beings and when the Bible says we are not to worship
        angels, it simply means we are not to worship the created
        angels.
    
        I don't see that as extending to angel as being Michael
        having to be of the created variety.
    
        Using the Bible as a whole tells me that we need to see that
        the root Hebrew and Greek offers a greater flexibility of 
        meaning and context will help us understand which is which
        for each specific case.
    
        I can't extend one specific meaning of the root Hebrew or
        Greek and insist it must be the created angel usage.  Rather,
        I would draw upon the accounts that refer to a specific 'malek'
        (the Hebrew word and Michael in this case) and from those accounts
        form a position.
    
        Its false to do it the other way around when its already been
        proven that a malek can be a person, angel, or God Himself.
    
                                                  Tony

    re .126 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
    	Before really getting into things, I'd like to say that I actually
    appreciate a direct address of my points.  [It makes this seem like a
    real conversation.  ;-)]
    
>    I think it's sad that you don't use the context of the whole Bible to
>    form your conclusions.  No man could've done all of what Jesus did - that 
>    is the ultimate logic.
    
    	Neither the Bible nor I said that Jesus did what he did merely by
    human power.  Jesus himself rightly gave the credit for his ability to
    perform the powerful things he did to God, his Father.  However, the
    truth still is that the Bible says that Jesus was "a man".  It does NOT
    say that he was "God-man".  Your "ultimate logic" in this case is
    leaving out the significant detail [that I omitted as well] that
    Jesus' works were based on his Father's power.
    
    		"My deeds done in my Father's name are my credentials"
    		(John 10:25b REB).
    
>    You simply can't keep picking out verses to support your stance while
>    ignoring the rest of the Bible.  
>    
>    John 6:46  "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God,
>                he hath seen the Father."
    
    	I thank you for pointing this out, Mike.  This doesn't contradict
    what I said -- it just explains it further.  Jesus had seen God while
    he was in heaven as a spirit being (as _theos_, not _anthropos_). 
    Jesus obviously retained memory of his heavenly pre-existance; but
    then, no other man had ever had such an experience.  What John said in
    1:18 applies to all humans except Jesus.
    
>    Using your logic, the above would prove that Jesus wasn't human since
>    He has seen God.
    
    	No ... that's taking "my logic" too far.  The context of John's
    words (about no one having seen Jesus) obviously don't apply to Jesus
    himself.  However, Jesus didn't "see God" as a human on earth, he saw
    him during is life aforetime in heaven.
    
>    In every case where Jesus is concerned, it's "Angel of the Lord."  The
>    archangels, Michael and Gabriel, are always mentioned by name.  
    
    	Gabriel isn't called an "archangel" in the Bible.  Only Michael is. 
    [Non-biblical traditional writings call Gabriel an archangel, but
    those writings aren't a direct product of inspiration, and thus aren't
    guaranteed to represent the truth.]
    
    	I'm glad we can agree that it's likely that Jesus was "the Angel of
    Jehovah".  But even you have to admit that this conclusion, too, is a
    conclusion of faith, for the Bible does NOT explicitly identify Jesus
    as this angel.  Your conclusion of faith on this matter is similar in
    kind to the conclusion of faith reached by Witnesses that Michael is
    the heavenly name for Jesus.
    
>                                                                    There
>    is a clear distinction between the two classifications.  
    
    	Not in the Bible, there isn't.
    
>                                                             I've never
>    done a Hebrew study on the phrase "Angel of the Lord," but I'm sure
>    there is more to the phrase than what the English is providing.  
    
    	A worthy subject to study.  ("Angel of the Lord" is literally
    "Angel of Jehovah" or "Angel of YHWH".)  However, you HAVE admitted
    that Jesus IS an "angel", if he is the "angel of the Lord".  Your
    arguments against the JW view on Michael then work against your own
    view on this matter.
    
>                                                                     For
>    example, the "sons of God" in Job 38:7 is a substitute for "angels." 
>    You wouldn't know that without studying it in the Hebrew context.
    
    	I knew this.  ["angels" is used in the LXX.]
    
>>    	You've said that Hebrews 1:5 makes it impossible for Jesus to be
>>    be (or to be called) an angel; but yet, here we have the Bible doing
>>    so.   Therefore, either Jesus IS "an angel" and we have a genuine
>>    conflict with Heb 1:5, or we both have to agree that the word "angel"
>>    in Heb 1:5 is more generic of all the beings we naturally think of as
>>    angels, and that the application of the term to Jesus (as the O.T.
>>    "angel of Jehovah") is a functional term, and not one which lowers his
>>    standing and nature as God's Son.
>    
>    That's correct, there is a conflict.  That's why I believe a deeper
>    study on "Angel of the Lord" is required.  
    
    	Then, if I may so goad you ... get thee to thine study chamber!
    
>                                               In taking the whole Bible
>    into context, there are rare instances when this could happen without
>    further study.  I believe that Scripture will never contradict Scripture.
    
    	I agree with this.
    
    	However, I predict, in advance, that if your study justifies the
    view that Jesus is the "angel of Jehovah", your supporting evidence
    will line up very well with the evidence that supports the Witness view
    that "the angel of the Lord" is actually Michael; and thus Michael is
    Jesus.  And that will be a fine kettle for you to be in.
    
>>    Since his disciples aren't "one" in any trinity-like sense, and Jesus
>>    likens their oneness to the oneness between himself and his Father, we
>>    see that Jesus is talking about spiritual unity; unity of purpose and
>>    thought.
>    
>    This is spiritual unity, but I believe it is through the Holy Spirit. 
>    Believers in Jesus Christ are sealed with God's Holy Spirit.  That is
>    the common bond that unifies us as Christians in the family of God (or
>    Church, whichever body description you prefer).  Paul wrote about this
>    in I Corinthians 12:12-13,27.
    
    	But Mike, your response in the affirmative (to what the oneness of
    the disciples meant) works against any trinitarian import to John
    10:30, since the oneness between Jesus and his Father is the same
    oneness Jesus prayed for among his disciples.
    
    
    								-mark.

>    	Not only can I not deny his claim to the Messiahship, I positively
>    affirm it.  (Surely you don't think that JWs deny that Jesus is the
>    Messiah, do you?)
    
    I don't know much about JW's, so I wasn't sure what to think. ;-)  A
    few replies back, Oleg posted some decent questions for you which I
    don't think you've answered yet.  Since you believe Jesus Christ is the
    Messiah, but you don't believe He was God, what other characteristics
    do you believe about Him?  Does He share in the Deity with God?  Why
    did He come to earth as the Messiah?  What purpose did His death serve?
    How is a JW saved?
    
>    	But, as to his being the "Messiah", it strikes me that YOU don't
>    appreciate fully what the "Messiah" was [according to Jewish thinking].
    
    I'm no expert on Hebrew culture by any means, but there is a definite
    triune nature in relation to God and the Messiah.  Look at the elements
    of the Passover ceremony/meal.  What do you think the Unity represents?
    Why are the Creation and Redemption candles extinguished when the
    Messianic candle is lit?  Why is the Messianic candle extinguished in
    the wine chalice?  Why does Elohim denote plurality?  There are
    hundreds of OT Messianic pictures pointing to triunity with God.  As I
    have time, I'll even start posting some since that's what we're study
    on Wednesday nights now.
    
>    had confirred legal, theocratic authority upon the recipients.  Being
>    anointed didn't make one God -- it made one authorized to represent
>    God.
    
    And what better representative than God Himself! ;-)
    
>    	I don't mean to be rude or nasty, but to say "the Messiah is God",
>    or "God is the Messiah" -- aside from being non-Biblical -- is
>    superfluous, and really non-sensical, since God needs no "anointing". 
>    He doesn't need authority confired upon him, for he IS the Ultimate
    
    Some characteristics of the Messiah:
    
    Son of God - Psalms 2:7, I Chronicles 17:11-14, II Samuel 7:12-16
    His Pre-Existence - Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6-7,41:4, Psalms 102:25, 
                        Proverbs 8:22-23       
    He will be God, the Eternal Father - Isaiah 9:6     
    He Shall Be Called Lord - Psalms 110:1, Jeremiah 23:6
    Shall Be Immanuel (which literally means God With Us) - Isaiah 7:14
    He is Lord, God, the Creator, the First & Last - Isaiah 44:6-8, 
                  Isaiah 48:12-13,16, Isaiah 46:9, Isaiah 43:10-11.
    
    Speaking of God being the First & Last...  This title is attributed to
    God throughout the OT.  In Revelation 1:8 God says this again.  In
    Revealtion 1:17-18, God says it again, but then adds that He was dead
    and is alive and owns the keys to death and Hell.  In Revelation 2:8,
    God says again He was dead and has come to life.  This begs the
    question, when did God die?  When did God resurrect?  I only know of
    one being that has done that - Jesus Christ.  Well Isaiah says in 43:10
    that God is the only God and there was none before Him nor any after
    Him.  The only logical solution, without doing mental gymnastics, is
    that Jesus is God.
    
>    The Bible doesn't speak of God AS Christ, or God BEING Christ; it
>    speaks of God and HIS Christ, "his Christ" being the one He anointed to
>    hold rightful authority over the earth [remember Gabriel told Mary that
>    God would give Jesus the throne of David his father].  Christ and God
>    are separate beings.
    
    Not according to Revelation 1:8,17-18; 2:8.
    
>    	You have to look at "Messiah" as more than just a mere title, but
>    instead consider it for what it actually means.  The Messiah, by
>    definition, cannot BE God, for the anointer and anointee are always two
>    separate beings, the one anointed being the self-evident inferior of
>    the one doing the anointing.  Much of the point of Hebrews is to prove
>    that Jesus holds/wields his authority because he has, in fact, been
>    directly appointed and anointed by God.  If he WERE God himself, there
>    would be no need to establish his rightful authority by way of
>    anointing; for again, God needs no anointing to hold authority over
>    man.
    
    In this case the annointer and annointee had to be one and the same. 
    No other being was qualified to pay the price for sin (Romans 6:23) so
    that man might be saved.  In Genesis 22, God tests Abraham by having
    him sacrifice his son.  When Abraham passes the test, and his son is
    spared, verse 8 tells us that "...God will provide for Himself the
    *LAMB* for the burnt offering..."  Later in verse 13 God provides a
    *RAM* for Abraham's offering.  Who is the Lamb?  Jesus Christ is the
    Lamb of God!  God paid the price for Himself!
    
>    	Nope nope nope ... God's name, YHWH, is the causitive form of the
>    Hebrew verb, to be, and means "He causes to be" (Oxford Annotated RSV
>    ftn on Ex 3:14).  It means "creator" -- the one who makes things come
>    to be.  There IS no Hebrew verbal form of "to be" which means "I am". 
>    Hebrew verbs don't have a first person present tense.
    
    Given the Biblical language background of the NWT translating crew,
    it's too easy to refute this.  Much more knowledgable Hebrew scholars
    disagree with you and so do I.  Of the four members of the NWT
    translation committee (Frederick Franz, Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and 
    George Gangas), Frederick Franz was the only one with any exposure to the 
    biblical languages, having studied Greek for two years at the University 
    of Cincinnati but being self-taught in Hebrew.  The word used by Jesus 
    in John 8:58 for "I AM" is the exact same word used in Exodus 3:14 and
    Revelation 1:18.  It is the actual name of God!
    
>    	The context of John 8:58 makes it clear that Jesus wasn't claiming
>    to be The Creator.  As the Living Bible puts it, Jesus meant:
    >
>    		"I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."
    
    The Living Bible is someone's paraphrase.  Colossians 1:16-17 clearly
    says who the Creator was.  Colossians 2:9 says the fullness of the
    Deity dwells in Jesus Christ.  
    
>    	It's even better not to assume that the Jews who were about to
>    stone him had all the right ideas about Jesus and his claims.  Just
>    prior to a previous stoning attempt (John 8:59), Jesus said to them:
>    
>    		"Your father is the devil and you choose
>    		to carry out your father's desires.  He was
>    		a murderer from the beginning, and is not
>    		rooted in the truth; there is no truth in
>    		him ... for he is a liar and the father of
>    		lies."  (John 8:44 REB)
    
    yeah but why did He say this?  Because the Pharisees were corrupt and
    spiritually blind.  
    
>    In fact, Jesus made it clear that they WERE NOT understanding him
>    correctly, for he said just before this:
>    
>    		"Why do you not understand what I am saying?
>    		It is because my teaching is BEYOND your grasp."
>    		(John 8:43 REB)
    
    Just as I just said - we agree on this.
    
>    Therefore, in light of the above, rather than assuming that those who
>    were about to stone him had a clear and accurate understanding of who
>    Jesus was and what he was teaching about himself, it seems wiser to
>    recognize that they were NOT correct, either in their actions or in
>    their reasons for those actions.
    
    No this is an assumption.  Why would they want to kill someone who was
    doing good for the people?  They specifically objected to Jesus' claims
    to being God in John 10:33.
    
    Mike

>        Its just not a big enough deal for me, but a final thing I
>        want to say is simply that we are not to worship created
>        beings and when the Bible says we are not to worship
>        angels, it simply means we are not to worship the created
>        angels.
>    
>        I don't see that as extending to angel as being Michael
>        having to be of the created variety.
    
    Lucifer was considered to be one of the highest angels, possibly even
    an archangel (I believe either you or Mark mentioned this before, but
    am not sure).  Ezekiel 28:11-19 says Lucifer was created by God.  If
    you believe Lucifer was an archangel, this surely puts a damper on
    Michael's origin.
    
    Mike (who is biased toward the name Michael ;-))

>    	But Mike, your response in the affirmative (to what the oneness of
>    the disciples meant) works against any trinitarian import to John
>    10:30, since the oneness between Jesus and his Father is the same
>    oneness Jesus prayed for among his disciples.
    
    I don't see the Bible presenting it that way.  The Holy Spirit is part
    of the Godhead, and is also what unifies Christians in the family of
    God.  The Holy Spirit is the same oneness that unifies all - sort of
    the glue that sticks it all together.  Man is also a triune being since
    we're created in God's image - body, mind, soul/spirit.  The Holy
    Spirit unites us together and with God.
    
    Mike

    re .129 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    I don't know much about JW's, so I wasn't sure what to think. ;-)  A
>    few replies back, Oleg posted some decent questions for you which I
>    don't think you've answered yet.  
    
    	Postings and replies are just getting stacked up.  I recall
    answering a few scriptural points Oleg raised, but he didn't seem to
    take notice of them.
    
    	Of course, he's welcome to post them again if he wants to draw
    attention to them.
    
>                                      Since you believe Jesus Christ is the
>    Messiah, but you don't believe He was God, what other characteristics
>    do you believe about Him?  Does He share in the Deity with God?  
    
    	Before answering, I need to know more precisely what do you mean by
    this.  Jesus is Jehovah's "firstborn Son," so naturally he shares a
    unique relationship with Jehovah.  All evidence is that Jesus is
    completely in harmony with his Father's will, so they share goals and
    purpose.
    
    	What does it mean to you to "share Deity with God"?  Where does
    express their relationship in exactly this way?
    
>                                                                     Why
>    did He come to earth as the Messiah?  
    
    	Jehovah sent him, and he gladly took the assignment. It is
    Jehovah's purpose for the earth to be inhabitted with perfect humans
    who worship Jehovah.  It's also his will and purpose for all faithful
    humans to live forever.  Since the earth is NOT filled only with
    perfect worshippers of Jehovah, and people are sinful and die (thanks
    to Adam), there are obviously things that have to be done to accomplish
    this purpose.  Jesus was sent to earth as the Messiah because his being
    the Messiah plays a key part in the accomplishment of this purpose.
    
>                                          What purpose did His death serve?
    
    	It paid the ransom price for sinful humanity [the right to
    perfect human life] that Adam lost.  As the ransom price, it serves as
    the basis for Jehovah pardoning the sinful nature that we have
    inheritted from Adam.
    
    	His death as a faithful man also served to vindicate Jehovah's name
    and purpose, since it proved that Jehovah's purpose in creating man was
    not in vain [i.e., the creation of humanity wasn't a mistake for having
    been wrecked by Satan], and that Jehovah's standards for [perfect] man
    are just.
    
>    How is a JW saved?
    
    	Be more specific.  Do you mean on what basis (like faith in Jesus),
    or by what [miraculous] means, such as protection through Armageddon,
    or even protection from death altogether [or restoration from death via
    the resurrection]?
    
>    I'm no expert on Hebrew culture by any means, but there is a definite
>    triune nature in relation to God and the Messiah.  Look at the elements
>    of the Passover ceremony/meal.  What do you think the Unity represents?
    
    	To be honest, I have no idea what you mean, here.
    
>    Why are the Creation and Redemption candles extinguished when the
>    Messianic candle is lit?  Why is the Messianic candle extinguished in
>    the wine chalice?  
    
    	Pardon me, but I don't believe the Bible stipulates these elements
    of the Passover ceremony.  They are elements from Jewish tradition. 
    The only traditional element that Jesus gave any significance to was
    the fact that they used wine.  He made no mention of candles.
    
>                       Why does Elohim denote plurality?  
    
    	It's Hebrew idiom for the plural of majesty.  The Hebrew verbs are
    singular.
    
>                                                          There are
>    hundreds of OT Messianic pictures pointing to triunity with God.  
    
    	... in your vivid imagination?  ;-)
    
>                                                                      As I
>    have time, I'll even start posting some since that's what we're study
>    on Wednesday nights now.
    
    	Please do.  (Though how about one or two at a time.)
    
>    Some characteristics of the Messiah:
>    
>    Son of God - Psalms 2:7, I Chronicles 17:11-14, II Samuel 7:12-16
    
    	Agreed.  In all of these instances, he's distinct from God
    (Jehovah).
    
>    His Pre-Existence - Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6-7,41:4, Psalms 102:25, 
>                        Proverbs 8:22-23       
    
    	Agreed.  Interestingly, Micah says of him:
    
    		"from you will come a king for me over Israel,
    		one whose ORIGINS are far back in the past,
    		in ancient times."  (5:2 REB)
    
    The Messiah had a beginning, and "origin", though "far back in the
    past, in ancient times."  The Bible doesn't speak of Jehovah himself as
    having an origin.
    
    	What's particularly Messianic about Isaiah 41:4?
    
    	Ps 102:25 was applied to Jesus in Hebrews; but this just helps us
    appreciate he was God's chief agent of creation.  It doesn't prove that
    he is God.  As Micah says, Jesus still had an "origin".
    
    	I agree that Prov 8:22 applies to Jesus, but I notice that it says:
    
    		"The LORD created me the first of his works
    		long ago, before all else was made."  (REB)
    
    Obviously Jesus had a pre-existance if he was the first "work" Jehovah
    created.
    
    	When the trinitarian crisis blew up in the 4th century,
    anti-trinitarians (called Arians) beat the trinitarians over the head
    with this scripture.  Eusebius quoted it as well [before the trinity
    crisis came to a head], and applied it to Jesus and his origin.
    
>    He will be God, the Eternal Father - Isaiah 9:6     
    
    	Trinitarians make a distinction between the Son and the Father.  In
    the trinity creed, Jesus is "God the Son," not "God the Father."  Even
    trinitarians considered the notion that Jesus "the Son" was also "the
    Father" to be heretical.  Jesus' being "Eternal Father" does not have
    the same meaning that the Fatherhood of Jehovah God does.
    
    	In Judaism, "Fatherhood" meant many things.  The Jews considered
    Abraham to be "their Father".  Paul said Abraham was also the 'father
    of those having faith'.  Jesus said that Satan was the "father" of
    those who persecuted him.  By granting life to mankind on the basis of
    his ransom, through his High Priesthood, Jesus becomes the "father" of
    the human race for eternity [thus replacing unfaithful Adam].
    
>    He Shall Be Called Lord - Psalms 110:1, Jeremiah 23:6
    
    	True; but "Lord" is a proper title for many lesser authorities than
    God.  Psalm 110:1 contains God's name (which is not translated in most
    translations), and thus more properly reads:
    
    			"Jehovah said to my Lord ..."
    
    Jesus, as Messianic Lord, is distinct from Jehovah God.
    
    	Jeremiah 23:6 also contains God's name (and not the word "Lord") in
    the original text.  Thus it should read:
    
    		"This will be the name given to him: [Jehovah]
    		our righteousness."  (REB -- "Jehovah" in place
    		of the REB's "LORD", which stands for Jehovah,
    		or YHWH in the Heb. text)
    
    This was a wordplay on the name of the last, wicked Davidic king,
    Zedekiah, whose name meant "righteousness of Jehovah".  Zedekiah was
    NOT righteous.  This prophecy, predicting a future "branch ... from
    David's line" (Jer 23:5 REB), indicated that he WOULD excersize his
    reign with godly righteousness, unlike Zedekiah.
    
>    Shall Be Immanuel (which literally means God With Us) - Isaiah 7:14
    
    	There was a real child (of Isaiah) named this, and he wasn't God. 
    His birth was a sign that God attention was favorably turned to Israel.
    
>    He is Lord, God, the Creator, the First & Last - Isaiah 44:6-8, 
>                  Isaiah 48:12-13,16, Isaiah 46:9, Isaiah 43:10-11.
    
    	Jesus is NOT Jehovah God.
    
    	Haven't we already talked about the "first and last" verses in
    Revelation?  I'm sure I posted a note on it already.
    
>>    The Bible doesn't speak of God AS Christ, or God BEING Christ; it
>>    speaks of God and HIS Christ, "his Christ" being the one He anointed to
>>    hold rightful authority over the earth [remember Gabriel told Mary that
>>    God would give Jesus the throne of David his father].  Christ and God
>>    are separate beings.
>    
>    Not according to Revelation 1:8,17-18; 2:8.
    
    	You're jumping off the point, Mike.  These verses don't literally
    say that "God is Christ".  
    
    	Rev 1:8 clearly talks about "the Lord God," the one who is the "God
    and Father" of Jesus (v.6,5).
    
    	1:17-18 and 2:8 are contextually distinct, and refer to Jesus and
    his experience of having died and been resurrected.  These do NOT say
    that Jesus is God.
    
    
    							to be continued.
    							-mark.

    
    Ahem...you may be reminded to keep it under 100 lines by a moderator
    very soon...
    
    And I think it's so cute how you both use the "You don't have a CLUE
    as to what I'm talking about." verse at each other.  (;^)
    
    Carry on.
    
    Cindy

re Note 907.133 by TNPUBS::PAINTER:

>     Ahem...you may be reminded to keep it under 100 lines by a moderator
>     very soon...
  
        Perhaps there is no need -- you did it so succinctly, Cindy!

          
>     And I think it's so cute how you both use the "You don't have a CLUE
>     as to what I'm talking about." verse at each other.  (;^)
  
        I think the point being well made in the above debate is that
        our "knowledge" of the exact nature of Jesus is based upon
        human speculation;  although Scripture gives a lot of
        information about the importance and role of Jesus, we human
        beings want to go further and state precisely who Jesus is.

        Our knowledge of God, even with Scripture, is as when one
        looks through a dark glass.

        Bob

      Hi Mike,
    
        I don't believe that Lucifer was an archangel and I don't
        think scripture bears that out either.
    
        He was a covering cherub though.
    
        God Himself is a messenger and He is _chief_ or 'arche' of all
        messengers.
    
                                                   Tony

    re .133 (TNPUBS::PAINTER)
    
>    Ahem...you may be reminded to keep it under 100 lines by a moderator
>    very soon...
    
    Yow ... you're right.  That last one really got away.  [But, I do use a
    lot of white-space, which at least makes it easier to read ... though I
    know this isn't a good excuse.]
    
>    And I think it's so cute how you both use the "You don't have a CLUE
>    as to what I'm talking about." verse at each other.  (;^)
    
    Which verse was that?
    
    								-mark.

    
 Just a little correction... 

>>  I agree that Prov 8:22 applies to Jesus, but I notice that it says:
    
>>    		"The LORD created me the first of his works
>>   		long ago, before all else was made."  (REB)

	 NIV 	"The Lord brought me forth as the first
		 of his works, before his deeds of old"

   I believe, that Proverbs chapter 8 is dealing with WISDOM, (as "SHE")

   PRO 8:3	besides the gates leading into the city, at the
		entrances, SHE cries aloud:...

        :12     I WISDOM dwell together with prudence; I possess
		knowledge and discretion...  

   PRO 9:1	Wisdom has built her house;....

 Oleg

    

    re .137 (MARLIN::KLIMOWICZ)/Oleg
    
> Just a little correction... 
>
>>>  I agree that Prov 8:22 applies to Jesus, but I notice that it says:
>    
>>>    		"The LORD created me the first of his works
>>>   		long ago, before all else was made."  (REB)
>
>	 NIV 	"The Lord brought me forth as the first
>		 of his works, before his deeds of old"
    
    	Thanks for the alternate rendering, but it pretty much says the
    same thing.
    
    	Although many of you folks seem to be loath to accept quotes from
    The Living Bible, here's what it says (just because I have it handy):
    
    		"The Lord formed me in the beginning before
    		he created anything else."
    
    There are one or two translations [that I have seen] that attempt to
    completely translate out of this verse the notion that the "wisdom"
    spoken of here was actually created, or brought forth, by God as the
    first of his works.  One translation I remember reading says "the Lord
    POSSESSED me ..." -- but this isn't what the Hebrew says.  It says
    wisdom was "produced" or "created".
    
>   I believe, that Proverbs chapter 8 is dealing with WISDOM, (as "SHE")
>
>   PRO 8:3	besides the gates leading into the city, at the
>		entrances, SHE cries aloud:...
>
>        :12     I WISDOM dwell together with prudence; I possess
>		knowledge and discretion...  
>
>   PRO 9:1	Wisdom has built her house;....
    
    	Yes, this is true; but it was Mike, and not I, who brought up this
    scripture as applying to Jesus in his pre-existant life.  Since he
    believes in the trinity, you might want to ask him why he thinks this
    verse applies to Jesus.
    
    	Just for the record, however [which I mentioned before], the early,
    post-Biblical "church Fathers" ALSO believed that this passage applied
    to Jesus.  They used it to prove that Jesus was the firstborn Son of
    God, the first being God created.
    
    
    								-mark.

      Hi,
    
        I know I'm not getting a whole lot of attention, but I still
        find it significant that it is Christ's word which seems to
        accomplish everything.  It is Christ who gave the ten comman-
        dments.  It is Christ who created.  It is His voice which
        resurrects.
    
        One other thing...my wife became a Christian (AMEN!) about two
        months ago.  She has definitely had a born-again experience.
        For example, her main reply was that for the first time she 
        realized that God really loves her.  And she's been talking about
        maybe wanting to homeschool and needing to stay home from school.
        Her whole 'orientation' has changed; I mean the way she thinks 
        about things.  She is born-again!
    
        Here's the kicker.  She has not had much of any formal background.
        She is presently convinced that she is not to be taught ANYTHING
        (even though I showed her Ephesians!).  She believes that Jesus 
        will show it straight to her if she has enough faith.
    
        Last Friday, we talked about 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.'  She
        does not believe the Holy Spirit is a 'separate entity', but rather
        is the Spirit of God.  I asked her if she thinks Jesus is God and
        her first reply was, "He's the SON of God."
    
        My point is this.  How important is a belief if (per chance) it
        did not come from the Bible in the first place by faith?  How many
        of us believe a certain thing because 'tradition' or 'mommy and
        daddy' said so and not by faith in the word?
    
        By the way...I try not to tell my wife anything.  She's not an 
        Adventist...she doesn't go to church with me.
    
        I'm really not concerned about my wife.  She is honestly and
        sincerely reading straight from the word.  I very much like that
        she isn't believing something because it was hammered down to her
        from forces that are other than a personal walk with Jesus Christ
        and His word.
    
                                                     Tony
                          

Note 907.139

>        My point is this.  How important is a belief if (per chance) it
>        did not come from the Bible in the first place by faith?  How many
>        of us believe a certain thing because 'tradition' or 'mommy and
>        daddy' said so and not by faith in the word?

Tony,

	These are questions I've pondered a great deal about.  The answers
for me are still largely forthcoming.

	I do think that attachments to certain beliefs based on what our
parents or others we hold as unquestionable have told us, or what we thought
they told us, are stronger than we would perhaps like to admit.

Shalom,
Richard

    Re: .139 & .140
    
    Wow, and Yes!  Tony, I think that your wife is on the right track. 
    There is no doubt in my mind that God will lead her and speak to her as
    she reads the Scriptures and allows the Holy Spirit to speak to her. 
    The God of the Bible is big enough to do this.  I can tell you one
    thing though - this will make a lot of Christians very very nervous. 
    What if she doesn't agree with what they think and have been taught? 
    What if she comes to different conclusions?  What if she ignores many
    of the man made traditions that the Church has incorporated and
    delivered us?  I have said this before, but many Chrisitans have
    forgotten that God can speak directly to other Christians without going
    through "them".  She is seeking God and God will indeed speak to her. 
    I admire her courage and faith.  
    
    I was at the opposite end of the spectrum when I accepted Jesus as my
    Saviour.  I wanted and needed acceptance of other Chrisitans and
    willingly listened to those around me and did what they said.  I was
    only a young teenager then.  They told me what I should do and how I
    should think.  They told me what was right and wrong.  My conservative
    Baptist church family were leading me all the way.  I am still
    conservative and Baptist but in the past few years I have come to
    realize that not everything they told me was accurate.  I now question
    everything and try to scrape away everything I have been told by those
    traditions and go back to the Scriptures and ask the Holy Spirit to
    show me what is real.  Sometimes I don't come to the same conclusion as
    my Baptist siblings.  They don't like this.  I'm supposed to just
    accept everything they say - and if I don't then I'm thought to be less
    of a Chrisitan than they are - and out come the tools of condescendtion
    and guilt that keep us conservatives in our rightful place.  Those
    tools are getting very rusty now and it make them nervous that I
    sometimes ignore them and disagree with anything I do not feel is based
    in Scripture and what God is telling me instead of their "accepted
    traditions."  This walk is not easy.  Only other conservative
    Chrisitans can fully comprehend the inner feelings of what happens when
    these weapons of condescendtion are used against us.  It is sometimes a
    lonely human road to walk following God instead of seeking the approval
    of our own dear Christian family.  
    
    I have met other conservative Christians who DO understand and that is
    what makes life more worthwhile.  All I can say is: do not be afraid
    for your wife.  She is seeking God and He will most certainly meet that
    need in her life.  
    
    The beautiful thing I see in this file is everyone seeking God and that
    is why they are here.  And God, being who He is, has assured us that He
    will reveal Himself to those who are seeking.  The key is for all of us
    is to KEEP SEEKING.  We are all far from finished.  Even as a
    conservative Christian I will not condemn any of us for not all being
    at the same place in our spiritual walk at the same time.  We are all
    on God's individual timetable for US.  We are all coming from different
    angles.  Sometimes we all have to let go and understand that God will
    speak and change each one of us as He sees fit - and not according to
    OUR timetable or OUR leadings as to what is right and wrong for another
    Chrisitan to do.  
    
    I'm sorry I've rambled so.  I guess I just had some things on my heart. 
    I do want EACH AND EVERY ONE of you in this file to know that I love you
    very much and I'm learning from each and every note you write.  I just
    wish that we could be a little kinder to each other as we all search
    for God's perfect will for our lives.  
    
    Rob

re .139

;       I know I'm not getting a whole lot of attention, but I still
;       find it significant that it is Christ's word which seems to
;       accomplish everything.  It is Christ who gave the ten comman-
;       dments.  It is Christ who created.  It is His voice which
;       resurrects.

Tony, 

I don't think your being intentionally ignored. If I may I would like
to comment on what you wrote above. Firstly, the Christ or Messiah had
yet to come along time after the Ten commandments were given by God
to Moses and the nation of Israel (Compare Matthew 3:16,17 that shows
God anointing his Christ). 

"It is Christ who created", Mark Sornson has pointed out the special
relationship between God and his Son. In that God alone created Jesus,
and then *through* Jesus created all other living things. This is
brought out in Colossians 1:15-18 NWT  which reads:

   "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 
    because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens 
    and upon the earth, the things visble and the things invisible, no matter 
    whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All 
    [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is
    before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made
    to exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the 
    firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all 
    things;" 

Jehovah God our Creator is the Great Architect and Jesus the "master worker"
(compare Proverbs 8:30,31). Notice, this special relationship continues in that
Jesus is called "the firstborn of the dead," Paul tells us in Galations 1:1 
that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. The NWT reads: 

   "Paul and apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus 
    Christ and God the Father, who rasied him up from the dead."
  
Jesus is alone raised from the dead and given everlasting life by his Father.
All others are raised by Jesus himself for he has now the keys of death 
and Hades.

   Revelation 1:17b-18 NWT "'Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, 
   and the living one; and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and 
   ever, and I have the keys of death and Hades."

In context with this verse, Jesus is the "First and the Last" to raised from 
the dead to everlasting life by Jehovah God. All others will be raised when 
the dead listen to his voice (compare John 5:28-30). 

Tony, if you look closely at prophecies about the Messiah or Christ which
means "Anointed one". They talk of God *giving* his Christ the authority
to fulfill his will and purposes (Compare Psalms 2:6-8). If the Christ
is Almighty God then giving him authority would be meaningless? for he
would already have such authority, no?. The resurrected Christ says "All
authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." Matthew 28:18b NWT, 
who gave him that authority?.

Phil. 

      re: .141
    
      Hi Rob,
    
        Boy, if that's rambling...ramble on!!!
    
        Beautiful reply brother.  I have to begin my workday, but had
        to reply with a quickie.
    
        And thank you Richard.
    
        Phil, thanks for your reply.  No time now!
    
        May God bless you all...
    
                                                       Tony

    RE: 141
    
    Rob, 
    
    Thank you, that was inspiring.
    
    It is helpful for me to know that even Christians within the church and 
    within the conservative wing of the church suffer from the
    condescending attitute of other Christians.
    
    I do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God but I deeply
    believe that God will lead me to all the truth I need.  I watch
    spiritual people in there journey here and recognize that God does lead
    each of us differently.  I don't understand it all.  I feel lonely at
    times when I take a position which I truly believe is true and others
    condemn that position.
    
    It is good to know that that feeling of loneliness is just part of the
    journey.  When I feel the loneliness of being different I am inspired
    by the image of Jesus in Getsemine preparing for the greatest challenge
    of his life.  Preparing in prayer and quiet solitude outside on a dark
    warm night.  My loneliness goes away in comparision.
    
    Patricia

 It is such a thrill for me to hear testimonies of Born Again experiences.
 I thank you guys for sharing that with the rest of us.

 My wife had that beautiful experience also, about a year ago, and it is a 
 thrill to see how the Holy Spirit is moving in her life. 

 Before her Born Again experience, she went to church just because my 
 children and I went to church. She did not go to communion. She used to 
 get angry with me when she saw me reading the Bible. She felt that I
 was against her, and felt that nobody cared for her. She felt confused 
 about God and did not know what a relationship with Jesus was all about.
 I could go on with the list, but you get the picture. 

 Then, one Sunday evening I convinced her to come to a bible reading.
 We were reading the book of Revelations, (of all books...) and after we 
 read the first few chapters she just began to weep and could not stop,
 and yet felt her inner burdens lifted up, and a great sense of peace
 came over her. We then proceeded in a time of prayer and rejoicing as
 another soul had joined the family of God.

 Later, in a puzzled state of mind, I asked her what triggered her off?..
 and she pointed to REV: 3:19 - 21.  

 Ever since then she's been hungry for the word and for the church,...
 She understands the meaning of communion and she preaches to her friends,
 and knows that she has the assurance of eternal life that Jesus promissed.

 Oleg 
    

    re .129 [continued] (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike

>>    	You have to look at "Messiah" as more than just a mere title, but
>>    instead consider it for what it actually means.  The Messiah, by
>>    definition, cannot BE God, for the anointer and anointee are always two
>>    separate beings, the one anointed being the self-evident inferior of
>>    the one doing the anointing. [...]

>    In this case the annointer and annointee had to be one and the same. 

    	I realize that you believe this, but the truth is that anointers
    and anointees were NEVER the same. 

>    No other being was qualified to pay the price for sin (Romans 6:23) so
>    that man might be saved.  

    	Romans 6:23 tells us that "eternal life" is given by God as a "free
    gift" (to us), since Jesus himself payed the price for that gift.  It's
    also true that no sinful man could ever pay the price.

    	However, the Bible tells us that Jesus was without sin, so
    therefore, he COULD pay the price.  It's that simple.  It doesn't say
    that Jesus was ALSO God.  It only says that he is God's Son.  However,
    again, his being God's perfect Son meant that he COULD pay the price,
    since he was "without sin" (Heb 4:15).  He was the "last Adam" who
    corresponded to the first Adam who sinned.

>                              In Genesis 22, God tests Abraham by having
>    him sacrifice his son.  When Abraham passes the test, and his son is
>    spared, verse 8 tells us that "...God will provide for Himself the
>    *LAMB* for the burnt offering..."  Later in verse 13 God provides a
>    *RAM* for Abraham's offering.  Who is the Lamb?  Jesus Christ is the
>    Lamb of God!  God paid the price for Himself!

    	But Mike, the "Lamb of God" doesn't mean "God the Lamb".  It means
    that God provided a "lamb" that belonged to him, namely his Son. 
    The Bible doesn't say that God IS that Lamb.  To be blunt, you're
    adding a twist to the Bible that isn't there.

>>    	Nope nope nope ... God's name, YHWH, is the causitive form of the
>>    Hebrew verb, to be, and means "He causes to be" (Oxford Annotated RSV
>>    ftn on Ex 3:14).  It means "creator" -- the one who makes things come
>>    to be.  There IS no Hebrew verbal form of "to be" which means "I am". 
>>    Hebrew verbs don't have a first person present tense.
>    
>    Given the Biblical language background of the NWT translating crew,
>    it's too easy to refute this.  

    	You're not paying attention, Mike.  I wasn't quoting the NWT.  I
    was quoting the Revised Standard Version.  A similar footnote is in the
    New Revised Standard Version as well.  These men are VERY reputable
    scholars in Christendom.  You're letting your prejudice against the NWT
    affect how you read my notes.

>                                   Much more knowledgable Hebrew scholars
>    disagree with you and so do I.  

    	Perhaps the opinions of "more knowledgable Hebrew scholars" vary
    more widely (from your view) than you'd care to admit.

    	A good many Bible translations footnote Ex 3:14 with alternate
    renderings, like "I will be what I will be" (RSV, REB), admitting that
    the traditional "I am that I am" translation has alternatives.

    	Furthermore, God's name is NOT "I am", it's Jehovah, or Yahweh. 
    Transliterated YHWH or JHVH, and called the Tetragrammaton, it appears
    in the Hebrew text almost 7000 times, though most English translations
    hide it behind the names "LORD" or "GOD" (usually in all capitals).

    	The original Jewish translators of the Septuagint put God's name,
    untranslated, and untransliterated, in Hebrew characters in the Greek
    text because it was sacred to them.  [Most Christian-produced copies of
    the LXX substitute the Greek word for Lord in place of the
    Tetragrammaton, but manuscripts discovered in the 20th century reveal
    that the original Hebrew scribes preserved God's name without
    translation].  At Exodus 3:14, the rendered the expression about God's
    name as:

    			... _ego eimi ho on_ ...

    which Bagster's translation of the Septuagint renders as "I am THE
    BEING".  At John 8:58, Jesus did not say that he was "the Being" (_ho
    on_).  He merely said that he had existed from before Abraham's time.
    According the Bible translator Richard Lattimore, Jesus said:

    		"I am from before Abraham was born."
    		(_The Four Gospels and the Revelation_, 1979)

    	Additionally, _ego eimi_ (Greek for "I am") was NOT the way Greek
    writers wrote God's name in Greek.  Excerpts from 'church fathers'
    indicate that they used the three letter form IAO, evidently in
    immitation of the Hebrew pronunciation.

    							[to be continued]

    re .129 [continued] (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike


>                                    Of the four members of the NWT
>    translation committee (Frederick Franz, Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and 
>    George Gangas), Frederick Franz was the only one with any exposure to the 
>    biblical languages, having studied Greek for two years at the University 
>    of Cincinnati but being self-taught in Hebrew.  

    	Nice try, Mike, but this is irrelavant.  Since people always say,
    "Oh the Watchtower says that", I've researched this on my own.  I'm
    telling you the truth, Mike.  I haven't quoted you ANYTHING from the
    NWT or the Watchtower in any of my replies.

>                                                    The word used by Jesus 
>    in John 8:58 for "I AM" is the exact same word used in Exodus 3:14 and
>    Revelation 1:18.  It is the actual name of God!

    	Wrong.  As I already said, "I am" is only the FIRST part of the
    whole expression, _ego eimi ho on_; "I am The Being" (according to
    Bagster).  God's name is a Hebrew word that was NEVER translated at all
    by the original Jewish translators of the Septuagint.  Get yourself a
    Hebrew concordance and look up the Hebrew for YHWH.  You'll see it
    appears more times than any other proper noun.  It is NEVER translated
    as "I am", either in Greek or in English.

    	Again, this "I am" nonsense is pure, trinitarian fantasy.
    
>    The Living Bible is someone's paraphrase.  Colossians 1:16-17 clearly
>    says who the Creator was.  Colossians 2:9 says the fullness of the
>    Deity dwells in Jesus Christ.  

    	Every translation is "someone's".  God didn't drop any particular
    English translation from heaven.

    	It's true that the The Living Bible is a paraphrase, but that
    doesn't change the validity of the translation of this verse.  As a
    paraphrase it has simply conveyed the sense of the Greek into more
    idiomatic English.

    	Col 1:3 says "God [is] the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (REB).
    Col 1:15 (just one verse before your citation) says that Jesus is:

    		"the IMAGE of the invisible God; his is
    		the primacy over all creation."  (REB)

    God and Christ are quite distinct in all of Paul's writings.

    	Col 2:9 also does NOT say that Jesus is God.  It's superfluous to
    say the "fullness of deity dwells in [God himself]", for that's
    obvious.  Paul's point, stated earlier was that:

    		"He [Christ] is the head of the body, the
    		church.  He is its origin, the first to 
    		return from the dead, to become in all
    		things supreme.  For in him God in all
    		his fullness chose to dwell..."  (REB)

    that Christ is supreme over God's creation, having been put there by
    God after God resurrected him.  Paul isn't equating him with God, but
    rather, contrasting him with all the other things, "visible" and
    "invisible" (15,16) that exist.  If he were actually God himself, the
    contrast would be unnecessary, for Jesus' being God would be self
    evident.

    	Really Paul is just expanding on his point to the Philipians, that
    Jesus was given "the name above all names" (2:9 REB):
    	
    		"that at the name of Jesus every knee should
    		bow -- in heaven, on earth, and in the depths --
    		and every tongue acclaim that "Jesus Christ is
    		Lord," to the glory of GOD THE FATHER."  (10,11 REB).

    Paul's whole point is to prove that Jesus was elevated to this position
    by God.  If Jesus already were God, none of these explanations would be
    necessary.
    
>>    		"Your father is the devil and you choose
>>    		to carry out your father's desires.  He was
>>    		a murderer from the beginning, and is not
>>    		rooted in the truth; there is no truth in
>>    		him ... for he is a liar and the father of
>>    		lies."  (John 8:44 REB)
>    
>    yeah but why did He say this?  Because the Pharisees were corrupt and
>    spiritually blind.  

    	Right ... so their accusations that Jesus was making himself equal
    to God were corruptions of the truth.
    
>>    Therefore, in light of the above, rather than assuming that those who
>>    were about to stone him had a clear and accurate understanding of who
>>    Jesus was and what he was teaching about himself, it seems wiser to
>>    recognize that they were NOT correct, either in their actions or in
>>    their reasons for those actions.
>    
>    No this is an assumption.  Why would they want to kill someone who was
>    doing good for the people?  They specifically objected to Jesus' claims
>    to being God in John 10:33.

    	Jesus himself explained that they were seeking to kill him because
    they were being influenced by "their father, the devil".  In John 5,
    after telling about one of Jesus' sabbath miracles, John wrote:

    		"It was for doing such things on the sabbath
    		that the Jews began to take action against
    		Jesus.  He defended himself by saying, 'My
    		Father, continues to work, and I must work
    		too.'  This made the Jews all the more determined
    		to kill him, because not only was he breaking
    		the sabbath but, by calling God his own Father,
    		he was claiming equality with God." (v.16-18 REB)

    Jesus didn't actually break any Mosaic rules about the Sabbath. 
    However, the Jews who opposed him didn't bother to analyze the
    difference between Jesus' actions and their traditional notions [which
    were mere human additions].

    	Notice too that it's the claim that "God [was] his own Father" that
    got them all riled up.  Jesus didn't claim that HE was God, but again,
    that God, THEIR God, was his Father.  In their eyes this naturally
    elevated him to a divine position [for sons, in royal households, also
    bore the royal authority of the father], apparant "equality with God";
    but this didn't mean he was claiming to BE God, for the issue wasn't
    WHO Jesus was, but rather, what his rank and authority was.

    	Rank was very important in that society.  Even Jesus own apostles
    argued among themselves about rank, about who was the greatest.  James
    and John even had their mother attempt to get Jesus to assign them the
    highest positions in his kingdom (at his left and right hand).  John's
    gospel indicates that the Jewish authorities feared that if everyone
    followed Jesus, the Romans would come in and take the government away
    from them [ref. John 11:48].

    	If Jesus had claimed to be God, they wouldn't have argued about him
    merely appearing to claim equality with God.  But Jesus didn't even
    make the claim they charged him with.  All he said was the truth that
    God was his Father.  His opposers, under the influence of "their father
    the devil" blew what he said out of proportion.

    								-mark.

    
    Re.136
    
    Mark,
                              
    See the verse toward the bottom of note .129.
    
    I think you repeated it.  
    
    Cindy

    Re: Mark & .147
    
    This verse seems to contradict your claims.
    
    John 10:33  "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee
                 not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, 
                 makest thyself God."

    re .148 (TNPUBS::PAINTER)/Cindy
    
>    See the verse toward the bottom of note .129.
>    
>    I think you repeated it.  
    
    	OK ... I get it [though I wasn't applying it to anyone in this
    conference when I used it; I was only referencing Jesus' own use of it
    with respect to his audience at the moment he said it].
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .149 (FRETZ::HEISER)
    
>    John 10:33  "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee
>                 not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, 
>                 makest thyself God."
    
    	I hate to say "other translation say ...", because it sometimes
    seems like weasling ... but ... other translations (or their footnotes)
    say that this means:
    
    		"... though, being a man, make yourself a god"
    		(NEB; REB ftn; "are deifying yourself," Wuest)
    
    the point being that it's possible to NOT have such a "trinity heavy"
    view of what the accusation was.  (Both words for "man" and "god" lack
    the Greek definite article; thus they can both be taken with the same
    weight, that they are both indefinite.)
    
    	However, what I said about the way his accusers constantly
    distorted what he said still holds true, because the whole passage
    shows that Jesus didn't agree that he was "making himself God".  His
    own words about why they were charging him with blasphemy were that he
    had said, "I am God's Son" (v.36 REB) -- so again, Jesus' own words
    prove that HE didn't make the claim they were charging him with.
    
    	In fact (as mentioned before), Jesus' reference to the Psalm 82
    turned their charge against his accusors, because it legitimately
    called human judges "gods" [which would harmonize with the translation
    that Jesus was making himself "a god" for claiming to be God's Son]. 
    Since his accusors played the role of judges, this either would have
    meant the charge against Jesus applied to themselves, or that Jesus was
    guilty of no crime.  
    
    	In his commentary on Johns' gospel (19th century), Wescott comments
    that the title "son of God" is actually a LESSER title than "god" (in
    the sense of theocratic judge).  Therefore, given the application of
    Psalm 82, his accusors had no grounds for accusation against him, given
    that the words of Jesus being used against legally put him well in the
    clear.
    
    	==*==
    
    	If it's not obvious, I think trinitarians make WAY too much hay out
    of John 10:33.  The context of the passage makes it too easy to sort
    things out.
    
    								-mark.

    
    
    	Jesus IS Lord equals God.
    
    	A question for you;
    
    		Who has the power to forgive sins  ?
    
    	peace,
    	
    		Tom
    

      Hi Mark and Phil,
    
        Boy, you guys are getting hit from all different directions!
        (I know how that feels.)
    
        I gotta ask you one thing and it refers to the famous John 1
        scripture "And the word was God" or (as you put it) "and the
        word was a God."
    
        I don't want to get into whether or not the 'a' belongs, I
        just want to ask you about context ASSUMING the 'a' belongs.
    
        Would I be correct in saying that according to your belief,
        there is only one _true_ God - that being the Father?  And
        thus, whenever there is mention of any other 'god', it must
        be in the context of something or someone that is worshipped,
        but that is a false god in the sense of not being the true
        God.  (Like money could be a god in that it is worshipped, but
        obviously a false god.)
    
        Would this be correct?
    
        In what sense do you believe Jesus is 'a' god?  If the above
        is your position, is John letting us know that there are some
        who falsely worship Jesus?  But, if that is so...how in the world
        does the context of John 1 support that this is John's subject
        matter?
    
        To summarize, I am supposing that in John 1, were Jesus to be 
        considered 'a' god and not THE God, He must be a false God as
        there is only one true God.  Thus John must be referring to
        people falsely worshipping Jesus.  But, such a context seems to
        be completely lacking.  And thus, how can Jesus be 'a' god???
    
        I hope I am making myself clear!
    
    
        On Westscott...I entered something on translations in the Christian
        Conference recently.  Here is a quote from a newsletter I have...
    
        'The scholars Westscott and Hort, after whose critical text the
        NIV follows, engaged in spiritualism and organized a society called
        the "Ghostly Guild."  Westscott was drawn to beer and "became a
        spokesman for a brewery."'
    
        Just to let you know, the above is something I find strongly
        supportive of the posture that here are a couple guys who lacked
        a whole lot of discernment.  In other words, anything Westscott
        might have said ain't gonna do me a lot of good!
    
        Anyway, I appreciate that you guys are getting asked a lot of
        questions, so...
    
        Take your time and God bless.
    
                                                       Tony
                               

re .153

Tony,

John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, as some translations put 
it he was "divine,", "godlike," or "a god". There are many "godlike"
ones in the heavens the angels (Psalms 8:5), who like Jesus continue 
to be subordinate to their Father Almighty God. Personally, I would not 
term the angels as being false gods for they have their authority and
station from Jehovah God.

Idolatry is something else, it is the one who is making the act of worship
who is to blame and not neccessarily the object as we see in Revelation 22:8,9.
The Word is God's chief spokesman and we should respect the authority
God has given him (Matthew 28:18) but not worship him (Matthew 4:10).

Jesus in his prayer identified his Father as the Only True God and himself
separately as the one sent forth (subordinate John 17:3). After his
resurrection, when speaking to Mary Magadalene he referred to the Father as
"your God and my God" again showing himself subordinate. 

The Bible only refers to the Father or Jehovah as Almighty God, he alone
should be worshipped (Revelation 4:11).

Hope this helps, maybe Mark may expand further.

Phil.

    re .153 (STRATA::BARBIERI)/Tony
    
>        I gotta ask you one thing and it refers to the famous John 1
>        scripture "And the word was God" or (as you put it) "and the
>        word was a God."
>    
>        I don't want to get into whether or not the 'a' belongs, I
>        just want to ask you about context ASSUMING the 'a' belongs.
    
    	Just to expand on Phil's remarks ... as he mentioned, some
    translators signify the difficulty in literally translating the _theos_
    as either "God" or "a god" by translating it as "the word was divine"
    (Goodspeed, Moffatt), to convey the meaning at the expense of being
    literal.  The NWT chose to be more literal, rendering _theos_ as "god"
    -- and thus put in the "a" because it's about as close one can get
    without OVER-translating it to mean the Word was "God" (ho theos).
    
    	I don't think it's quite right to argue whether it "belongs" there
    or not, as though some rigid grammatical rule REQUIRES it to be there.
    Rather, it should simply be recognized as a valid translators choice;
    as an attempt to get as close as possible to the sense of the Greek
    while being as literal as possible.  Sometimes it's NOT possible to
    convey both sense and literal meaning with 100% accuracy.  The NWT has
    simply made a particular judgment call.  Other translators make
    different judgment calls.
    
>        Would I be correct in saying that according to your belief,
>        there is only one _true_ God - that being the Father?  And
>        thus, whenever there is mention of any other 'god', it must
>        be in the context of something or someone that is worshipped,
>        but that is a false god in the sense of not being the true
>        God.  (Like money could be a god in that it is worshipped, but
>        obviously a false god.)
>    
>        Would this be correct?
    
    	Yes.  Jesus himself said his Father was "the only true God" (John
    17:3 REB).
    
    	The expression "true <something>" does not always mean that
    anything else is a "false <something>".  For example, Jesus spoke of
    the "true bread from heaven" as being himself (John 6:32ff REB) -- this
    being in contast to the literal "bread," or manna, that was given
    through Moses.  However, even though Jesus is the "true bread", the
    manna was not "false bread," for that WAS real bread, and it was given
    by God.
    
    	Similarly, it's also possible for us to recognize the Father as
    "the only true God" but yet also recognize other valid applications
    of the word "god", not just in reference to false gods, but to others
    with rightful places in Jehovah's universal, theocratic order.
    
>        In what sense do you believe Jesus is 'a' god?  If the above
>        is your position, is John letting us know that there are some
>        who falsely worship Jesus?  But, if that is so...how in the world
>        does the context of John 1 support that this is John's subject
>        matter?
    
    	Since Jesus' pre-existence is a tenet that runs throughout John's
    gospel, the simplest explanation is that John simply applied the word
    _theos_ to "the Word" in the fashion that would easily have been
    understood back then.  As a heavenly being, having existed with the
    Father (_ho theos_) afore time -- in contrast with his life on earth as
    a man, or human (being man) -- Jesus was a god, or divine (being, to
    the Greek mind, god, _theos_).
    
    	In Greek and Roman thought, great human leaders (like the Caesars)
    didn't become deities until after their death.   Their religions also
    taught that the gods sometimes came down from heaven and took human
    form.  Christianity, naturally, recognized these elevations and
    appearances as imaginary (except, perhaps, for the Jewish accounts of
    the pre-Flood angels taking human form).  However, it DID teach that
    one individual, God's Son, Jesus, came down from heaven, became a man,
    died, and returned to heaven.  While in heaven he was "a god," for,
    quite naturally, "gods" lived in heaven.  While he was on earth, he was
    a man.
    
    	I wouldn't say that John was particularly addressing a problem with
    "false worship of Jesus."  However, Matthew's account records Jesus'
    words towards those who would claim to be his followers -- and I
    suppose you could say "worshippers" -- for they would say "Lord, Lord
    ..." to him, whom Jesus would reject.
    
    	Perhaps John WAS addressing a problem current at the time, however.
    Evidently he wrote his gospel at the close of the first century (90
    something).  Gnosticism, which (as I understand it) twisted the truth
    about Jesus' origin and his becoming human, was gaining ground. 
    Therefore, John may have been inspired to put Jesus' true origin and
    nature down in writing to serve as a touch-stone against which to judge
    (and refute) the various false doctrines about Christ that were
    beginning to creep in (now that Christianity was making more headway in
    the pagan world than in the Jewish world).
    
    	Additionally (though I could be wrong on this) I think that also
    around that time the Roman Caesar was requiring people to adress him
    with the titles "Lord" and "God" while he was still on earth. 
    Therefore, John's gospel served to reinforce the truth that Christians
    looked only to Jesus as their "Lord", as the representative of the
    "only true God", and that ONLY Jesus (having once been a man) deserved
    recognition as a divine being.
    
>        To summarize, I am supposing that in John 1, were Jesus to be 
>        considered 'a' god and not THE God, He must be a false God as
>        there is only one true God.  Thus John must be referring to
>        people falsely worshipping Jesus.  But, such a context seems to
>        be completely lacking.  And thus, how can Jesus be 'a' god???
    
    	To paraphrase a couple of religious history books I have at home,
    early Christian thought wasn't as paralyzed and restricted by the later
    definitions of "monotheism" that are now held by the "orthodox". 
    Writers like Justin Martyr felt free to refer to Jesus as "a second
    god."  The reason was that they thought more about God and Christ for
    who they were [Jehovah and Jesus], and what their relationship was
    (Father and Son), rather than WHAT they were (what their
    nature/essense/substance was).
    
    	In first-century Christian thought, the word _theos_ applied to
    Jesus in his heavenly form as readily as we would apply the word "man"
    to ourselves, and "animal" to the beasts of the earth.  It was only
    after Christianity began to get mixed up by pagan philosophy that
    'logical problems' with Jesus being _theos_ arose.
    
    	Thus to analyze the matter only from the viewpoint of whether Jesus
    is a true god or false god [judging it from the modern dogmatic rules
    about the trinity] superimposes a view on the matter that was NOT an
    issue when John wrote his gospel.
    
    
    								-mark.

    Mark, one thing that is confusing too is Jesus accepted man's worship
    as Lord and God.  Thomas, after placing his finger in the scars on
    Jesus' hand, said, "My Lord and My God!"  Based on your view, this
    would not only be blasphemous, but sacreligious.
    
    Re: weaseling
    
    I don't mean to either, but I'm not 100% certain that God will have me
    survive the next wave of corporate cuts.  My time in here will be short
    unless God's Will is for me to stay.  Kind of ironic since I just
    started participating too...
    
    Mike

 It seems to me that we are starting to go around in circles with 
the same arguments.  From these discussions it is obvious to me that
we are talking about different Jesuses, and the acceptance and 
rejection of the trinity, plus a lot of other differences.

 I hope that those of you who are not well grounded in the scriptures,
that you do not get discouraged or confused by all this, but that
you learn the importance of checking out the scriptures for yourselves
as the Bereans did in Acts 17 to see if the the great apostle Paul
was telling them the truth.

 On the other hand, there are some other interesting scripture passages
that tell us that we can be missing the point of God's message.

 JHN 5:37	And the Father who sent me has himself testified 
		concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor
		seen his form,
      :38	nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not 
		believe the one he sent.
      :39	YOU DILIGENTLY STUDY THE SCRIPTURES because you
		think that by them you possess eternal life.
		These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
		yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

 There are also warnings about distorting the scriptures...

 2 PET 3:16	(About Paul's writings) ...His letters contain some
		things that are hard to understand, which ignorant
		and unstable people distort, as they do the other
		scriptures, to their own destruction.

 Another passage, tells us that we are directly accountable to Jesus. 

 MAT 28:16 	Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the
		mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
	17	When they saw him, they WORSHIPED HIM; but some
		doubted.
	18	Then Jesus came to them and said,"ALL AUTHORITY IN
		HEAVEN AND ON EARTH HAS BEEN GIVEN ME..
	19	Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
		them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of
		the HOLY SPIRIT, and teaching them everything I HAVE
		COMMANDED YOU.

 Let's not ignore the authority of Jesus, for if we do, we are ignoring God!

 Oleg
    

    re .156 (FRETZ::HEISER)/Mike
    
>    Mark, one thing that is confusing too is Jesus accepted man's worship
>    as Lord and God.  Thomas, after placing his finger in the scars on
>    Jesus' hand, said, "My Lord and My God!"  Based on your view, this
>    would not only be blasphemous, but sacreligious.
    
    	Although I may be repeating myself, I believe the confusion is
    easily cleared up when one comes to understand the broad meaning of the
    Greek word used for worship, _proskyneo_, in reference to Jesus.
    
    	According the _The New International Dictionary of New Testament
    Theology_, 
    
    		"The basic meaning of _proskyneo_, in the 
    		opinion of most scholars, is to kiss. ... 
    		Among the Greeks the verb is a technical term
    		for the adoration of the gods, meaning to fall 
    		down, prostrate oneself, adore on one's knees.  
    		Probably it came to have this meaning because in
    		order to kiss the earth (i.e. the earth diety) 
    		or the image of a god, one had to cast oneself
    		on the ground. ... In addition to the external
    		act of prostrating oneself in worship, _proskyneo_
    		can denote the corresponding inward attitude
    		of reverence and humility."  (Vol II, pp. 875-6)
    
    At the outset of the article, it gives a thumbnail definition of the 
    word as "worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself, do reverence to."
    
    	This work goes on to show how it's used in the Septuagint (LXX) to
    translate:
    
    		"the Heb. _sahah_ ..., meaning to bow down,
    		and is used both of bowing down before
    		men and of worship [to God -- examples omitted]."
    
    Of its NT use (particularly with respect to Jesus) it says:
    
    		"The OT sense is taken up and further
    		developed, except that now it denotes
    		exclusively worship addressed (or which
    		should be addressed) to God or to Jesus
    		Christ (even in Matt. 18:26 the king
    		is a symbolic figure for God).  In Acts
    		10:25f.; Rev.19:10; 22:8f. it is expressly
    		stated that worship is to be offered to
    		God alone, not to an apostle (even such
    		a prominent apostle as Peter!), or to an
    		angelic being.  Hence, whenever obeisance
    		is made before Jesus, the thought is
    		either explicit or implicit that he is
    		king (Matt. 2:2), Lord (Matt.8:12), the
    		Son of God (Matt.14:33), One who can act
    		with divine omnipotence (e.g. Matt 14:33
    		Mk.5:6; 15:19). ... In Jn.9:38 obeisance
    		is nothing less than the outward reflex
    		action of faith: to believe means to
    		adore Jesus, to recognize him as Lord,
    		to render him homage as king.  Thus
    		obeisance is especially appropriate before
    		the risen and exalted Lord (Matt.28:9,17;
    		Lk.24:52)."  (Vol II, p.877)
    
    I noticed (and I presume you will to) that this DOESN'T say that Jesus
    was shown _proskyneo_, worshipped, because he was God.  Rather, it is
    because he was recognized as God's chosen (and elevated) king.
    
    	Interestingly, the messianic Psalm 2 declares the need for men to
    "kiss the son," in homage, as the way to show fear of Jehovah.  [Note
    that I'm going out of my way NOT to use the NWT, here].  According to
    The Living Bible, it says:
    
    		"O kings and rulers of the earth, listen
    		while there is time.  Serve the Lord [YHWH]
    		with reverent fear; rejoice with trembling.
    		Fall down before his Son and kiss is feet [*]
    		before his anger is roused and you perish."
    		(v.10-12a; [*] ftn. 'his feet' is "implied")
    
    In the Revised English Bible this reads:
    
    		"... worship the LORD [YHWH] with reverence;
    		tremble, and pay glad homage to the king [*],
    		for fear the LORD may become angry and you 
    		may be struck down in mid-course" (v.11,12;
    		[*] ftn. "Heb. and rejoice with trembling;
    		kiss the son")
    
    We see that it's by God's decree that men "kiss the son" as a way to
    "pay homage to the king", that is, Jehovah's Messianic King, his Son.
    Jehovah and his Son are distinct; but we are commanded to show him
    honor, "kiss him", which is the root meaning of the Greek word for
    worship, because he has been made king by Jehovah.
    
    	John didn't explain exactly what Thomas meant when he exclaimed "my
    Lord and my God" -- and scholars admit that this can be taken more than
    one way, possibly as a general exclamation -- but John himself shortly
    thereafter stated that the purpose of his gospel was to help his
    readers "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31
    REB).  If he meant for us to believe that Jesus was actually God (and
    not just the Son of God), this would have been the best place for him
    to say so.
    
>                 -< don't expect too much more participation >-
>
>    Re: weaseling
>    
>    I don't mean to either, but I'm not 100% certain that God will have me
>    survive the next wave of corporate cuts.  My time in here will be short
>    unless God's Will is for me to stay.  Kind of ironic since I just
>    started participating too...
    
    	I know how you feel.  I hope you survive.  Sorry we didn't get to
    know each other sooner.
    
    								-mark.

      Hi Mark and Phil,
    
        I very much appreciate your replies to me.
    
        Because part of the context of John 1 (right after the first 
        verse) is the allusion to that which qualifies one as being
        God (as in God Himself), i.e. Creator, I do give context some
        weight in support of Jesus being God.
    
        That is pretty big for me.  Having the word be called 'theos'
        and right after that, designating this 'theos' as He who created
        _everything_.
    
        I'm not sure I'm trinitarian and to be honest, based on how
        entrenched it is with tradition, I am skeptical.  I happen to
        believe that the Father begat the Son...that He made it so that
        some of His own essence proceeded from Him to form the only
        begotten Son of God.
    
        This three in one stuff though...I don't know.  They appear 
        utterly distinct to me.   And there isn't that much on the Holy
        Spirit.  I never heard 'Him' talk to anyone in the scriptures.
        I don't know.  I don't 'feel' right praying to the Holy Spirit.
        (There I go...now I've really had it with the 'Christian center'!
        Oh well...)
    
        Anyway, thanks much you guys for your labor in sharing the word
        of God as you presently understand it.
    
                                                   Tony
                   

    Hi Tony
    
    There are many references in the scriptures about the Holy Spirit,
    and the Holy Spirit does speak, as I indicate in the passages below.
    
>        This three in one stuff though...I don't know.  They appear 
>       utterly distinct to me.   And there isn't that much on the Holy
>>>     Spirit.  I never heard 'Him' talk to anyone in the scriptures.
>       I don't know.  I don't 'feel' right praying to the Holy Spirit.
>       (There I go...now I've really had it with the 'Christian center'!
>       Oh well...)
    

The HOLY SPIRIT does speak...

   HEB 10:15   - The Holy Spirit testifies to us about this, First he
	         says: 16: "This is the covenant I will make with them
	         after that time, says the Lord"... 

   JHN 15:26   - When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you 
	         from the father, the Spirit of truth who goes out
		 from the Father, HE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT ME.

       9:31    - Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and 
		 Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengh-
		 tened; and encouraged by the HOLY SPIRIT, it 
		 grew in numbers...

   ACT 13:2    - While they were WORSHIPPING THE LORD and fasting,
		 the HOLY SPIRIT SAID, "Set apart for me Barnabas
		 and Saul for the work to which I have called them"      
    
     God Bless,
     Oleg

re Note 907.157 by PHAROS::KLIMOWICZ:

>  It seems to me that we are starting to go around in circles with 
> the same arguments.  From these discussions it is obvious to me that
> we are talking about different Jesuses, and the acceptance and 
> rejection of the trinity, plus a lot of other differences.
  
        We are talking different descriptions or explanations of
        Jesus, not different "Jesuses."

        If you were to describe me, based upon your contact with my
        writing in this conference, and my boss were to describe me,
        based upon my work, and my wife were to describe me, based
        upon her living 19 years with me, you would get three very
        different descriptions of Bob Fleischer.

        They would NOT, however, be different "Bob Fleischers".

        Bob

    re .153 [continued] (STRATA::BARBIERI)/Tony
    
>        On Westscott...I entered something on translations in the Christian
>        Conference recently.  Here is a quote from a newsletter I have...
>    
>        'The scholars Westscott and Hort, after whose critical text the
>        NIV follows, engaged in spiritualism and organized a society called
>        the "Ghostly Guild."  Westscott was drawn to beer and "became a
>        spokesman for a brewery."'
    
    	Well ... this sort of argument cuts both ways because Wescott
    happened to be an ORTHODOX theologian who did, by and large, believe in
    the trinity.  I might argue that anything he ever said IN FAVOR of the
    trinity is also suspect (though I realize that you haven't quoted him).
    
    	Not that I approve of Wescott's 'lifestyle choices', but what you
    say doesn't disprove the validity of the comment I borrowed from him. 
    (It's what's called an "ad hominem" attack -- attacking the person and
    not the statement).
    
    	If you're going to run a "morals check" on the scholars you
    disagree with, are you going to run "morals checks" on the ones you
    agree with, too?  How far back in time should we go to do this, even?
    Back to Nicea, or before?
    
>        Just to let you know, the above is something I find strongly
>        supportive of the posture that here are a couple guys who lacked
>        a whole lot of discernment.  In other words, anything Westscott
>        might have said ain't gonna do me a lot of good!
    
    	Given that the parties that fought when the trinity doctrine was
    first defined regularly battled each other in the flesh (using the arms
    of the state to do their dirty work), you might just say the whole
    theological framework of the trinity [and all its related notions] is
    also suspect.  (Of course, it seems that you've got these suspicions
    already.)
    
    	I rather doubt that you'll find very many 'perfect saints' among
    the whole lot of "acceptable scholars".  It's just that people with a
    bone of contention to pic tend to dig out the dirty laundry of just
    those whom they oppose.  
    
    	Hmmm ... it's rather like politics, wouldn't you say?
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .159 (STRATA::BARBIERI)/Tony
    
>                         -< Thanks Much Mark and Phil >-
>
>        I very much appreciate your replies to me.
    
    	You're welcome.
    
>        Because part of the context of John 1 (right after the first 
>        verse) is the allusion to that which qualifies one as being
>        God (as in God Himself), i.e. Creator, I do give context some
>        weight in support of Jesus being God.
    
    	What you say here seems to contradict what you go on to say, about
    your feeling the Father and Son are quite distinct.  If so, how do you
    square this against the notion of "Jesus being God"?
    
    	To address the context directly, however, about his involvement in
    creation, John wrote:
    
    			"THROUGH him all things came to be" (1:3 REB)
    
    Jesus was God's chief agent of creation.  God created all things
    through him.  (That's the point of Proverbs 8:22ff.)
    
    	Note, however, that Jesus being the one "through whom ALL things"
    were created doesn't necessarily exclude Jesus from having been created
    (or "begotten") first.  The Bible says of Eve that Adam gave her that
    name because "she was the mother of all living beings" (Gen 3:20 REB);
    but obviously, she was NOT the mother of herself or Adam, both of whom
    were also "living beings," having been created first by God (through
    Christ) in special acts of creation.
    
    	John clearly distinguished Jesus from God, however, saying he was
    "sent by God" (1:6 REB).  If he WAS God, he couldn't have been sent by
    him, for if one is "sent", the sender is obviously distinct.  And as we
    see, Jesus wasn't just sent by the Father, he was sent "by God".   This
    plain difference is expressed throughout John's gospel.
    
    								-mark.

Note 907.152

>Who has the power to forgive sins  ?

God and those to whom God has given the authority, I imagine.

Shalom,
Richard

    re .152 (VERVAN::FYFE)/Tom
    
>    	Jesus IS Lord equals God.
    
    No it doesn't.  "Lordship" is simply a position of authority.  Jehovah
    God is the Ultimate authority in the universe, and thus is Lord in an
    absolute sense.   Jesus is the Lord over the earth, having been given
    the "throne of David his father".  But Jesus is in subjection to his
    Father.  His Father is also "his God".
    
>    	A question for you;
>    
>    		Who has the power to forgive sins  ?
    
    To follow up on Jim's reply ...
    
    	After his resurrection, Jesus said to his apostles:
    
    		"If you forgive anyone's sins, they are
    		forgiven; if you pronounce them unforgiven,
    		unforgiven they remain."  (John 20:23 REB)
    
    Obviously they were given "power to forgive sins."  Did that make them
    God, or equal to God?  If they didn't have to be God in order to
    forgive sins, then neither did Jesus.  They DID have to authorized by
    God to do so, but the same can be truthfully said about Christ.
    
    								-mark.

>They DID have to be authorized by God to do so...

And God (Jesus) authorized them.

But what he authorized them to do was not forgive, but to remit and retain --
to absolutely declare whether a person is truly penitent or not and thus
whether God forgives or not -- for only God actually does the forgiving, and
God forgives the sins of all who are penitent.

/john

      re: .162
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        Boy, I didn't mean to upset you!  The whole basis of my reasoning
        regarding Westscott is that "ye shall know them by their fruit"
        and so I wouldn't consider him a 'giant' in terms of discernment
        simply because of what little I've read about him.
    
        That's all.  Nothing more, nothing less.
    
      Hi Oleg,
    
        Thanks for the inputs.  I should have known better!  I presently do
        not fathom the 'Personhood' of the Holy Spirit.  I really don't.
        I'm just being honest.  But, I will repeat that for awhile I used
        to pray _to_ the Holy Spirit and I was really forcing myself.  I
        didn't feel right.  It didn't feel right.  I pray to the Father
        and I pray to Jesus.  I believe they are both of divine essence;
        the Father having begotten the Son and thus the Son being of like
        essence as the Father.
    
                                                    Tony
    
                                                       Tony

    reply to .161  - LGP30::FLEISCHER
    
    Hi Bob,
    
 The reason that I am saying that we are talking about different
Jesuses, is because I cannot accept the fact that Jesus is both a 
created being (an Angel) and the Creator at the same time.  He is
either one or the other.  
    
    		Jesus is God revealed in the flesh.

 The scriptures also talk about different Jesuses. However this is
a very sensitive issue, so I'll only use a couple of the lighter
scripture passages that deal with this matter.

 MAT 24:	(This chapter talks about the end times, and about many 
		who will come and claim to be Jesus).

 2 COR 11:4	For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other
		than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a
		different spirit, or a different gospel from the one
		you accepted, you put up with it easily enough...

 Oleg
    

    re .167 (STRATA::BARBIERI)/Tony
    
>        Boy, I didn't mean to upset you!  The whole basis of my reasoning
>        regarding Westscott is that "ye shall know them by their fruit"
>        and so I wouldn't consider him a 'giant' in terms of discernment
>        simply because of what little I've read about him.
    
    	I wasn't really upset ... so suit yourself ... it's just that I
    don't think this was a valid way to address the particular point.
    
    	Wescott has his critics who take him to task for scholarly reasons
    as well; but the truth is that he IS considered an authority by many
    'mainline' scholars (though maybe more of the last century and early
    part of this one).
    
    	Since he IS a trinitarian, he obviously also believes that Jesus is
    God.  However, as a scholar, he has made quite a few honest remarks
    that have the 'ring of truth' (in my opinion).  Since Christendom, by
    and large, DOESN'T generally impose 'moral guidelines' upon the
    personal lives of its scholars (though you'd think that God and Christ
    would!), his scholarly views ought to be judged in a scholarly context.
    
    	Of the Scribes and Pharisees, even Jesus said:
    
    		"The scribes and Pharisees occupy Moses'
    		seat; so be careful to do whatever they
    		tell you.  But do not follow their
    		practice; for they say one thing and do
    		another."  (Matt 23:3 REB)
    
    In this almost paradoxical statement, Jesus separated the religious
    authority of the Jewish religious leaders from their personal
    practices, declaring that their 'theocratic authority' was still valid,
    regardless of their personal hypocrisy.
    
    	Since most 'acreditted scholars' are orthodox trinitarians, I tend
    to take EVERYTHING they say with a 'grain of salt'; however, if they
    ARE right about something, what they're right about is worth
    considering.  Now, the trick is to sort out truth from fiction -- and
    we all know that when it comes to things like the trinity, everyone's
    view may be taken by someone else as a mere personal judgment call.
    But, as Jesus pointed out, it IS possible to separate the value of
    right words from accompanying wrong actions.
    
    								-mark.

      re: .168
    
      Hi Oleg,
    
        It is a mistranslation to insist that 'angel' always refers
        to a created being.  (See Genesis 31:11-13 for example.)
    
        I think we all see 'different' Jesuses.  Perhaps a main point
        is the character one sees.  For example, some believe that God
        created people with unconditional immortality all the while 
        through foreknowledge He knew some would reject Him and be
        lost.  Thus it follows that God perpetuates the existence of
        sin, pain, and the lost forever.
    
        Any person who believes in the above sees a VERY different Jesus
        than I do.
    
                                                     Tony

      Mark,
    
        I see your point (you're sharp!  I mean that as a compliment.)
    
        I happen to come up with a different interpretation than you
        do, but I see to a fairly large extent where you are coming
        from.
    
                                                  Tony

 Hi Tony,
    
>        It is a mistranslation to insist that 'angel' always refers
>       to a created being.  (See Genesis 31:11-13 for example.)
    
  I'll try to clarify my previous point.

  In many passages in the OT Jesus appears in his pre-encarnate state,
  and yes, he is referred to as the "Angel of God".

  What I am pointing out is that Jesus is God - The Creator, and
  not an angel or - a created being. 
  
  COL 1:16	For by him all things were created; things in heaven
		and on earth, visible and invisible, whether
		thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all
		things were created by him and for him. 17: He is 
		before all things, and in him all things hold 
		together. 18: And he is the head of the body,
		the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn
		(AS IN INHERITOR) from among the dead, so that in 
		everything he might have the supremacy.

  I know that we went through this passage before, but I just wanted
 to point out that I believe that this scripture (along with many others
 that we covered) identifies him as THE CREATOR, and not as a CREATION.
    
  All things were created by him - including angels.

    I know others may disagree, and that is why I feel that we are talking
    about two different Jesuses. 
    
  Oleg 
    

By the Trinity of God we mean His tri-personal existence as Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit - 3 distinct persons in 1 God.

1. The Father is recognized as God (I Peter 1:2) and is all the fullness of the
   Godhead invisible (John 1:18).
2. The Son is recognized as God (Hebrews 1:8) and is all the fullness of the
   Godhead manifested in the flesh (John 1:14, Colossians 2:9).
3. The Holy Spirit is recognized as God (Acts 5:3-4) and is all the fullness of
   the Godhead acting upon man, convicting him of sin (John 16:7-11) and guiding
   the believer into all truth (John 16:12-15).
4. The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the OT, but is rather implied,
   "And God said, Let *US* make man..." (Genesis 1:26).
5. The doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the NT.  In Matthew 3:16-17 we
   have Christ being baptized in water, the Father speaking from heaven, and the
   Holy Spirit descending as a dove.  We are to baptize in the "name (not
   names) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
   (Matthew 28:19).
6. Even creation implies the doctrine of the Trinity.  In creation, we have
   space, matter and time in one creation.  In space, we have length, breadth,
   and height in one space.  In matter, we have energy, motion, and phenomena in
   one substance.  In time, we have past, present, and future in one time.  In
   man, we have body, soul, and spirit in one man (I Thessalonians 5:23).
7. In the Holy Trinity, we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God.

The Deity of Jesus Christ, or His God nature, is well established in the NT.
Some of the facts are:

1. He is called God by the Apostle John (John 1:1).
2. He is called God by the Apostle Thomas (John 20:28).
3. He is called God by God the Father (Hebrews 1:8).
4. He claimed to be God in that He was with the Father before creation
   (John 17:5).
5. He claimed to be God in that He was before Abraham.  "Abraham rejoiced to see
   my day..." (John 8:51-59).
6. He received worship, and only God is to be worshiped (Matthew 14:33).
   Angels are refused worship (Revelation 22:8-9).  Man is refused worship
   (Acts 10:25-26).
7. He forgives sin (Mark 2:5-11).  Only God can forgive sin.
8. He is creator and maker of all things (Colossians 1:16).
9. He is sustainer of all things (Hebrews 1:3).  Only God can control the
   universe.
10. He claimed to have "all power in heaven and in earth" (Matthew 28:18).  Only
    God has all power.
11. He walked upon the blue waters of Galilee.  The winds and waves obeyed His
    command.  He healed the sick and raised the dead.  He gave sight to the
    blind and hearing to the deaf.  He cast out demons and made the lame to
    walk.  He turned water into wine, and fed 5,000 with the lunch of a lad.

The humanity of Jesus Christ is seen in His human parentage (Matthew 2:11).

1. He developed as a normal human being (Luke 2:52).
2. He was subject to all the sinless infirmities of the human nature:
   - He hungered (Matthew 4:2)
   - He was thirsty (John 19:28)
   - He was weary (John 4:6)
   - He wept (John 11:35)
   - He was tempted (Hebrews 4:15)

Jesus is man, and yet He is more than man.  He is not God and man, but the
God-man.  He is God in human flesh.  His 2 natures are bound together in such a
way that the 2 become 1, having a single consciousness and will.  
    
    Mike

    re 907.172 (PHAROS::KLIMOWICZ)/Oleg
    
>  In many passages in the OT Jesus appears in his pre-encarnate state,
>  and yes, he is referred to as the "Angel of God".
    
    	This is interesting, since you admit that the Bible DOES call the
    pre-incarnate Jesus an "angel," he being the "Angel of Jehovah" who
    appeared to many of the faithful Hebrews.
    
    	Identifying the pre-incarnate Jesus as the archangel Michael
    harmonizes with this view, Gabriel called Michael "your prince" (Dan
    10:21 REB) when talking to Daniel, meaning he was the prince of the
    Jewish people.  Michael is also called the "great captain, who stands
    guarding your fellow countrymen" (Dan 12:1 REB).  In Joshua 5, the
    angel who appeared to Joshua identified himself as "the captain of the
    LORD'S [Jehovah's] army" (Josh 5:15 REB).  Assuming, as the early
    Christians did, that this angel was Jesus, it's likely that he is also
    Michael, since both of them are called "captain," and were obviously
    both involved in defending Israel.
    
    	We can argue whether the pre-existant Jesus, who appeared as the
    "angel of Jehovah" was created or not; but the Bible evidence is that
    this angel and Michael are the same.
    
    	Col 1:16ff certainly does tell us that Jesus had a key role in
    creation; but John tells us that God created all things "through him"
    (John 1:3 REB).  Thus John's writing helps us properly distinguish
    Jesus from God.  There's no arguing that Jesus was used to create all
    things in heaven and earth; but again, John adds the clarifying point
    that it was *through* Jesus that God did this.  Proverbs 8:22ff, which
    was considered Messianic by the early church fathers, says that
    "Wisdom" was "beside him [God], like a master workman" (8:30 RSV)
    during the creation of the world.
    
>  I know that we went through this passage before, but I just wanted
> to point out that I believe that this scripture (along with many others
> that we covered) identifies him as THE CREATOR, and not as a CREATION.
>    
>  All things were created by him - including angels.
    
    	As I mentioned before, saying "all things" were created by him
    doesn't mean that he also wasn't "created" by God (Prov 8:22).  To
    reiterate, Eve was given her name as the "mother of ALL living" (Gen
    3:20 RSV) -- yet she herself was also a creation; thus it's obvious
    that she was excluded from "all living" who were her descendants, while
    still being a created being herself.  Similarly, "all things" were
    created by Jesus as God's "master workman", though he himself was also
    "created [by Jehovah] at the beginning of his work, the first of his
    acts of old" (Prov 8:22 RSV).
    
>  What I am pointing out is that Jesus is God - The Creator, and
>  not an angel or - a created being. 
    
    	Jesus is NOT Jehovah God, the Creator.  Jesus is God's Son, his
    "master worker," "through whom" all things were created.  Active in
    creation, yes.  Creator, no.  The formal title, "Creator," belongs to
    the Father, Jehovah, alone.
    
    								-mark.

      Hi,
    
        I think I'm pretty satisfied with the positions as set forth.
    
        Oleg, I just want you to know that I believe Jesus was an
        angel ONLY in the most generic sense of the meaning of that
        word, i.e. He was/is a bearer of a message and is not a created
        angel.
    
        I'm really not up to reading about the trinity.  I'm mainly going
        to stick to the word.  As we have seen, different interpretations
        seem to arise.
    
        Mine being (to be blunt):
    
        There is a Being called God the Father
    
        In order to carry out the plan of redemption, He 'begat' the Son
        who being essence of the Father's essence had all qualities of
        divinity.  And this would include preexistence.  Thus (according
        to my understanding of agape) only divinity would be the Lamb.
        Agape could do no less.
    
        I honestly lack discernment regarding the Holy Spirit.  I really
        don't know.
    
        I see Father and Son as completely distinct Beings, both of which
        are divine.  How are they one?  I don't know.  One in purpose?
        One in counsel?
    
        Anyway...thats where I'm at presently, but I hope subject to change
        as the Spirit teaches and as I (hopefully) discern.
    
                                                      Tony

>        I see Father and Son as completely distinct Beings, both of which
>        are divine.  How are they one?  I don't know.  One in purpose?
>        One in counsel?
    
    I think it's pretty obvious that they're 1 in purpose.  The Holy Spirit
    in believers everywhere also provides us with that same single purpose.

Can I ask a question?

What difference does it make??

I'm a trinitarian, but I'm not threatened by unitarians, that is, people
who don't believe that Jesus Christ was God.  Am I a traitor to God if
I don't insist that all others adopt a doctrine to match mine?

I don't think so.

Shalom,
Richard

    .177
    
    Were you really asking or just trying to make a point?  

re 907.174 ILLUSN::SORNSON 

 Hi Mark,
    
>>  	This is interesting, since you admit that the Bible DOES call the
>>  pre-incarnate Jesus an "angel," he being the "Angel of Jehovah" who
>>  appeared to many of the faithful Hebrews.
    
    One could use the same logic to say that Jesus is only a man, since
   many passages refer to him as the "SON OF MAN".  Jesus in fact had
   many titles (THE LAMB OF GOD :-), THE SON OF GOD, TEACHER, RABBI, etc.)

   In the lexicon, we can get a better idea of the meaning of the title
   "ANGEL of GOD" or "ANGEL of the LORD".

   (Please excuse the possible mispellings and abbreviations)

   ANGEL 4397 (Greek) - Prof-ay-tik-os : Pertainint to a foreteller - 
			"prophetic"
	      (Hebr)  - (to despatch as deputy) Messenger, prophet,
			priest, teacher, embassador, angel, king.

  LORD 3062   (Greek) - YeHovah (Jehovah): (the) self-Existent or
			Eternal; (Jewish national name of God)

  GOD  430    (Hebr)  - Elohiym : (used as plural of the supreme form 
			of God) Sometimes used as a superlative: -
			Angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess,-ly)
			X (very) great, Judges, X mighty.

  If you take notice, the word "ANGEL (4397)." is one of several words in
  the lexicon description. 

  Also, notice that the word for "GOD (430)", denotes plurality, and
  allows plenty of room for the FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT.  

>>    	We can argue whether the pre-existant Jesus, who appeared as the
>>   "angel of Jehovah" was created or not; but the Bible evidence is that
>>    this angel and Michael are the same.

  MICHAEL and JESUS are not the same, and I hope the following will
  prove it to you.

  First of all, look at the following passage:

  MAT 28:18	Then Jesus came to them and said, 
		"ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH HAS BEEN GIVEN ME"

  Now, look at...

  JUD :9	But even the ARCHANGEL MICHAEL, when he was disputing
		with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare
		to bring a slanderous accusation against him but said,
		"THE LORD REBUKE YOU!"

  Check the lexicon...

  LORD 2962 (Greek) - Kurios - from KUPOS/KUROS; Supreme in authority,
		      i.e. (as noun) Controller; by impl. Mr. (as a
		      respectful title): - God, Lord, Master, Sir.
  (The word "LORD 2962" consistently refers to Jesus. (hundreds of times)).

  What is taking place in this verse is Michael saying...

  	"the Lord (JESUS) rebuke you!"
  
  If the above is not convincing enough, one would still have to conclude
  that, "If Michael were Jesus, he would have rebuked the devil himself...
  for...
	JESUS HAS THE AUTHORITY OVER THE DEVIL, DEMONS, ANGELS AND 
        ALL CREATION..., and you find this evidence over and over again
	in the new testament.

  Oleg  
    

    re -1
    
    Hi Oleg,
    
      I don't have a problem with Jesus saying, "The Lord..."
      If we accept the KJV interpretation of Heb 1:8, it says
      "Thy throne, O God" so what's the problem if perhaps Jesus
      referred to Himself in the third person or referred to His
      Father.  I believe to make a slanderous accusation is sin.  
      Thus God would not do so.
    
      Zec 3:2
      And the _Lord_ said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee...
    
      Now, check out what else Michael does.  He is the One who 
      sends the fallen angels out of heaven.  He is also the One
      whose voice the sleeping saints here at the time of the
      resurrection, which voice is the voice of Christ.
    
                                              Tony

re .179

Oleg,

A question on your last reply....

;  First of all, look at the following passage:

;  MAT 28:18	Then Jesus came to them and said, 
		"ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH HAS BEEN GIVEN ME"

;  Now, look at...

;  JUD :9	But even the ARCHANGEL MICHAEL, when he was disputing
;		with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare
;		to bring a slanderous accusation against him but said,
;		"THE LORD REBUKE YOU!"

Jesus states that all authority in heaven and on has been given me, now
my question is "when was Jesus given this authority?".

Phil.

    What this discussion clearly shows, as does a careful reading of any of
    the books of the New Testament clearly shows, is that there is not
    unequivocal Biblical support for the trinitarian formula that Jesus=God.
    
    That is clearly a faith statement.  There are a some passages that seem
    to indicate that Jesus is God and there are some passages that indicate
    Jesus is not God.  
    
    Ultimately each of us could spend a life time researching the subject
    and come up with a personal opinion, each of us could accept the
    authority of our faith communities and accept someone else's personal
    opinion, each could agree that it is an unknowable mystery, or as a
    matter of last resort, we could each flip a coin.
    
    Patricia

    
    Just as light behaves like a particle, and it also behaves like a wave,
    Jesus is both God and not God simultaneously.
    
    And I see no conflict in this whatsoever.
    
    Cindy

    My question was to help me understand why some are so vehement on
    this point.  Trinitarian or unitarian, it seems to me that Jesus'
    mission, message and vision is unchanged.
    
    It seems to me that there are more pivotal issues to be addressed.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I tend to think that the main source of disagreement is the
        amount of oil that is in the bread we are eating.  We need
        the oil!!
    
        If we partake of just bread, it will profit us nothing.  A
        purely intellectual reading of the Bible will not profit one;
        the reading must be mixed with faith which faith allows the
        presence of the oil - the Holy Spirit.  It is the Spirit who 
        teaches.
    
        I also believe that to believe something because its tradition
        is to partake without oil.  I believe Jesus is divine and I have
        explained how and why, but of MORE importance is the basis of
        one's belief.  I am sure that it will someday be revealed that
        there are many who believe Jesus is God WHO WOULD NOT HAVE had
        they had a nonChristian upbringing.  In other words, is the 
        underlying basis of the belief faith or is it something else such
        as familial or any other tradition?
    
        I am intending all of the above in a generic way.  I have no
        right to say that I am partaking of any more oil than anyone else.
        But, I am suggesting the principle that the main reason for 
        differences in understanding is differences in the extent to which
        the presence of God is indwelling in the heart by faith.
    
        To put another way, if faith was perfect and God fully dwelt in
        all of our hearts, there would be 100% agreement in all things.
        It is the Spirit who leads to truth.
    
        We're all eating fairly dry bread.  We could use more oil.  May
        we allow God to perfect our faith and in so doing make us willing
        to receive more of Him in our hearts!
    
                                                  Tony

 Re: 907:181  Hi Phil,  

> Jesus states that all authority in heaven and on has been given me, now
> my question is "when was Jesus given this authority?".

 I already provided the MAT 28:18 passage where he made that statement to 
 his disciples.

 Also, Jesus never ceased to be God, yet was in full submission
 to the Father.  Maybe you can figure out at what point in time the 
 authority was given him according to this other passage.

 HEB 2:7 	You made him (Jesus) a little lower than the angels;
		You crowned him with glory an honor
      :8	and put everything under his feet...
      :9	But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
		the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because
		he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he
		might taste death for everyone.

 Jesus displayed his authority consistently by calming the storm,
 raising the dead, healing the sick, driving out demons, rebuking
 the devil after spending 40 days/nights in the desert etc..

 In the OT he also displayed his authority. Remember the "I AM" ?

 I submitted myself to his authority and I will never question his
 authority. I have no problem worshipping the "King of Kings and Lord
 of Lords".

 Got to go (see you Monday)
 Oleg.
    

      re: .184
    
      Hi Richard,
    
        My take is this...
    
        Faith works by love.  It works by beholding the love of God.
        The measure of one's faith is dependent on the extent to which
        one believes (and this includes heart-appreciation) in what one 
        knows and on how much one knows.
    
        The love that faith works by is the love demonstrated on the
        cross.
    
        Galatians 3:1
        O foolish Galatians!  Who has bewitched you that you should not
        obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly
        portrayed among you as crucified?
    
        Here was a group that (to some extent) was looking less at the
        cross and more at something else.
    
        But, for me anyway, when I behold Christ hung for me, I behold 
        GOD hung for me!  And I believe that there is far more love for
        faith to work by as a result of this truth.  (In contrast to
        thinking one is beholding a created being hung for him.)
    
        To extend this a little further...the context of a book like 
        Hebrews points to God's faithful becoming perfect.  They rest
        perfectly in Christ, the law is written in their hearts, they
        are prepared to inhabit Mount Zion.  And the overwhelming context
        of this preparation is KNOWING YOUR HIGH PRIEST.
    
        I'm suggesting that pain and sin will go on and on and on until
        some group allows God to go all the way with Him.  They must be
        _prepared_.  This preparation includes a faith perfected, which
        faith perfected depends on (works by) God's love which thus must
        be understood to a certain fulness (Eph 3).
    
        Or to put another way, before all this madness can be over, some
        group (God's faithful at some point in time) is going to have to
        put all the pieces together.
    
        And the biggest piece (says the author of Hebrews - see Heb 3:1
        and 8:1) is KNOWING Jesus.
                                                  
        So it does matter.  Oh yes, it matters so much that pain will not
        be finished until it is understood.
    
                                                     Tony

    .187
    
    	Thanks, Tony.  I hear from you that it matters a great deal to
    you.
    
    	If Jesus was the Messiah, God's Annointed One, how might Jesus'
    death on the cross for your sake or mine be less than valid or other
    than legitimate?  I'm not sure it can.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 907.177 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> I'm a trinitarian, but I'm not threatened by unitarians, that is, people
> who don't believe that Jesus Christ was God.  Am I a traitor to God if
> I don't insist that all others adopt a doctrine to match mine?
  
        Obviously, and your turn for slaughter comes up just as soon
        as we've slaughtered all those unitarian heathens. :-{

      Hi Richard,
    
        Your welcome!
    
        At the very least...
    
        Paul speaks in Romans of a salvation "yet to be revealed."  (I 
        think that's how he puts it.)  I believe this refers to the per-
        fected last generation of which the author of Hebrews states...
    
        Hebrews 11:39,40
        And all these having a good testimony through faith, did not 
        receive the promise,
        God having provided something better for us, that they *should
        not be made perfect* apart from us.
    
        Hebrews characterizes some generation as arriving at perfection.
        The context seems to state that this could have been the generation
        to whom the author speaks.  This makes sense for the early
        Christian Church (Ephesus) surely did not "lose their first love"
        (Rev 2:4) because God willed it, rather they withdrew somewhat 
        from God.  And had they not, they could have become that generation
        described in Hebrews.
    
        The language is clear.  All previous generations _did not receive
        the promise_.  They are not 'made perfect' until some generation
        demonstrates something and that 'something' includes perfection.
    
        And this demonstration is only possible through (in part) KNOWING
        their High Priest.
    
        Hebrews 3:1
        Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,
        consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession [KJV:
        profession] Jesus Christ.
    
        Hebrews 8:1
        Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have
        such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne
        of the Majesty in the heavens.
    
        In short, the final generation arrives at some state of spiritual
        maturity that is essential in order for all generations to receive
        the promise (Heb 11:39).  This maturity is (at least in part) a
        result of faith working by love.  This love it works by is in 
        part an intellectual understanding of who their High Priest is.
        I am concluding that it is essential that the question of His
        divinity is something that must be known in order for the awaited
        maturity of the last generation.
    
        On such a fundamental issue as this, they must know their High
        Priest at least that well.  That's the whole point of Hebrews 1 
        and 2.  
    
        And again...this is necessary for the accomplishment of some-
        thing very important - so important that prior men of faith
        (without it) cannot receive the promise.
    
        So to answer your question Richard, it is not the death of Christ
        alone, but who that Christ was that died (and a knowledge of that), 
        that is essential to the accomplishment of this extremely important
        thing mentioned in Hebrews (and elsewhere for that matter).
    
                                                       Tony        

    Tony,
    
    This may sound a little simplistic, but you seem to place a great
    deal of emphasis in your last couple of notes on Jesus being our
    High Priest as indicated in the letter called Hebrews.
    
    Surely you realize that at least some unitarians (as opposed to
    trinitarians) know, embrace, and accept Jesus as the High Priest
    as indicated in the letter called Hebrews, also.
    
    Can Jesus be the High Priest as indicated in the letter called Hebrews
    and yet not be God?  Some apparently think so.
    
    Mind you, I'm not trying to change your own belief in the Trinity.
    As I've said, I'm a trinitarian myself.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

                          True God and True Man
                      by Father Christopher Phillips

		I believe ... in Jesus Christ, his only Son,
		our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
		born of the Virgin Mary ...

There are three statements about Jesus Christ that are asserted by the
Church, and from which all other theological statements about Him must
flow; first, that Jesus Christ is truly God; second, that Jesus Christ is
truly man; and third, that Jesus Christ is one Person in Whom the divine
and human natures are united in an unchangeable, unconfused, indivisible,
and inseparable way.  Unless these three statements are true, then there is
no historic Christian Faith; and because they are true, we can know that
Jesus was not simply a human teacher and prophet but that He is truly the
God-Man Whose coming opens the way for us (and, indeed, for all of creation)
to be "at one" with God, as all things were before the fall of Adam.

The Christian Faith teaches us to worship the one true God Who has revealed
Himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  This teaching has
come to us from Jesus Himself, Who is the unique Son of God and Whose
relationship with the Father is unlike anyone else's.  As we read in the
Gospel accounts, He taught his disciples, when they prayed, to say "Our
Father," but when Christ prayed to His Father, He went to places by
Himself.  When He appeared to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection, He
told her to go to His apostles and "tell them, `I am going to my Father and
your Father, to my God and your God'" (John 20:17).  The Sonship of Jesus,
then, has no equal, and it is qualitatively different from our own
relationship to God as His children.  But it is through Christ's Sonship
that all those who belong to Him are "children of God, and if children,
then heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ ..." (Romans 8:16-17).

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is called "Lord."  This was a title
that had been used by the Jews to refer to God, as it had also been used by
the Gentiles when speaking of their various deities, and its incorporation
into the Creed shows that from the earliest days of God's revelation of
Himself in Jesus, Christians knew that it was necessary to apply the
highest terms possible in describing Christ.

It was He "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality
with God something to be grasped.  Rather, he emptied himself, taking the
form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. 
Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that
is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of
those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:6-11).
From the very beginning of the Church, then, Christians have spoken of
Jesus as "Lord," for Christ Himself said, "All power in heaven and on
earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18).

It was this Son of God, this Lord -- pre-existent with the Father and the
Holy Spirit -- who took upon Himself human flesh from the womb of the
Virgin Mary.  He was not conceived as we were conceived, from the natural
union of a man and a woman, but rather in a way that transcended the
natural order of things.  He is eternally the same Person.  Yet at the
moment in which the Blessed Virgin Mary pronounced her words of assent to
the archangel Gabriel -- "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.  May it
be done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) -- the human body of
Christ was instantly formed and united to a rational soul; and at that
exact moment, by the power of the Holy Spirit, true God and true man
dwelled in the womb of Mary.

The Gospel of St. John tells us, "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 came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be"
(John 1:1-3).  This Word is Jesus Christ, of Whom it was written that His
mother "gave birth to her firstborn son.  She wrapped him in swaddling
clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in
the inn" (Luke 2:7).

This was He Who came, and it is a fact at which we may well wonder for all
time, as we think of our God coming down among us -- leaving His throne on
high, leaving the courts of heaven and the songs of the angels and the
brightness of His Father's face -- to be with us.  When we think of this
little child born of the Virgin Mary, we must also remember that He is the
very God Who made the world, and Who set the stars in their places.  When
we think of the child Jesus -- presented in the Temple, circumcised
according to the Law, in danger of death because of the jealousy of Herod,
taking flight into Egypt to find a refuge -- we must also remember that He
is, as Revelation 22:13 says, the "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,
the beginning and the end,"  Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the
Almighty God.  When we think of the boy Jesus -- coming into the Temple and
asking questions of the teachers, or of His going down to Nazareth with His
parents and being subject to them -- we must also remember that He Who was
veiled under the likeness of a humble and obedient child is the Holy One
Who shall come to be our Judge on the last day.

If the Son of God had chosen another way of coming, other than having been
born in humility of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it would have taken nothing
away from the greatness of His condescension and love, for it would have
been equally a humbling of the everlasting God if He had shown Himself in
flesh with a majesty such as no one had ever before seen, and upon which no
one could look without tremendous fear and awe.  Certainly, it would have
not been sorprising if the God of the universe had chosen to show Himself
to us in greater glory and brightness than the angels, but it id not please
Him to come in that way.  Rather, He came by the way in which He chose in
order to show us how little we understand the greatness and glory of God. 
He was born in obscurity of the Virgin Mary to show us that what we
consider to be poor and despised and humble counts for little with Him.
He came in that way so that we could know that there is nothing in our own
condition that He did not choose also to endure from the very first; that
there is nothing so mean and rough and dangerous in what even the poorest
men in this world sometimes have to endure that was not part of Christ's
life when He came among us.

So that He would not be above any of us, He chose to be in a state poorer
than most of us.  He asked for no privilege as the Son of God.  He did not
desire to be excused from any weight of mortality -- and surely, this was
the more heavenly way, the way more worthy of God, than any way of earthly
pomp and greatness which would have allowed Him to escape from men's common
condition.  He had no wealth, but what would the wealth of the world have
been to Him Who was the Maker of all things?  By the world's standards, He
was unknown and despised, but what would the honors and accolades of the
world be to Him, Who was worshiped by the very angels of heaven?

Jesus Christ is truly God.  He is truly man.  He is one Person in Whom the
divine and human natures are united.  And yet, when He came, it was
sufficient for Him to be Jesus of Nazareth and to be called the son of the
carpenter, unknown as God, despised and unhonored as man.  But the angels
broke out into His praises in the midst of the midnight sky, and the Magi
of the East followed His star across rivers and deserts until they found
Him and fell down before Him as the Light of the world which had dawned on
mankind.

This Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy
Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, is no less than God's
glory, even though wrapped in rags.  Because God has come to us in this
way, it means that the Christian Faith is no mere system of ethics,
although it does require us to live in an ethical way.  Nor does it consist
simply of wise sayings, even though the teaching of Jesus reveals the
wisdom of the ages.  Our Lord Jesus Christ was not just another man,
however good; rather, He was God come as man so that men might come to God.

-----------

Father Christopher Phillips is a pastor in the Archdiocese of San Antonio.
He was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood on August 15, 1983.  He
was formerly an Episcopal priest.  He is married and has five children.

Re .186

Hi Oleg,

As you have probabally have worked out, the reason I asked "When was Jesus
given this authority?",is that Jesus was not given authority until after
the event as mentioned in Jude 9. So citing Matthew 28:18 and Jude 9 
together to prove Jesus is not Michael because of authority, is not
a good arguement. For you fail to state when Jesus received this authority
as stated in Matthew 28:18.

You asked me to look at the Hebrews 2:7-9 portion of Scripture, and from
this one can deduct that it was after his death that he was "crowned with
glory and honor". Correspondingly, Philippians 2:8-11 confirms this, but
gives the additional information that it is God who exalts him and he is
made "Lord to the glory of God the Father.". So it is after his death that
Jesus receives this authority as he stated in Matthew 28:18.

; Jesus displayed his authority consistently by calming the storm,
; raising the dead, healing the sick, driving out demons, rebuking
; the devil after spending 40 days/nights in the desert etc..

Agreed, Jesus got his authority from his Father. Jesus' disciples also
performed miracles but what does this prove?. Jesus, performed these
miracles soon after he was baptised and began his ministry. Jesus could
perform these miracles because he was anointed with holy spirit and had
God's authority to do so. At the time of Jesus' baptism a voice was heard
from heaven saying "This is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved."
Matthew 3:17b NWT.

However, I would personally disagree with your use of the "rebuking the 
devil". Reading this passage, to me Jesus opposed the Devil rather than
rebuked him. Even so, this was just after his anointing.

;In the OT he also displayed his authority. Remember the "I AM" ?

Mark Sornson has touched on this atleast a couple of times.


; I submitted myself to his authority and I will never question his
; authority. I have no problem worshipping the "King of Kings and Lord
; of Lords".


That is good that you have submitted to Jesus' authority, if everyone obeyed
his commands there would be peace throughout mankind. However, would it not
be more appropriate to worship the one who exalted Jesus to this high position
as "King of kings and Lord of lords"? (compare John 4:23).

Jesus' example in Scripture is that of waiting until his Father tells him
to go into action. He waits until his Father gives him authority before
doing something. Interestingly, in Jude 9, Michael does not take it on himself
to rebuke Satan. However, an angel is seen in Revelation 20:1 as having the
keys to the Abyss and is the one that puts Satan into it. This angel is not
identified, but perhaps Michael will be the one that rebukes Satan but in 
God's own due time (Also compare Revelation 12 where Satan is cast out of
heaven).


Phil.

    
    Re.192
    
    How can the priest be married with 5 children?  Isn't there a rule
    against that?                 
    
    Cindy

    
>    How can the priest be married with 5 children?  Isn't there a rule
>    against that?                 
    
    Depends on the church. Many Christian churches allow their priests
    to marry. In fact under some circumstances even the Roman Catholic
    church will accept married priests - though it will not ordain such.
    
    			Alfred

    Of course the Bible says the Deacons and Bishops are only allowed to be
    married once.
    
    Patricia

 Re: 193 -  Phil,
 
  You know as well as I do that Jesus clearly showed his authority on 
 both the Old and New Testaments.

 Some passages from the OT:

 GEN 16:10 	The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants
		that they will be too numerous to count." 

 EXO 3:2	There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames
		of fire from within a bush. 
     3:4	...God called him from within the bush...
     3:8        So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of
		the Egyptians...

 JUDG 2:1	The Angel of the Lord ...said "I brought you up out
		of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give
		your forefathers...

 EXO 3:14	God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM... (contrast JHN 8:58)


 Jesus (the Son) never ceased to be God, and could always exercise that
 authority, yet...

    PHIL 2:7 -  But made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a
    	        servant, being made in human likeness...
	
 Oleg
    

>    Depends on the church. Many Christian churches allow their priests
>    to marry. In fact under some circumstances even the Roman Catholic
>    church will accept married priests - though it will not ordain such.

Wrong.  The Roman Catholic church will ordain priests who are married; they
will not permit priests to marry after ordination.

In the Eastern regions of the Roman Catholic Church, it is quite common and
normally permitted for married men to become priests.

In the Latin Rite (Western Church) celibacy has been enforced as a discipline
(not a doctrine).  However, clergy from other Churches who were already
married may, with permission from Rome, be ordained as Roman Catholic priests.

/john

>    Of course the Bible says the Deacons and Bishops are only allowed to be
>    married once.
    
    another tangent, but I've seen some churches deny these position to
    some great men of God because they made a mistake before they were
    Christians.
    
    Mike

    Actually I think it interesting that the Roman Catholic church will not
    ordained married men even though the Bible says it is OK.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .198 What did I get wrong? Or rather what do you think I wrote
    that disagrees with what you wrote? 
    
    			Alfred

    -1
     
    Me too.

    Should be interesting to see /john 's answer. 
    
    Marc H.

Alfred,

You wrote that the Roman Catholic Church will not ordain married men.

That is not true.  The Roman Catholic Church in the East (those parts of the
Roman Catholic Church under the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches)
ordains married men on a regular basis.  The Roman Catholic Church in the
West (that part of the Church under the Latin Code of Canon Law) ordains
married men who come into full communion with Rome after having formerly
served in the ministry of other ecclesial communities.

The Roman Catholic Church in the West has chosen, as a discipline, not as
a doctrinal position, to require its clergy to be celibate, except in the
case of a few explicit exceptions.  The Church has determined through its
experience that this makes the pastors much more available to their flocks.

/john

    
>The Roman Catholic Church in the
>West (that part of the Church under the Latin Code of Canon Law) ordains
>married men who come into full communion with Rome after having formerly
>served in the ministry of other ecclesial communities.

    I thought that they just "accepted" the previous ordination rather
    then doing a new ordination. Not so?

    		Alfred

     It seems to me that we are drifting off into a totally different 
    subject here... Perhaps one of you should open-up another "notes
    file" that deals with the subject of priests marrying? I would 
    appreciate it.
    
    Thanks,
    Oleg

>
>    I thought that they just "accepted" the previous ordination rather
>    then doing a new ordination. Not so?
>

Not so.  They are quite careful to ensure that a priest has valid
orders to ensure that the sacraments administered to the Catholic
faithful are valid.

Thus, when an Anglican bishop or priest becomes Roman Catholic, first
a detailed search into the pedigree of his orders is made -- he must
be able to show that either a Greek Orthodox or an Old Catholic (e.g.
Church of Utrecht or Polish National Catholic Church) bishop had
participated in the ordination of the bishop who ordained him.

Even in this case, he will still be "conditionally" ordained.  "If you
are not already a Priest, I ordain you..."

/john

	Re: .197 Oleg

	>You know as well as I do that Jesus clearly showed his authority on
	>both the Old and New Testaments.

	I know that some believe that Jesus was the subject of several
	prophesies in the Old Testament.  I hear (read) for the first
	time that he was actually there and asserting his authority.

	Is this yet another attempt by (some) Christians to corner the
	Jewish Bible and to misuse it for their own purposes?

	Re: .204 /john

	>The Roman Catholic Church in the West has chosen, as a discipline,
	>not as a doctrinal position, to require its clergy to be celibate,
	>except in the case of a few explicit exceptions.

	This is true and should clear up the common misunderstanding that
	the celibacy is a doctrine per se.
	
	>The Church has determined through its experience that this makes
	>the pastors much more available to their flocks.

	This, also is true, but: I have yet to hear of one of the exceptions
	who has been appointed to a church-based parish where he can tend
	a normal community. I know one who was appointed as PRO to a bishop,
	another who was appointed - under a "conventional" priest - to a
	seaman's mission house in Montevideo and yet another (whom I meet
	from time to time) whose life is confined to visiting a prison,
	and two hospitals. None of them saw any prospect of being given
	a "normal" parish. My "prison-priest" told me that this is an
	unwritten rule within the Church.

	The argument of availability to their flocks becomes circular
	when their spheres are thus restricted.

	Please do not misunderstand me: I do not deny the right for seamen,
	prisoners or patients to have priestly succour. I question only the
	apparent "policy" of excluding married priests from the more
	usual offices.

	Greetings, Derek.	

re .197

Sorry Oleg, but I have not had the time to reply to your note sooner.

You say that Jesus clearly showed his authority in both Old and New
Testaments. I agree that both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures do tell 
us the authority that the Messiah has held over the years.

You quoted Genesis 16:10, Exodus 3:2;4;8 & Judges 2:1. Sorry, but in
previous replies, have you equated that "The Angel of the Lord" is the 
same as Jesus Christ?.

Angels here are ambassadors speaking on behalf of God, angel as you know 
means messenger. An illustration might be that of a boss and his secretary. 
The boss dictates and the secretary types up the letter. Looking at the 
letter, one would read as though it came from the boss, however this message 
is conveyed via the secretary. So in these verses, Jehovah God is speaking 
via his messenger the angel (compare John 1:18). This is in keeping with how
Jehovah God spoke to the nation of Israel via his prophets.

; Jesus (the Son) never ceased to be God, and could always exercise that
; authority, yet...

;    PHIL 2:7 -  But made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a
;    	        servant, being made in human likeness...

If Jesus never ceased to be God, why was he anointed and who was the 
anointee?. Also Phillipians 2:9 says that God exalted Jesus to a superior
position that he had previously, this verse would be meaningless if Jesus 
was the Almighty. The only conclusion one can have is that Jesus did not 
have this position to begin with.

Paul puts some light on the things the Messiah will do, 1 Corinthians 
15:24-28 NWT "Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God
and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all 
authority and power. For he must rule as king until [God] has put all
enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to
nothing. For [God] 'subjected all things under his feet.' But when he
'says all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with
the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. But when all 
things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also
subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God
may be all things to everyone."

The Messiah, that is Jesus, will bring an end to the works of the Devil
as king of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9,10). Even death will no longer plague
mankind. Then Jesus will hand over his rulership to God his Father. Jesus
will then subject himself to the one who anointed him in the first place,
so "that God may be all things to everyone".

Phil.

================================================================================
              -< Blessed be God in his angels and in his saints >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basil the Great is one of my favorite saints.  He and his close associates
the Cappadocian Fathers prevented Arianism, a Christology which denies that
Jesus is God, from taking over the Church.

================================================================================
              -< Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, June 14th >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Almighty, everlasting God, whose servant Basil steadfastly
	confessed thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ to be Very God
	and Very Man: Grant that we may hold fast to this faith,
	and evermore magnify his holy Name; through the same thy
	Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with
	thee and the Holy Spirit, ever, one God, world without
	end.  Amen.

				------

		St. Basil was primarily responsible for
		saving the Church from attempts by the
		Emperor Valens to overrule the Council
		of Nicaea and to adopt Arianism.

    Isaiah 44:6  Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer
    the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there 
    is no God.
    
    Who is God's Redeemer?
    
    Isaiah 48:17  Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of
    Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which 
    leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
    
    God is the Redeemer!  The one who is first and last!  There is no
    other!
    
    Isaiah 48:16  Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in 
    secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now 
    the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
    
    God *AND* His Spirit!  The 3rd Person of the Trinity!

Isaiah 41:4  Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the
beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
    
Revelation 1:8  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the 
    Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid 
    his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the 
    last:

    God reminds us yet again that He's the first and last.
    
Revelation 1:18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive 
    for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Revelation 2:8  And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things 
    saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

    When did God die? ;-)  At the cross.  He died for you and I because He loved
    us and knew it was the only way we could be with Him.  Believe it and accept
    Him.
    
    Mike

    The 5th chapter of Genesis holds an amazing tale for those that think
    geneaologies are boring.  The same holds that doubt the Bible is God's 
    word, for no man could've planned this.

    Read the chapter, and starting with Adam, underline the name of every son 
    that was born (I've done it here for you).  When finished, go back and 
    translate the meaning of each name and string them together.  Strong's 
    Concordance with Hebrew & Greek dictionaries or the Treasury of Scripture 
    Knowledge should have all the names in it.  You should be amazed by
    what your result is.  I certainly was!

    Spoiler follows:

Okay, after reading Genesis 5:1-32, you should have come up with this list of
names and their translations:

Name           Translation
----           -----------
Adam           Man
Seth           Appointed
Enosh          Mortal
Kenan          Sorrowing
Mahalalel      Blessed God
Jared          Shall Descend
Enoch          Dedicated or Teaching
Methuselah     His Death Shall Bring
Lamech         Power or Disparing
Noah           Rest

So what do we get?  We get the Gospel message encoded in the names of Adam's 9
descendants.   Lowercase text and punctuation added for legibility.

"MAN was APPOINTED, became MORTAL, he hid and was SORROWING.  the BLESSED GOD
SHALL DESCEND, DEDICATED to save and TEACH.  HIS DEATH SHALL BRING POWER to the
DISPARING and REST."

There is no way man wrote the Bible and was clever enough to encode that into
Adam's lineage!
    
    Mike

re: Note 907.211 by "Maranatha!" 

So, from what I read, the Old Testament "Trinity" is 

First & Last.
God's Spirit.

Looks like quite a stretch to me, but I'm glad you're helped by it.

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 907.212 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>"MAN was APPOINTED, became MORTAL, he hid and was SORROWING.  the BLESSED GOD
>SHALL DESCEND, DEDICATED to save and TEACH.  HIS DEATH SHALL BRING POWER to the
>DISPARING and REST."

Well, hindsight and creative additions are 20/20.
But I'm glad it helps you.

Peace,

Jim

>So, from what I read, the Old Testament "Trinity" is 
>
>First & Last.
>God's Spirit.
    
    you forgot the Lord's Redeemer.

re: Note 907.215 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    you forgot the Lord's Redeemer.

Okay.  However Christ is Wonderful, Counsellor, Redeemer, Imminent, and many, 
many other names.  Well beyond a trinity of names.  What does this mean?

Peace,

Jim

> Okay, after reading Genesis 5:1-32, you should have come up with this list of
> names and their translations:
> 
> Name           Translation
> ----           -----------
> Adam           Man
> Seth           Appointed
> Enosh          Mortal
> Kenan          Sorrowing
> Mahalalel      Blessed God
> Jared          Shall Descend
> Enoch          Dedicated or Teaching
> Methuselah     His Death Shall Bring
> Lamech         Power or Disparing
> Noah           Rest
> 
> So what do we get?  We get the Gospel message encoded in the names of Adam's 9
> descendants.   Lowercase text and punctuation added for legibility.
> 
> "MAN was APPOINTED, became MORTAL, he hid and was SORROWING.  the BLESSED GOD
> SHALL DESCEND, DEDICATED to save and TEACH.  HIS DEATH SHALL BRING POWER to the
> DISPARING and REST."
> 
> There is no way man wrote the Bible and was clever enough to encode that into
> Adam's lineage!
    
        Of course people are clever enough to do this.

        In fact, this lends support to the position that the lineage
        (and thus the history) is "contrived" to reach a certain
        textual result.

        The only remaining issue is not cleverness but prophecy --
        would the writers have sufficient knowledge to encode a
        prophetic message?

        Since the lineage appears to be contrived*, this raises the
        very intriguing possibility that the text is indeed
        God-inspired and indeed not literal history but
        non-historical myth.

        (Remember, to call it "myth" says nothing about the origins. 
        Why couldn't God write myth?)

        I think that the only reason Christians are uncomfortable
        with the idea of inspired myth is that Christianity, as all
        movements and ideologies, has struggled through the centuries
        to distinguish itself from competing movements and
        ideologies.  One of the dimensions it has drawn between
        itself and others is that the others are based upon "myth"
        while Christianity is based upon history.  Given that mental
        stance, of course, Christians must deny that myth has
        anything to do with what they believe.  This is similar to
        the currently popular claim among some conservatives that
        Christianity is not a "religion" -- again, to increase the
        contrast with the alternatives.

        Bob
        ++++

        * Of course, it may not be the lineage that is contrived, but
        the "translations" of the names.  I have always wondered
        where these meanings of names come from.  (Or are you
        claiming that these names are simply the Hebrew words for the
        above words and phrases?)

>    you forgot the Lord's Redeemer.
    
    I supplied the verse from Isaiah in the initial reply where God said He
    is "thy Redeemer."

>Okay.  However Christ is Wonderful, Counsellor, Redeemer, Imminent, and many, 
>many other names.  Well beyond a trinity of names.  What does this mean?
    
    Isaiah 9:6.  Also says He is the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the
    Prince of Peace.  What does it mean?  It means Jesus is God.
    
    Mike

    >                    -< where'd the translations come from? >-
    
    I told you.  Either Strong's with the Hebrew/Greek dictionaires or the
    Treasury of Scripture Knowledge will have these in it.  Better yet, if
    you have LOGOS, it has the Strong's reference numbers and definitions
    in it.  Bring them up in a window.  
    
    It's really quite amusing all the hoops people have to jump through to
    deny God. ;-)
    
    Mike

re: Note 907.218 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    Isaiah 9:6.  Also says He is the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the
>    Prince of Peace.  What does it mean?  It means Jesus is God.
    
Exactly my point.  It has little to do with identifying an Old Testament 
"Trinity".

Peace,

Jim

>Exactly my point.  It has little to do with identifying an Old Testament 
>"Trinity".
    
    Why does Jesus being God have little to do with the Trinity?  

re: Note 907.221 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    Why does Jesus being God have little to do with the Trinity?  

I said nothing of the kind.  We're talking about the Old Testament.

Peace,

Jim

>>    Why does Jesus being God have little to do with the Trinity?  
>
>I said nothing of the kind.  We're talking about the Old Testament.

Jim, if Jesus was God, His nature would apply to the OT as well because God
    is the same yesterday, today, forever (it's in His Word).  
    
    Isaiah talks of God's Redeemer, Savior, and Spirit, and says God is the
    Redeemer.  Genesis says God created man in *OUR* (plural) image.  Isaiah 
    also says God stands alone and there is no other.  The prophet adds
    that the Messiah is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father.  It also says 
    there is 1 God in Malachi 2:10 and other locations of the Pentateuch.  
    These all describe the triune nature of God.
    
    Mike

re Note 907.219 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     I told you.  Either Strong's with the Hebrew/Greek dictionaires or the
>     Treasury of Scripture Knowledge will have these in it.  

        These would appear to rather modern (probably
        English-language) reference works.  They can't possibly be
        themselves the authoritative source for such translations. 
        (Any authoritative source has to at least pre-date the
        coming of Jesus or else it would be open to the possibility
        of having been written to support the conclusion.)

>     It's really quite amusing all the hoops people have to jump through to
>     deny God. ;-)
  
        ... or to prove a particular theology.

        (Don't flatter yourself, Mike; I'm denying you and your
        analysis.)

        Bob

    >                   -< where did the translations originate? >-
    
    I don't have that information handy, but I'm sure some research could
    give you the origins or a close substitute.  

The doctrine of the Trinity is not quickly apparent in the Old Testament, but it
is present and it can be discovered fairly easily by the average Bible student.
In the early revelation which God makes of His person, the emphasis is clearly
on His uniqueness and oneness, as a strong rebuke and antidote to the polytheism
of the pagan nations surrounding Israel.  In Romans 1:21-23 we are told how this
multiplication of gods came about.  So the Old Testament emphasizes the unity of
the Deity, with only sporadic references to the activity of each person of the
Trinity (for example, the Son: Joshua 5:14; Proverbs 30:4; Daniel 3:25; the
Spirit: Genesis 1:2; Numbers 24:2; Judges 6:16,34; Nehemiah 9:20).  However, the
Old Testament is by no means silent on the direct revelation of the Trinity, as
we note from the following:

1. The name of God, Elohim.  This is the name by which God introduces Himself in
the very first verse of the Bible, and it is a plural name.  The Hebrew language
has a singular, a dual, and a plural number (three or more).  Elohim is neither
singular nor dual, but plural, and is used here with a singular verb, thus
Scripture commences with a powerful proof of trinity in unity: "In the beginning
God (Elohim - plural) created (bara - singular) the heaven and the earth."  This
is by no means an unimportant detail.  If we accept the authority and verbal
inspiration of the Word of God, we shall not miss the importance of this
testimony.  It should not surprise us to find the revelation of God beginning in
this way - a plural noun with a singular verb.  When God hung the earth upon
nothing (Job 26:7) and created man to inhabit it, He was not then lacking in
fellowship, but only wanting more.  From all eternity God had perfect fellowship
with Himself, but this fellowship was not unipersonal but between the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit (John 17:5,24).  Eternally, God is love (1 John 4:8,16),
but for love to exist there must be a lover, a beloved, and a spirit of love
between them.  All this and more is enclosed within the significance of this
plural name, Elohim, with which the Bible begins the revelation of God.

If Jehovah and Elohim were always transferred to our version when they occur in
the original, instead of being translated, it would be a help.  Thus the
favorite text of Unitarians (Deuteronomy 6:4), in reality declares the doctrine
of the Trinity just about as clearly and powerfully as it can be stated - the
existence of a plurality of persons (Elohim) in one God (Jehovah).  From the
same text we discover another important detail.  The Hebrew word translated
"one" ("is one Lord") is echad and means a compound unity.  An example of this
is found in Genesis 11:6.  There is another Hebrew word for "one," meaning "one
only" or "one alone" - yachid - but that is not the word used in Deuteronomy
6:4.

2.  Other evidence of Hebrew grammar.  The combination and interchange of plural
and singular are found in other texts, and have direct bearing on this doctrine.
In Genesis 1:26-27, it reads, "And God said (singular), let Us (plural) make man
in Our (plural) image...so God created (singular) man in His (singular) own
image."  Here is ample proof that we are not dealing with the plural of majesty,
like the editorial "we," or a council between God and the angels.  Others texts
like this are found in Genesis 3:22; 11:6-7, and Isaiah 6:8.

3. In the mention of the three persons of the Trinity.  In the vision of the
glory of God which Isaiah describes in chapter 6 of his book, he speaks of Him
as "the King, [Jehovah] of hosts."  The apostle John states that the glory seen
by Isaiah was that of Christ (John 12:41), while the apostle Paul adds that the
message given to the prophet was that of the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25).

In Isaiah 63:7-14 three distinct persons are spoken of as saving Israel out of
Egypt: "The Lord...He was their Savior" (verses 7-8); "and the angel of His
presence saved them" (verse 9); "That led them through the deep...The Spirit of
the Lord caused him to rest" (verses 13-14).

Twice in Isaiah the Son, as servant of Jehovah, associates the Spirit with
Himself and the Father (Isaiah 48:16; 61:1-2; Luke 4:17-20).

In Haggai 2:4-9 the Trinity can be seen.  There is the Lord, or Lord of hosts
(in all verses) who speaks of sending the Son (verse 7).  He also speaks of
the work of the Spirit (verse 5).

In Job 26:13 creation's beautiful work is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, but in
Proverbs 30:4 this craftsmanship is ascribed to the Father and Son.

4. More than one person receives titles and attributes of Deity.  That the Son
appeared to men occasionally in the Old Testament times, prior to His
incarnation, as the "angel of the Lord" (angel means messenger), in known as a
"theophany" and is a logical conclusion, based on Genesis 16 and Exodus 3:

     And the angel of the Lord found her (Genesis 16:7)
     ...and the angel of the Lord said unto her (Genesis 16:9)
     ...and the angel of the Lord said unto her (Genesis 16:11)
     ...and she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou
     God seest me ((Genesis 16:13)

     And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the
     midst of a bush...And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God
     called unto him out of the midst of the bush (Exodus 3:2,4).

In both cases, the angel of the Lord is subsequently called God; evidently the
angel of Yahweh is equal to Yahweh and is the manifestation of His presence.

The second Psalm unites the Father and Son in coming wrath, judgment, and
universal reign, a prerogative of God alone (Psalm 45:6; Daniel 2:44; Obadiah
21; Hebrews 1:8-9).  Life and blessing are promised to those who honor the Son,
the Lord's anointed.

It is evident that some Old Testament saints at least were aware of the
existence of the eternal Son, as seen in John 8:56, Hebrews 11:26, and
1 Corinthians 10:4.

We cannot leave the Old Testament without also referring to that wonderful,
clear prophecy of Christ the Son in Isaiah 9:6-7, where it speaks of Him as "the
mighty God" (El Gibbor).  Everywhere else in the Old Testament where this name
is used, it unquestionably refers to Yahweh Himself; therefore it cannot
possibly be translated "mighty hero" in Isaiah 9:6, as some would like to do.

>    My intention was only trying to convince you all about that 
>    there is only one God, and not a God that can divide himself
>    into two or three persons. And because of the last judgement he
    
    Alex, we agree that there is only 1 God, but there is more to the
    nature of God.  The Scriptures make it quite clear that there is only one 
    God (Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 1 Kings 8:60, 2 Kings 19:15, Isaiah 44:6, 
    Zechariah 14:9, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:4, 8:6, Galatians 3:20, 
    James 2:19).  But it is equally clear that there are three persons given 
    the same divine attributes, such as eternal existence, sovereignty, 
    omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, unchangeableness, righteousness, 
    and holiness.  As God, each can say "I," and in addressing the other 
    two, "Thou."

1. Each is called God:  Father - Romans 1:7.  Son - Matthew 1:23; Romans 9:5;
   Hebrews 1:8.  Spirit - Acts 5:3-4; Ephesians 2:22.
2. Each is called Lord:  Father - Matthew 11:25.  Son - Acts 2:36; Romans 10:9.
   Spirit - 2 Corinthians 3:17.
3. Each is called Creator: Father - Isaiah 42:5, 45:18; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
   Son - John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 1 Corinthians 8:6.  Spirit -
   Genesis 1:1-2; Job 26:13,33-34.
4. Each is called Comforter:  Father - Isaiah 51:3,12; 2 Corinthians 1:3-4; 7:6;
   2 Thessalonians 2:16-17.  Son - John 14:18; Philippians 2:1; 2 Thessalonians
   2:16-17.  Spirit - John 14:16-17,26; Acts 9:31.

So we are faced with two apparently contradictory truths of Scripture: there is
one God, but there are three persons who are clearly shown to be God.  Human
reasoning replies that the two are irreconcilable - if three persons are walking
down the street, they are clearly three and never one.  They may be one in
purpose, but they can never be one in substance or essence.

It may come as a surprise to some to discover that the word "Trinity" (literally
tri-unity) is not found anywhere in Scripture.  However, the doctrine certainly
is in the very warp and woof of Holy Writ.  We use the word for the sake of the
doctrine which it conveniently represents.  (The words "omniscient" and
"omnipresent" are not found in the Bible either, but no Bible student hesitates
to use them as perfectly descriptive of clearly revealed attributes of God.)

Obviously, we are handling a divine mystery.  He is God, and all we can learn or
know of the mode of His existence we must learn from the revelation of Himself
given us in the Bible.  We may argue "a priori" that certain attributes must
exist in God's nature.  But how He exists - whether as absolutely one person or
in a trinity of persons in one essence - is a matter about which we can
necessarily know nothing, except as God Himself instructs us in our ignorance.
We are but His creatures, and while "fearfully and wonderfully made," still are
limited in knowledge and understanding before the Eternal One.

Definition of Terms
-------------------
At this point, let us suggest a definition of the doctrine of the Trinity: there
is one true God; but in the unity of the Deity there are three persons: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit; coeternal and coequal, the same in substance but
distinguishable in subsistence (not tritheism - three gods).  God is one, but in
essence three, as to persons.

We use the word "persons" simply for lack of anything more adequate in human
language to express this divine concept.  Obviously, the Bible does not refer to
three persons in the Godhead within out human concept of the term, so we must
sweep from our minds any strictly human analogy.  However, each possesses
intelligence, emotion, and will.  In that sense, they are distinct "persons."

In using the expressions, the first person of the Trinity (Father), the second
person of the Trinity (Son), and the third person of the Trinity (Holy Spirit),
it is definitely not to imply priority or superiority, which the Scripture does
not warrant, for each is very God; but in studying this triunity, the tenor of
Scripture revelation would indicate the following rationale:

The Father is essentially the source (in the sense of sender) of the divine
nature, God (John 1:18; 3:34; 8:16; 12:44-45).

The Son is essentially the manifestation of the divine nature, God (Matthew
1:23; John 1:14,18; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Philippians 2:5-9; Colossians 2:9; 1
Timothy 3:16).

The Spirit is essentially the energy of the divine nature, God (Genesis 1:1-2;
Romans 8:10-11; 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5).

How Should We Approach the Study of this Doctrine?
--------------------------------------------------
God can truly be known through the revelation He is pleased to make Himself
through His Word.  The proud, self-sufficient person will never know Him.  Our
approach must be in humility, recognizing the utter inability of the finite mind
to comprehend the infinite.  Many centuries ago Zophar counseled Job on this
subject in Job 11:7-9.

We must be ready to accept what information He chooses to give us and not try to
put God in a laboratory for analysis nor seek to reduce the infinite to a
formula.  We cannot bring God down to our level and try to know Him by human
analogies.  We are His creatures and He is the Creator.  While the search to
know God, or thirst for Him, is one of the God-given instincts in the human
breast, we quickly arrive at human limitations.  For example, we are limited by
the factors of time and space, but God is not, for He created them.

A second principle is that these truths are revealed by the Holy Spirit to those
who are spiritually alive (1 Corinthians 2:6-16).  The natural man,
unregenerate, has his understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of
God, through the ignorance that is in him, because of the blindness of his heart
(Ephesians 4:18), but upon receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior he is born
again, now to be spiritually alive (John 1:12-13), even to the remarkable extent
of partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).  At this point he becomes
teachable by the Holy Spirit who dwells in him (John 14:17; 16:13-15; 1 John
2:20) and can grow in the knowledge of the glory of God (2 Corinthians 3:18;
4:6; 2 Peter 3:18).  The prayer and goal of the Christian, then, is to be
"increasing in knowledge of God" (Colossians 1:10).

As we contemplate the greatness of the eternal, almighty God; infinite in
holiness, wisdom, power, and love, we can see ourselves only as very small
before Him, and bow low in worship.  At the same time we praise Him for the
revelation He has given us of Himself in His Word and humbly welcome the light
He gives concerning His nature and mode of existence.  In this frame of mind, we
can explore through the Bible and learn what God would teach us regarding the
doctrine of the Trinity, latent in the Old Testament, but quite explicitly
propounded in the New.  To study through the Bible is to discover it.
    
    Mike

In the New Testament we find strong emphasis on the Trinity, with only sporadic
references to one God.  It is in the cumulative evidence of text after text that
the NT underscores the doctrine of Trinity, as we observe that three persons of
the Godhead unite in many mighty works.  Consider the following:

1. In the incarnation - "And the angel answered and said unto her, *THE HOLY
GHOST* shall come upon thee, and the power of *THE HIGHEST* shall overshadow
thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called
*THE SON OF GOD*." (Luke 1:35).  "For that which is conceived in her is of *THE
HOLY GHOST*.  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name
*JESUS*: For He shall save His people from their sins...Behold, a virgin, shall
be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, *GOD WITH US*." (Matthew 1:20-21,23).  The
Triune God is involved in this mighty act, so full of mystery, "God...manifest
in the flesh." (1 Timothy 3:16).

2. In the baptism of the Lord - See Luke 3:21-22.  The phrase "My beloved Son"
is cross referenced to Isaiah 42:1 and literally means "This is My Son, the
Beloved."  As the Son submits to baptism, the Father speaks from heaven, and the
Spirit descends.

3. In the redemptive work of God - see Titus 3:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; Hebrews 9:14;
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; John 3:3-16; and Luke 15:3.  In John 3, one of the
passages most frequently used to preach the good news of salvation, we clearly
see the Triune God at work to redeem sinful man:  The *SPIRIT* regenerates
(verses 3-12); the *SON* redeems (verses 13-15); and the *FATHER* reveals His
love (verse 16).  This redemptive work of the Triune God is beautifully
portrayed in Luke 15.  Note that it is one parable (verse 3), not three, but
there are three distinct persons active in seeking the sinner.  In the first
case, it is a man who seeks one lost sheep and who, laying it on his shoulders
of strength, brings it home rejoicing - an apt picture of the Son of Man who
came to seek and to save that which was lost.  In the second aspect of the same
parable it is a woman who has lost one piece of silver and who lights a lamp,
sweeps diligently, and looks until she finds it, with again a scene of rejoicing
- a striking illustration of the Holy Spirit's special ministry of illumination
and diligent searching out of the lost sinner, rejoicing when the silver of
redemption is found.  And what of God the Father?  Hardly any comment is
necessary on the familiar third aspect of the parable where the father's heart
of love and longing over the wayward son is fully told out, together with his
abundant grace in forgiveness and restoration to fellowship.

4.  On the first Lord's day - The Father (Acts 2:24, Acts 13:30, Romans 6:4);
The Son (John 2:19,21; John 10:17-18); The Spirit (Romans 8:11, 1 Peter 3:18).

5.  On the day of Pentecost - The Father (John 14:16,26); The Son (John 15:26,
16:7).  The sending of the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter, at Pentecost, is
alike ascribed to the Father and the Son.

6.  In the Church's commission - Matthew 28:19.  Note that it is "name" not
"names."  This is plain intimation of the unity of the Trinity.

7.  In the gifts to, and ministry in, the church - 1 Corinthians 12:4-6.  "Same
Spirit... Same Lord... Same God..."

8.  In apostolic salutations - 1 Thessalonians 1:3-5.  The phrase "...Him
which is, and which was, and which is to come..." in Revelation 1:4-6 is
cross-referenced to Exodus 3:14 (the "I AM").  "The seven Spirits" relates to
Isaiah 11:2 and the sevenfold, full manifestation of the Spirit.

9.  In doxologies - Jude 20-21; 2 Corinthians 13:14.

10. In the prayer life of the Christian - Ephesians 2:18, 3:14-19.

11. In the worship and service of the Christian - Ephesians 5:18-20;
Philippians 3:3; and 1 Thessalonians 5:18-19.

12. In the believer's sanctification - The Father (Jude 1; 1 Thessalonians 4:3,
5:23); The Son (1 Corinthians 1:2,30; Hebrews 10:10, 13:12); The Spirit (1 Peter
1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 6:11).  It is interesting to note that
each person of the Godhead sanctifies through the Word: the Father (John 17:17),
the Son (Ephesians 5:26), and the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18).

13. In the adoption of the Christian - The Father (Ephesians 1:3-5); The Son
(Galatians 4:4-5); The Spirit (Romans 8:15-16).

14. In the Christian's victory - The Father (Romans 8:31); The Son (Romans
8:34); The Spirit (Romans 8:26).

15. In the matter of blasphemy - Matthew 12:31-32.  Note how the three persons
of the Godhead are distinguished.  "All manner of sin and blasphemy" is
understood to be directed against God, since all sin is essentially against Him.
This can be forgiven.  A word against the Son of Man can also be forgiven (verse
32), but the case of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is distinct from the
other two.

The overwhelming evidence of these verses should be sufficient to prove the
doctrine of the Trinity, if we are ready to accept the light and authority of
the Scriptures alone.  It is both interesting and important to observe that
there is no strict order of mention of the three persons of the Godhead in the
foregoing verses, which both emphasizes the deity of each and underscores the
fact that there is no jealousy there.  The three persons of the Godhead are
clearly distinguishable, coequal and coeternal, the Triune God.  Such an
intertwining of attributes and functions speaks convincingly of oneness.
However, the foregoing list of texts is representative, not exhaustive.  Further
reading and study should bring out more, especially in the Epistles.  For
example, here is a list from Ephesians:

_Chapter_1_
Contains a three-verse hymn of praise to the Triune God for His redemptive work.
Each verse ends in a note of praise and worship.

a) The Father's work of love (1:3-6): Appointing (1:4), Adopting (1:5),
Accepting (1:6), "To the praise of the glory of His grace" (1:6).

b) The Son's work of grace (1:7-12): Emancipating (1:7), Enlightening (1:9),
Enriching (1:11), "To the praise of His glory" (1:12).

c) The Spirit's work of testimony (1:13-14): Sealing (1:13), Securing (1:14),
Strengthening (1:16), "Unto the praise of His glory" (1:14).

_Chapter_2_
For through *Him* [Christ] we both have access by one Spirit unto the *Father*
(2:18-22).  In *Whom* [the Lord] ye also are builded together for an habitation
of *God* through the *Spirit* (2:22).

_Chapter_3_
The dispensation of the grace of *God*... (the mystery of *Christ*)...now
revealed... by the *Spirit* (3:2-5).  Strengthened with might by His *Spirit*
in the inner man; That *Christ* may dwell in your hearts by faith...that ye
might be filled with all the fullness of *God* (3:16-19).

_Chapter_4_
One *Spirit*...One *Lord*...One *God* and Father (4:4-6).  Grieve not the Holy
*Spirit *of God...forgiving one another, even as *God* for *Christ*'s sake hath
forgiven you (4:30-32).

_Chapter_5_
Be filled with the *Spirit*...making melody in your heart to the *Lord*;  Giving
thanks always for all things unto *God* and the Father in the name of our Lord
Jesus *Christ* (5:18-20).

_Chapter_6_
Be strong in the *Lord*, and in the power of His might.  Put on the whole armour
of *God*...And take...the sword of the *Spirit* (6:10-17).

The abundant Scripture evidence should be sufficient for the truth to be plain
in this matter.  However, God in His infinite wisdom has also left the imprint
of His person in the universe He created; nature reflects something of the
essence of the Creator and bears the stamp of the Triune God (Romans 1:20).  We
are aware that doctrine is not based on illustrations or analogy, even on
thousands of them, but they are helpful to an understanding of the doctrine.
The many types, symbols, and figures of the Old Testament, as well as the
parables of the New, illustrate doctrine rather than teach it.  In God's
creation it is not surprising to discover that not all that is one in number is
strictly singular in nature:

1. A man is one being, yet he is spirit, soul, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23;
   Hebrews 4:12); one, yet three; three, yet one.  Each one expresses the whole,
   yet the whole is manifested in the three.
2. The universe is time, space, and matter.
3. Time manifests itself in past, present, and future.
4. Space has length, breadth, and height (or depth).
5. Matter is energy, motion, and phenomena.
6. The sun in light, heat, and energy.

In each of the above, each part is inseparable from the whole and represents the
whole, and yet the whole is also manifested by each part.  For example, space
cannot exist without length, breadth, and height.  There are not three things
which space does, but which space is, and each is an expression of space.  When
we consider the center of our solar system, we see the light from the sun and
say, "That is the sun."  We feel its heat and still say, "That is the sun."  We
see plants growing by the sun's life-giving energy, and we also say, "That is
the sun."  Each ray of light consists of a luminiferous element, a calorific
element, and an actinic element.  Each performs a distinct purpose, yet all,
unitedly, constitute the one ray of light.  Each is a distinct manifestation of
the same sun, yet there are not three rays, but one ("God is light," 1 John
1:5).  We confess that it is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately
illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity.  The above are cited merely to prod our
thinking.

What are the practical, personal implications of this doctrine?  It affects at
least three vital aspects of our relationship with God:

1. Probably most important of all, it relates directly to the atonement for sin.
If Jesus was anything less than God, then He could not atone for all the sins of
all mankind (that He became true man to do this is equally valid).  That Jesus
Christ was and is God is amply affirmed in the Bible:

   - by His enemies (Matthew 26:63-66, John 5:17-18, 8:58-59, 10:32-33).
   - by His friends (Matthew 16:13-17, John 1:36,49, 20:28).  Jesus received
     worship (Matthew 9:18, 14:33, Luke 24:52, John 9:38), which apostles (Acts
     10:25-26, 14:18) and angels (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9) refused absolutely
     to do, as pertaining to God alone.
   - by His own witness (John 8:23,58, 10:30, 14:9).
   - by the Father's witness (Hebrews 1:8).

An apprehension of the doctrine of the Trinity enhances our appreciation of the
value of the atonement and gives us assurance of the eternal efficacy of
redemption.

2. It enriches our worship.  This doctrine of the Trinity partially unveils to
our puny minds the mystery of the infinite, eternal God who came to save us (2
Corinthians 5:19).  The Scripture verses setting forth this mystery pull back
the curtains for our wondering eyes to behold Him, and while we cannot fully
know Him, we fall at His feet from this glimpse of glory and, like Isaiah, hear
these words: "Holy, holy, holy [a reference to the Trinity?], is the Lord of
hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory," or, like Paul, exclaim, "O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable
are His judgments, and His ways past find out!  For who hath known the mind of
the Lord?  or who hath been His counselor?  Or who hat first given to Him, and
it shall be recompensed unto him again?  For of Him, and through Him, and to
Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

3. It also relates vitally to the eternal life God has given us, upon personal
faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  The apostle Peter informs us that we
have been made partakes of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), and it may very well
be that the study and light that the doctrine of the Trinity brings to us should
be the key to help us understand the true riches of our life in Christ, and
Christ in us (Colossians 1:27).  The Gospel of John might be called, "The Gospel
of the Trinity," for we have seen much of this doctrine there, but in chapter 17
we find the best Biblical definition of oneness, or unity in plurality, or fusion
of persons, and the analogy is applied to our Christian experience.

    "That they all may be *one*; as Thou, *Father*, art in Me, and I in Thee,
     that they also may be one in Us...that they may be one, even as We are
     one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one...
     That the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

What God has purposed to do with His redeemed is so wonderful the mind is
staggered by the thought.  He not only pardons and justifies us, not only makes
us members of His family, but comes Himself to abide in our hearts (John 14:23,
1 John 4:12-16), making His life ours and ours His!  (John 15:4-5)  And this
oneness is the pathway to spiritual maturity as Christ lives in us ("that they
may be made perfect in one").  This oneness is a vertical relationship (1 Samuel
25:29).  

Conclusion
----------
We believe that the foregoing pages show clearly that Scripture teaches that the
doctrine of the Trinity is:

    1.  Biblical.
    2.  Indispensable to an increase in the knowledge of God (Colossians 1:10)
        - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
    3.  Important to a proper appreciation and appropriation of God's so great
        salvation, freely offered to all men in the gospel.

re: Note 907.229 by Mike "Grace changes everything" 

>                  -< Illustrations - the Fingerprint of God >-

>In God's creation it is not surprising to discover that not all that is one 
>in number is strictly singular in nature:

>1. A man is one being, yet he is spirit, soul, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23;
>   Hebrews 4:12); one, yet three; three, yet one.  Each one expresses the 
>   whole, yet the whole is manifested in the three.
>2. The universe is time, space, and matter.
>3. Time manifests itself in past, present, and future.
>4. Space has length, breadth, and height (or depth).
>5. Matter is energy, motion, and phenomena.
>6. The sun in light, heat, and energy.

...

>The above are cited merely to prod our thinking.

Below are also cited to prod our thinking

3 primary colors (red, green, blue or yellow, cyan, magenta)
3 elementary particles (electron, proton, neutron)
3 quarks make an electron
3 Coins in the Fountain
3 Stooges (leaving out Shemp and Curly Joe they were never *real* stooges)
3 strikes and you're out
3 Dog Night
3 colors on a traffic light  (Red, Yellow or Amber, Green)
3 Olympic medals (gold, silver, bronze)
3 sides on a triangle
3 platonic solids are made of triangles (tetrahedron, octahedron, icosohedron)
3 letters refer to the alphabet (A B C's)
3 stages to starting a race (ready, set, go)
3 sided hats worn by American forefathers
3 ingredients in a BLT (Bacon, Lettuce, Tomato)
3 forms of H2O (ice, water, steam or vapor (also known as humidity))
3 basic trigonometric relationships (sine, secant, tangent)
3 state logic (1, 0, high impedance)
3 legged stools  (very stable because 3 points define a plane)
3 sections of a phone number (area code, exchange, number, like 800-555-1212)
3 horns on a triceratops
3 speeds for VHS video tape (2, 4, and 6 hour mode with a T120 tape)
3 guys (Tom, Dick, and Harry)
3 square meals a day  (breakfast, lunch, dinner or supper)
3 positive one digit numbers that are perfect squares (1, 4, 9)
3 sizes of floppy disks (8 inch (obsolete), 5 1/4 inch, and 3 1/2 inch)
3 to the 3rd power examples of things that come in threes

Peace,

Jim

    Who is He...
    The mightiest of all
    Who is He...
    Creation trembles at His call
    Who is He...
    The lowly sacrifice
    Who paid a victim's price
    His name is Jesus
    
    {Chorus}
    Jesus!
    From the Father's own right hand
    Jesus!
    Son of God and son of man
    Jesus!
    Who died and rose again
    Jesus!
    He's the Lion and the Lamb
    
    Who is He...
    With the power none can tame
    Who is He...
    That every foe would fear His name
    Who is He...
    Who was humbly led away
    To suffer that dark day
    His name is Jesus
    
    {bridge}
    He's the Lamb that was slain
    He's the Lion that reigns
    My Savior and King both the same
    
    Who is He...
    With the eyes that burn like fire
    Who is He...
    Oh the wonder He inspires
    Who is He...
    Who bore the guilt and shame
    For the ones who'd gone astray
    His name is Jesus