Deity of Jesus for salvation?

Post by **_Evangelion** » Thu May 25, 2006 11:08 pm

Interesting thread.

Post by **_Jesusfollower** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:08 pm

John 8:58b
Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.” [23]

2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

3. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquerors the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. We are not the only ones who believe that Jesus’ statement does not make him God:

To say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). [24]

4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Buzzard, pp. 93-97

Dana, Letter 21, pp. 169-171

Morgridge, pp. 120-21

Norton, pp. 242-246

Snedeker, pp. 416-418

Paidion, Have you ever seen this?

Post by **_Jesusfollower** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:14 pm

Roger, I have,
Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (NIV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The English language makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god.” Thus, in English Bibles, the heavenly Father is called “God,” while lesser divinities, people with God’s authority on earth and important people such as kings, are also called “god” (2 Cor. 4:4; John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between “God” and “god.” Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is “GOD.” Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts “uncials,” and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books. [38]

Since all texts were in upper case script, if we translated Genesis 1:1 and 2 as it appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts, it would read:

IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH NOW THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND EMPTY DARKNESS WAS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE DEEP AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS HOVERING OVER THE WATERS.

Actually, Bible students should be aware that in both the early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there were no spaces between the words, no punctuation marks, no chapters and no verses. The original texts of both the Old and New Testament were capital letters all run together, and it looked like this:

INTHEBEGINNINGGODCREATEDTHEHEAVENSANDTHEEARTHNOWT HEEARTHWASFORMLESSANDEMPTYDARKNESSWASOVERTHESURFA EOFTHEDEEPANDTHESPIRITOFGODWASHOVERINGOVERTHEWATERS

Of course, the entire Bible was hand-printed exactly the same way, with every letter in upper case and no spaces between any words. As you can imagine, that made reading very difficult, and so it was common to read aloud, even when reading to yourself, to make it easier. That is why Philip the Evangelist could hear the Ethiopian eunuch reading the scroll of Isaiah (Acts 8:30). Such a text was hard to read and practically impossible to teach from. Imagine not being able to say, “Turn to Chapter 5, verse 15.” Therefore, divisions in the text began to appear quite early. However, because scribes lived far apart and hand-copied manuscripts, the divisions in the various manuscripts were not uniform. The first standardized divisions between verses came into being around 900 AD., and the modern chapter divisions were made in the 1200s.

It should now be very clear that there was just no way to distinguish between “God” and “god” in the early texts, and so it must always be determined from the context whether or not the word “GOD” is referring to the Father or to some lesser being. Although it was usual that the presence of the definite article in the Greek text alerted the reader that the “GOD” being referred to was the Father, this was not always the case (see the note on John 10:33). For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the word “theos” has the definite article, but the verse is referring to the Devil. Context is always the final judge of whether theos should be translated “God” or “god.”

2. The Semitic languages, and both the Latin and Greek spoken by the early Christians, used the word “God” with a broader meaning than we do today. “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including great people, rulers and people acting with God’s authority. In John 10:33, when the Jews challenged Jesus and said he was claiming to be “a god” (mistranslated in most versions as “God”; see our note on that verse), he answered them by asking them if they had read in the Old Testament that people to whom the Word of God came were called “GODS” (and we use all caps here because the earliest texts did. It is hard to escape the modern notion that “God” refers to the True God and “gods” referred to lesser deities).

Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings. It is the context that determines whether “God” or a great person is being referred to. This is actually a cause of occasional disagreement between translators, and they sometimes argue about whether “GOD” refers to God, the Father, or to a powerful person or representative of God. One example of this occurs in Exodus 21:6, which instructs a master whose servant wishes to serve him for life to bring the servant “to Elohim.” The KJV, the NIV and many others believe that the owner of the servant is supposed to bring the servant before the local authorities, and so they translate Elohim as “judges” (see also Ex. 22:8-9 for more examples). Other translators felt that the master was required to bring the servant to God, so they translated Elohim as “God”(e.g., NRSV). Thus, the verse will read, “God” or “judges,” depending on the translation.

Hebrews 1:8 is like other verses in that just because the word “theos” (“GOD”) is used does not mean that it refers to the Father. It could easily be referring to “god” in the biblical sense that great men are called “god.” The Septuagint uses the word theos for God, but also for men in places like Psalm 82 where men represent God. The context must be the determining factor in deciding what “GOD” refers to. In this case, in Hebrews that we are studying, the context is clear. Throughout the entire context from Hebrews 1:1, Christ is seen to be lesser than God the Father. Therefore, the use of “theos” here should be translated “god.”

3. The context must determine whether Christ is being referred to as the Supreme Being or just a man with great authority, so it must be read carefully. In this case, however, one need not read far to find that Christ, called “God,” himself has a “God.” The very next verse, Hebrews 1:9, says, “therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions.” Thus, Christ cannot be the supreme God, because the supreme God does not have a God. Furthermore, Christ’s God “set” him above others and “anointed” him. This makes it abundantly clear that the use of theos here in Hebrews is not referring to Christ being the supreme God, but rather a man with great authority under another God. Andrews Norton writes:

Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus, the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: “Here the Son is addressed by the title God: but the context shows that it is an official title which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne and a scepter; and in verse 9 he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.” [39]

4. The verse is a quotation from Psalm 45:6,7. The Jews read this verse for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word “God,” never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God.

5. We must note that the verse in the Greek text can also be translated as, “Thy throne is God.” However, because the verse is a reference from the Old Testament, and because we believe that God, the Father, is calling His Christ a “god” (i.e., one with divine authority), there is no need to translate the verse other than, “Thy throne, O god, is forever.” [For further study, read Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as “God?”]

Broughton and Southgate, pp. 196 and 197

Buzzard, pp. 35

Dana, pp. 205 and 206

Farley, pp. 71 and 72

Morgridge, pp. 110 and 111

Norton, pp. 301 and 302

Snedeker, pp. 459-46

Praise God, and his Son Jesus.

Post by **_Evangelion** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:25 pm

Hmmm. That's from the Biblical Unitarian site, isn't it?

Post by **_Jesusfollower** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:48 pm

Yes it is.

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Sun May 28, 2006 1:55 pm

I have been to that site before too. In fact, that was my first encounter with views that challenge the Trinitarian understanding in such a great way. The oneness of God view was weak, along with the angelic Jesus Jehovah Witness view. But this actually attempts to touch on Trinitarian proof texts, and does a good job, (though I am unsure for total certainty if it's the proper understanding of the passages).

Post by **_Evangelion** » Sun May 28, 2006 2:59 pm

Jesusfollower wrote:Yes it is.

Great stuff!

It really is one of the best Biblical Unitarian sites I have ever seen.

Post by **_Jesusfollower** » Mon May 29, 2006 11:03 am

Soaring Eagle, the best way to determine if it is a proper understanding of scripture is to get out your Bible, and follow along with what is being said. Then get out your interlinears, concordances and pray. We want to believe what God is trying to tell us, Amen?

Post by **_Rick_C** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:45 am

*bump*

I just read the first 2 pages of the thread and want to keep track of it.

Paidion (if yer out there),
I would like to comment on some of your posts (and others' too, perhaps) if I find time . . . lots of catching up to do here, lol

While I feel I have a basic understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity (When, Why, and How it came into existence) and "accept" it for what it is; I also have views that are compatible with 1st century Judaism (what the NT authors were involved with). I've attempted to explain my views but was called a heretic and didn't get too far. However, the people who called me that knew next to nothing about 1st century Judaism (so I considered the source) . . . ho hum . . . DUH . . . .

I have no idea when I'll be able to get back to the thread. I will say in advance that my views "sound JW" and "sound binitarian" but as I posted above; I concur with the Trinity when seen for what it is.

If I get called a heretic I will stop posting, lol, np
Rick

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:48 am

have not been involved in this discussion but have quickly glanced over it this morning. I was just wondering if any of you have considered this wonderful verse:

Hebrews 1:8 "But to the Son He says: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..."

I didn't see it posted in the discussion at all but I may have missed it. I shared this verse once with some JW's who stopped at my house with the intention of converting me and they left bewildered by this verse.

If this were a correct translation of the verse, then "God" should have been in the vocative case in Greek. But it isn't. It is in the nominative case (the case used for the subject of a sentence).

The Greek of the Septuagint in Psalm 45:6 from which the sentence is quoted by the writer of Hebrews, is identical.

Only the RSV has been bold enough, not in its text but in its footnote to give the alternate "Or God is thy throne".

I am not a Greek expert, but from the studies I have made, I would translate the sentence:

God is your throne throughout the ages of ages, and the immediate scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

The word "throne" is used metaphorically as "potentate". God the Father is Christ's potentate or governor. While on earth, He always said that He didn't do His own will, but that of His Father. The Kingdom of God came into being while Christ walked the earth. Thus He said to the Pharisees, "The Kingdom of Heaven is among you." A Kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. The king of the Kingdom was Jesus, and His disciples were His subjects. Thus the Kingdom of Heaven was among the people standing there. Thus there was an immediate scepter right in the days of Christ, and that scepter was the scepter of God's kingdom.

The writer to the Hebrews, in this context, shows how much greater the Son of God is than mere angels. This particular verse shows how close His relationship is to His Father in that He was given the scepter of the Kingdom of God, as its Lord and Ruler.