Gloss-olalia
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
God – The King James translation of the Bible held sway over Protestant Christendom for 400 years. That means most English believers prior to 1950 formed their theological constructs based on this version of the text. The problem is that this version incorporated several unwarranted theological doctrines as if they were actual translations. This verse is a prime example. In the Greek text, the word “God” is significantly absent! Notice how more contemporary translations handle the same passage:
NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
NIV: Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
But God’s Word Translation, KJV 2000, Darby, World English and Young’s Literal insert the word “God” into the text when the Greek uses only the pronoun hos (“he”). Unless you read Greek, you might assume that Paul described Yeshua as God in this verse. You would be wrong, but you would never know. Trinitarian translators simply included their theological dogma in the text. The fact that several translations continue to insert a word not found in the Greek is unconscionable. This is “speaking in forked tongues,” to use an American idiom. No wonder people have so much trouble examining this doctrine. Depending on which Bible you read, you might think that questioning the doctrine is the equivalent of questioning God’s own words.
I am often asked, “What is the best Bible translation to read?” The answer is, “None!” Or, “any one you wish.” The problem is that every translation has bias, subtle little shifts in word choices, tiny additions or subtractions, a bit of a doctrine here and there. And no one is the wiser—except those who read the Greek or Hebrew text and raise issues, usually to be swept aside with the standard dismissal: “If all those Christians who carefully translated God’s word over the centuries produced this Bible, how can you claim that they were wrong. God superintends translations so that we can trust what we read.” Wrong again, as this text and others clearly demonstrate. But who would know.
Sometimes I think that biblical translations are just another form of unintelligible glossolalia, requiring an interpreter to come along and explain what we all thought we heard. What I do know is this: deciphering the text is a lot more complicated than most of us were ever taught. We wanted simple faith, but we got opinions simplified.
Topical Index: translation, Trinity, 1 Timothy 3:16
As it is said: “The truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.” What isn’t said in that truism is that WE have to figure out which is which. It seems (sadly) that those doctrines which are the oldest and that the modern church holds most dearly, defends most doggedly are the very ones we need to examine first and most thoroughly. Boy, when I first became a believer almost 40 years ago I thought I was just along for the ride, that the current would somehow wash me merrily ashore the banks of the Jordan when I would die. Just believe and receive. Name it and claim it. I didn’t know I’d have to be a farmer, a miner, a fisher, a craftsman, a laborer, a student, a workman, a disciplined disciple. But better to know late than never at all. 40 years? Just a walk in the desert.
A little off topic…
I kept reading 1 Timothy and got to 1 Tim 4:1-5. Looking at verse 3 (forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.) This verse is one of those people quote to say, “See, we are now allowed to eat whatever we want!”
The only problem is, when you look at the word for “food,” it tells a different story. The word is “bromaton” and has a meaning of, “articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:—meat, victuals.” Or in other words, the Levitical code (Torah) for what can be eaten. So, let’s put this back into the verse: forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from [articles allowed or forbidden by the Torah] which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
Hmmmm….
Seems to me Paul was saying there would come a time when people would forbid obeying the Torah in terms of what is clean and unclean for eating.
OK, so this was way off topic, but it was too good to pass up!
Blessings & Shabbat Shalom!
Rick, I wanted to thank you for your little detour. It gave me a lot!
Rick, I understand what you are saying about “food” but what about the next verse that says, ” seeing that every creature of God is ideal and nothing is to be cast away, being taken with thanksgiving, for it is hallowed through the word of God and pleading.”?
If it said, “every food” then we can argue that it means every (clean) food, because only clean food is defined as food, but it uses the words “every creature” which would seem to open the door to pork etc.
Can you or anyone comment on this?
Two different thoughts come to my mind.
1. This is an argument against the prohibition of eating any and all meat.
2. “Every” can’t mean “every” because some creatures are poisonous to us if eaten. (e.g. Puffer fish. And yet it does say “every”.)
Dan,
This is where Skip teaches us that we have to go back to the original audience and understand what their definition of “food” is (first rule of exegesis). The only creatures that would be considered “food” is what is described in the Levitical Code — hence, to them “all” simply means, “all that is allowed.”
The same goes with Noah when YHVH told him “all” food was now allowed. Noah (and the original audience hearing the story) understood that only the clean animals were allowed. Remember, Noah had both clean (7 pairs) and unclean (2 pairs) of each animal.
Bringing this back to another of Skip’s teachings (Stepping in It, April 9, 2012), if we are to be a part of Abraham’s tribe, we must abide by the rules for the tribe. YHVH tells us to “be holy, for I am holy.” If YHVH only accepts clean animals, then as part of the tribe YHVH set aside, we too must only accept (eat) clean animals.
So, in the end, 1 Tim 4:4, does not contradict verse 3, it goes hand in hand.
Rick,
We’re off topic but if I may continue to question the meaning of “all” or “every”, – a few more verses down in 1 Tim 4:10 it says, (YLT)
we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men–especially of those believing.
It almost sounds contradictory. What is the context and meaning of “all” here? Does “all” really only mean “some”? Does “especially” really mean “but only”?
Who is God saving? My Universalist friends believe “all” means “all”, but unbelievers will not be saved until sometime after their resurrection, judgment and reconciliation”, whereas “especially . . . believers”, pertains to those who are believing now and therefore saved in this life.
It seems to make sense to me but I am open to other interpretations.
As it turns out, I just wrote something about the Greek vs. Hebrew use of polys (all) for another TW (to come later). It’s not so obvious and in English it can be quite confusing. Hold on (if you can).
I defer to Skip.
Well, I added a smiley face to my prior post, but it didn’t show up. (grin)
Reminds me of Andy Andrews book “How Do You Kill 11 Million People”
Hath God Said?
In the beginning, and from the beginning, (where it all started), “doubt”- the enemy of faith, has remained with us (the humans) ever since. Do you believe? Do you trust? – or do you doubt?
Is the Bible – the verbal, plenary, inspired “word of God,” – or is it not? Friend, either it is —or (my goodness!) – aren’t we wasting our time and our lives?
THIS – this is “how we roll,” -(just three words!), but what wonderful words they are! — “It is written.”
Ah, but then come the ones who wish to “argue over words..” But, I’m not bothered- none at all!
Why? I’m so glad you asked. My brothers and sisters, it is because the One who made all things (and sustains all things by the word of His power!) IS infinitely-divinely-fully ABLE to communicate to every man (NOT JUST THE JEW!)- His perfect will.
Coming to Terms — Explore the Book!
Our Savior, and the Savior of the world, (not just the “Jewish” Messiah, – but the Savior of ALL mankind, – (BOTH Jew and Gentile alike- for ALL have sinned) is the Word of God incarnate, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. His Name is Wonderful! (Isaiah 9.6)
Once again, (this time with feeling?)- You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life.
~ These are the very Scriptures that testify about Me..~ (John 5.39)
I am both amazed and confused. How can any man (and especially one who is “Jewish” by first birth)- might read this Book of books, and not see (or understand, or perceive, – or come to know) the very same “profession” of Peter: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!” (KJV) or “You are the Messiah” (in most plain and ordinary-everyday language) – I can muster up.
In Christ’s stead, I must ask the all-important question: – *but who do YOU say that I AM?
IF we were “there,” would we also join the crowd and shout out — “Nail Him to the Tree!” “Away with Him, let Him be crucified!!” “ His blood be upon us and our children!”
Or, would we, and some did on that day and ever since, “bow the knee,” and agree with the prayer of the dying thief:— And he said to Yeshua, “My LORD, (ADONAI) remember me when you come into Your Kingdom.”
Is our the testimony of the tax collector?
“But the tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. Instead, he beat his chest in sorrow, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me, for I am a sinner.’
Is ours the confession of Jeremiah?
~ After I strayed, I repented; after I came to understand, I beat my breast. I was ashamed and humiliated because I bore the disgrace of my youth ~ (Jeremiah 31:19)
Is ours the prayer of Ezra? “I am too ashamed and disgraced, my God, to lift up my face to You, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens.” (Ezra9.6)
Is ours the testimony of (doubting) Thomas? “My LORD and my God!!”
Have we heard the promise of the resurrected Christ? Do we seek, want or need His forgiveness?
~ For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened ~? (Matthew 7:8 )
You know, at some point we may want to ask ourselves where the ‘conservative’ ones were on the topic of the Trinity way back when when the subject was being addressed originally. My understanding was that there was a lot of pressure from elements who were saying that Jesus was just a man. The vote to sling a deliberate bias in there was a vote in response to a problem. Ok, so they heeled the rudder WAY over.
Here’s my concern. There are some elements out there today who, again, want Him to be just a man, or at least a lower divine being, which other beliefs claim you can attain from starting out as just a human. If you go swinging too hard in the other direction, which it is natural to want to do to make a point, and I am guilty of it like, all the time, what if you wake up one morning and find that you have just fed a whole new crowd just what they wanted to eat?
Rightly dividing the Word of Truth is what I am praying for all of us. There is a lion out there, and he has lots of ways to devour. I pray that we are all protected from such a danger.
P.S. Obviously, the pronoun “he” in the above verse is referring to “Jesus Christ” mentioned earlier in the text, but what exactly is the term, “mystery of godliness” that was “manifest in the flesh”? I do just want to stay on the log, here….
Actually, the issue of whether or not the Bible is the “verbal, plenary, inspired” word of God is irrelevant to the question about wasting our lives. Abraham had NO Bible at all, yet his life was not a waste. It was the relationship with God, Abraham’s encounter, that made the difference. We do not worship the Bible. We worship the God who revealed Himself to men who wrote down what He said to them and wrote about their experience with Him. As soon as we make “verbal, plenary, inspired” the criteria for relationship, we have migrated from experience to analysis, and the result will be tomes on theology without awe in prayer. We examine the words of the text because they represent what others have experienced and what God gave them, but that does not make the Bible “verbal, plenary and inspired.” In order to suggest that it is “verbal, plenary and inspired” we have to adopt a paradigm, make a choice, to see it that way–and clearly NOT EVERYONE WHO EXPERIENCED THE GOD OF ISREAL would have agreed with OUR definitions of “verbal, plenary and inspired.”
Skip
For anyone to put so much weight behind our favorite translation is a very common weakness in the body today. To go a bit farther in this direction I need to ask the question. Did not the RC church have soul possession “on pain of death” of “all” the Greek texts and manuscripts “that they recopied as well” for some 1200 years or so? I could be wrong but I don’t think it outside the realm of possibility of some key verses to be altered to suit the RC ideals along the way through all those years?
The Greek Orthodox church also had manuscripts, as did a few others, but by and large you are correct, the RCC had almost all of them for 1000+ years. Now we know for certain that some texts were altered (and added), but the rest is hard to say. Textual criticism can only work with extant manuscripts so the rest is argument form silence. Sill, when Shem Tov Matthew comes along and does not contain any references to the Trinity (or hints therein), you have to wonder.
I have always been taught that the Bible is holy therefore what is contained within is also holy. This does seem to translate to worship of a book to me. I have been told the translation does not matter, it is all God’s Word. Really?
I find this statement pretty defensive and tends to come when folks just simply don’t want to make changes or investigate an issue for themselves.
The thought that what is written in the Bible is what God revealed to men and their written story of what they saw/experienced is a new way to look at things for me. This actually explains why when we pray exactly what someone else prayed we often get a different outcome. We are not them and situations are different. It is a good example and helpful to guide us along and I am thinking that is what was intended.
Somewhere along the way this has been hijacked. Someone always seems to figure they have a better take on what was REALLY said and presto-we have yet another translation.
Amazing how many church going folks get the attitude that the church they attend is the ONLY one who gets it right. That comes thru in attitudes in every day activities. To me this demonstrates the burdens that religion puts on people. It sucks the joy out of lives and puts so much judgment and then condemnation on those who don’t attend that one church. Doesn’t show much of the love that Jesus said would identify those who love HIm. It also makes it difficult to simply live a life that glorifies Him alone.
Awesome simple post today to ponder on awhile.
Thanks Dawn. So many of the heroes of the faith DID NOT HAVE THE BIBLE, and yet they are considered exemplars. Yes, I’m afraid that we have substituted the words in a book for the word of the Lord. But that’s what religion does.
Skip, I know nothing of Greek and have to rely on other resources for understanding so I looked on Blue letter Bible to see for my self. It gives “theos” as the Greek word not “hos” in 1 Tim 3:16 . Were do I go from here? Thanks so much for Your help!
Yes, the Jay P Green Interlinear Bible shows the word as theos and not ho. Is this not a question of which Greek text to use rather than a “translation” issue? Not that I don’t agree with where you are going on this TW but your presentation makes it sound like the translators took a Greek word (the pronoun ho) and translated it as ‘God.” But it seems more likely they just chose the particular Greek text because it fit their paradigm and then translated the text correctly.
OK, the Jay Greek interlinear is based on the Textus Receptus, the text that was used in the KJV translation, but which every scholar knows has been supplanted by considerable textual evidence. The accepted Greek text today is Nestle-Aland 27th (or 28th). While the Textus Receptus does in fact have theos in the text, the more accurate Greek text has hos. What this means is that the less accurate text may have been modified to reflect the Trinitarian view. The fragments that support hos are listed on page 724 of the Nestle-Aland 27th along with the manuscripts and fragments that support theos, but if you investigate you will find that virtually all of the sources supporting theos are from the 4th century or much later (8th – 10th century). Yes, it’s a tricky situation, but contemporary scholarship and textual criticism generally rejects the TR reading.
You’re right. They did choose a particular Greek text, namely the one that fit their theology, when there is now no excuse for using a text that we know is not as accurate as the NA-27. So, why did they do that? It certainly wasn’t because they didn’t have the NA-27. It had to be for other reasons.
That is what I was getting at – you are so much better with words (as well as a walking encyclopedia)!
See my reply to Ric. The Blue Letter Bible follows the TR, now outdated.
Thanks Skip, Very fascinating!
Skip, I am no scholar, so I have to rely on scholars, but I think I can recognize where things are bound to end up if they start out in a certain direction. You have made several comments today to support your view that only the modern translations of the Greek New Testament are ‘correct’, as opposed to the Textus Receptus. Thank you for finally revealing where you are getting your Greek from.
There are many biases built into these Greek translations, which I am sure you can appreciate, as often as you point out that biases are inevitable when humans and translations are involved, but I have noticed that you are not very quick to share what you believe the inherent biases would be in these particular Greek manuscripts from which you are quoting, one of which happened to have been pulled exclusively from a trash can in the monastery of St. Catherine’s at Sinai (Codex Siniaticus)(it could be assumed that it had been thrown away because of the numerous revisions, some of them up to 70 times, so I have seen reports say, in that document. The poor thing just got erased completely through, I suppose), and the other (Codex Vaticanus) from the depths of the Vatican, where their basis for the Vulgate got conveniently forgotten until somebody needed to write something to combat Tyndale’s work. Just two, plus a few supporting fragments. One of these, please correct me, originated from the bowels of Egypt (Alexandria), the other from the bowels of gnosticism, carefully protected, by the way, by both Mohammed in the 600’s, as well as by Napoleon. Curious. There is nothing, in fact, that can disprove that Origen and his disciple, Eusebius, did not influence these documents. The mystery of iniquity, Nicolatianism, and gnosticism was already giving Paul and the other apostles a headache even then, and there is no document so ancient as to get in behind that corruption.
Westcott and Hort, who were the primary translators of these two documents, themselves are quite suspect as Protestants, if you go and read their many letters they wrote back and forth to each other. They were both members of secret societies and pursued spiritualism and revered Darwin. They favored many Catholic doctrines, including purgatory, and the worship of Mary, and referred to the TR as “vile”. For example, one letter from Westcott to Hort, dated Oct. 15th, 1860 states, and I quote: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “The absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s of bearing our sins to his death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, volume 1, P. 430)
There is, to me, going to be a bias built into these truly ancient documents, that surely got hidden away and unused because they were so unpopular with the early Christian communities, who rejected them in favor of thousands upon thousands of fragments, including letters of early Christians who quoted from the original basis of the Textus Receptus. There is a whole cloud of community over the centuries witnessing to the TR. Skip, not in any way am I questioning your scholarship, but I would want to ask what exactly do you not trust about what all these communities judged as accurate?
If you start out from the pagan assertion that a created being can be divine, then these translations are for you. In fact, I heard a quote from a Buddhist that said if the Christian church had embraced what were called the Lost Gospels, which incorporated a lot of the bias toward this notion of divinity attainment, they would not have needed to be Buddhists. The doctrine of the dead, for example, can not be supported from these new translations. Is this hello, purgatory and hell again? It is true that you are not going to be able to find in these Greek documents any definitive ‘proof’ that Yeshua is G-d, but then, did their writers want you to?
In the end, after the great bias face-off, what we have to have is faith. And for that, we need an Author for our faith, Who is faithful to send His Spirit to direct us and to give us desperately needed gifts. Including discernment. There are a whole lotta wolves out there!
May YHVH bless us and keep us in this precious place. I love all of you and pray for all of us, and most of all for Skip, every day!
P.S. I would be happy to refer anybody to sources, if they wanted to know what I am quoting from.
So I follow you in the first few paragraphs, but I think your points are irrelevant to the discussion. No one is claiming the NA 27 is the FINAL textual representation of the ORIGINAL Greek text. Much less TR. TR was the best we had for a long time, but since 1947, a lot of things have been unearthed and the NA is now considered the best available text. That is a far cry from saying it has no errors. Just look at any page of the NA 27 and you will seen dozens of fragment differences, etc. Whether or not Westcott and Hort included their own bias is interesting, but not particularly relevant to the theos vs. hos issue in the verse we are examining. Nevertheless, thanks for pointing this out.
Now let me make a comment or two about your last few paragraphs. First, the fact that there are a lot of witnesses to the TR does NOT make it more accurate. How could there be anything but a cloud of witnesses? It was the accepted version for centuries. But people believed in the geocentric solar system for centuries too. My not trusting witnesses who were working with documents later shown to be not as accurate says NOTHING about the weight of their witness. If they were wrong, they were wrong, and it doesn’t matter WHY they were wrong.
Then you suggest, I think, that somehow if I question the “divinity” of Christ (and by that I think you mean that he is co-equal with YHVH) then I might as well be a Buddhist or something. Where did you get this? And why would you think that “new” translations have any more credibility than old ones? It isn’t the translation that matters. It’s what the original text says.
Finally, your statement that in the end we have faith is pure and simple fideism. If you believe because you believe, then you really have no argument or evidence for what you believe. You just choose to believe it. And don’t, please, tell me that the Holy Spirit led you to believe it. That is psychological certainty and a complete collapse of any rational epistemological dialogue. If we believe, it is because we have EVIDENCE for what we believe, not because we simply assert that we have FAITH to believe it.
How are we to judge accuracy? Is it only based on the dating of the document? What about supporting documents? I mean, we ARE talking about “original texts”! And why exactly is the TR, with all its foibles, yes, WRONG?
I am not calling you a Buddhist! But, if you end up where I think I can see you going, a lot of Buddhists (some of which I personally know) might end up being very happy with you!
I do happen to base my faith in what the text says, but I have to depend on the Spirit to help me see WHICH text, apparently! We are talking about the evidence for faith, after all. If there are no original texts written by the very hands of the original writers, then we have to rely on the community. Those communities overwhelmingly went off in a certain direction (before Constantine, anyway), and not all those communities were corrupted by Rome. Large churches in northern Africa, for example, were hidden until not long ago, when Rome discovered them, took away their texts, and forcibly ‘converted’ them. Which text did the ‘original’ church have, for example, in the heart of Syria? There were communities in the heart of Europe that resisted the Vatican and kept those TR copies alive for the Reformation to find, and some of those communities, notably some of the Waldensians, still kept the Sabbath. Not only that, the TR is substantiated by these and so many other independent sources it is almost miraculous, to me. And how do you explain the ‘providence’ in hiding the TRUE text away in the Vatican, of all places, away from the people, for so long? That is not the G-d I know, Who promises His Water to all who thirst!
As an aside, if you can assert that we have to take an assumed Trinity bias in certain Greek texts, then I say we, in fairness, have to go look at the bias of the authors of the Greek texts you are choosing to use. What is relevant for the goose is probably going to be relevant for the gander, too. One is a neat Trinity bias. The other is a neat Yeshua-is-not-G-d bias. You can protest the comparative relevance, but the symetry is at least striking to me!
Thank you for your dialogue and for your desire to know the truth. We will get there! If we don’t faint or run each other over!
Every Today’s Word seems to point out that my walk has not been a walk but a crazy ride on a dogmatic Greek roller-coaster…Like Sargent Schultz would say, “I know nothing.
Good place to be, Tom. Knowing that puts you ahead of most. 🙂
I must jump in here.
Skip in your understanding is there One G_d in three persons?
Also regarding dietary laws, festivals etc.: Wasn’t much of Rabbi Paul’s writing devoted to rebuking the Jews for trying to force Goim into becoming Jews in order to belong to Messiah? Isn’t that the point Paul made, that it was not about adherence to rules but a relationship through faith with G_d?
While on this, isn’t that what Peter’s dream was about?
If I, a wild branch grafted in do not observe Kosher I’m SOL? If I do not attend synagogue every Saturday I’m SOL? I track with and agree that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, not the first “Christian”. That G_d chose Israel to manifest Himself, but are we all required to adopt Jewish rituals?
Just direct me to the resources if you like. I did read the 30 day email series but do not recall finding these answers there.
I found this interesting regarding the topic of the trinity, Bill. Even thought I read this in my English translations, I never really noticed it. The trinity aspect was always read IN to the text rather than reading it FROM the texts in regard to the so-called “second person of the trinity.”
I can find the term “Son of God” in many places pertaining to Yeshua. I don’t find, in the text, the designation “God the Son” anywhere. There is a difference. But, I had always read it IN from the other so called doctrinal explanations.
The book “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting has been referenced in here. I’ve read it and found it to offer some very interesting things regarding the trinity issue. I have found it to be a worthwhile read.
You won’t find the phrase ‘God the Son’ but you will find the ‘Word was God’ and ‘was made flesh and dwelt among us’ . John 1.
How would a non-Trinitarian Hebrew thinker understand John in this?
Compare the role of Wisdom personified in Proverbs. See what you think then.
It’s certainly an interesting comparison, but I don’t see a John the Baptist figure in Proverbs to be a witness for her as he witnessed him. However if we read on from v.15 John then declares that no one has seen God except that the Son has made him known and there it would appear that we get into what might be called interpretative translation if one compares that verse (v.18) across the diverse versions available to us.
Church doctrine tells us that God was incarnate in Yeshua, does that mean he is fully God or partly God or just a man like you and me? Or is it that the doctrine is a construct outside of scripture?
If you trace the other editions of Today’s Word on the subject of the Trinity, you will probably find lots of comments and exegetical remarks on these issues In particular, I would suggest Anthony Buzzard’s analysis of the personification of Wisdom as a cultural motif for understanding John’s comments in chapter 1.
Yes, but on the other hand having the word made flesh does not have to mean that Yeshua was the same as YHWH. The concept could entail that, while YHWH is spirit, whatever that truly means, Yeshua living out Torah perfectly as a human would, in fact, be exactly what YHWH’s essence is. Yeshua is THE example of what Torah, Life looks like when done as YHWH is reflected. Walk in Torah completely and correctly, as Yeshua did, would give us what YHWH would look like in flesh form. If one walks completely in the ways and life of Torah, as Yeshua did, you see YHWH, you see exactly what reflects him. “No one has seen God.” Yeshua has explained YHWH by living Torah perfectly.
Torah, via Yeshua’s life, dwelt among us. You want to know what YHWH is like? Look at Yeshua’s life. It is YHWH’s essence lived out for the world to see and observe. Yeshua reflected his father completely and perfectly.
Just my different view of the matter now as opposed to years ago.
Thank you Michael, that’s helpful.
For the record I do not particularly like the word trinity, preferring triune. To me it expresses the omnipresent, omniscient and omnificient nature of God. For a time the Word set aside this nature, but not the oneness, to become like one of us. Tempted, yes, but unstained by sin.
1 Corinthians 15:28 tells us the ultimate goal is for God to be all in all. In other words multi-une though for the time being there is only a triunity.
So taking your statement one step further, when YHWH is finally multi-une, then we will all be God, or all be part of God. This certainly makes it seem as if the Mormons (at least as described by mainstream Christianity) and the pantheists may be closer to the idea of the multi-une than the mainstream Christians are. And since Y’shua prays that his Father would make us all one with them, as they are one, then perhaps your multi-une proposal makes sense, however, when the multi-une (the Borg?) comes into being (and by reduction – the triune), it does not cause the individual component parts to become each other. To quote a marketting campaign of the U.S. Army, we will become an “Army of One” – but Jordan is still Jordan and Christopher is still Christopher, and nobody, not even Y’shua, is YHWH. YHWH clearly has all authority, even over Y’shua. YHWH is the ultimate king. Y’shua has been given authority, for a time, to subdue everything, after which he hands the keys to the kingdom back to Y’shua. Paul tells us this. Also, remember that Y’shua (as written in hebrew in the Tanakh) was a shortened form of Yehoshua, which means “Yah saves”, not Jesus saves.
As I now perceive it, Christianity, unfortunately, uses the the idea of the trinity to make an idol of Y’shua over YHWH, even though Y’shua clearly pointed others to YHWH (teaching nothing except his Father’s will), and they use Y’shua’s “one-ness” as an excuse for why they can’t conform to YHWH’s instructions – “Well, you know, Jesus is God and I’m not, so I can’t (fill in the blank)”. I think I may start describing Y’shua’s position as his “one-ness”. At least he used that term himself. To use “divinity” makes me think of reformed/replacement theology – ugh!
Sorry – Correction needed. Y’shua hands the keys to the kingdom back to YHWH.
Obviously, there are multiple ways to read and understand “be one.” One is purpose. One is mission. One is practice. All of these have nothing to do with “one in ontological status,” essential for Trinitarian doctrine. No one is claiming that we become God by being one in purpose, practice and devotion.
Hi Christopher,
Multiple logical and theological problems with your idea of “setting aside this nature.” Setting aside a nature is, philosophically and logically, the same as removing one’s identity. No Trinitarian claims that the second person set aside his divine nature. In fact, they claim exactly the opposite (two natures in one being) because they recognize that setting aside “nature” means “not being God.” Perhaps you will want to rethink your statement.
IF you do, you might just run into even more problems.
Well. I’m having big enough problems as it is but in positing the ‘set aside’ idea I had in mind Philiipians 2, so while I may not have expressed myself very well and perhaps even belittled the grandeur of those verses I was nevertheless trying to convey the something of their meaning. Something I’m sure you could do far more adequately and convincingly.
Also in response to Jordan: I did think when I posted that I might be misunderstood as being a ‘we are all going to be (or are) gods’ heretic. I’m not and that is not how I understand multi-une or even triune. Our Bible clearly states and no more so than in 1 Cor 15:28 that God is God and everything including the Son is subject to Him.
Typically, the passage in Philippians is understood as setting aside ATTRIBUTES, not NATURE. These attributes are taken to be those qualities and actions that are specifically designated of divinity. This allows the Trinitarian to hold onto the idea of two natures (one human and one divine) without claiming that the “human” Jesus had all the ATTRIBUTES of the divine Father.
You might read some of the previous posts on Trinitarian ideas and find them useful.
I agree, nature was a careless choice of word. I have read some earlier posts, I understand in part where you and others are coming from but I don’t see the full answer there anymore than I do in the Trinitarian camp. John was right, no one has seen God!
Can I suggest reading Anthony Buzzard’s book on the subject. He thoroughly covers the material, history and exegesis.
I did not think you were saying that we would all be Gods. In fact, from where I now sit I do not think that I can call anyone a heretic, simply because I don’t think that anyone can claim all truth and knowledge. As long as a lively debate can occur I don’t even care if it is not civil (just not violent). It’s usually pretty easy to determine if someone is trying to determine the truth, as opposed to defending the truth that they have planted their flag on.
Agreed. And welcome to the debate.
I know I get slammed for this, but I understand it like this: I have one child. My child was me (was she not? Was her DNA not inside of me? Part of me? What is DNA? letters! Read Brad Scott for more on DNA/chromosomes) And when she was born, that DNA became flesh and dwelt among us….I know its pretty elementary but it gives me the understanding I need.
I am not slamming you and I am not being argumentative. I think your analogy is a good one, but to move toward clarification I would argue that your child was NOT you. PART of the blueprints for your child were contained within you, and then again, not all of the blueprints that you contributed to the manufacture of your child were even traits that you, yourself, manifest. The shape of her nose might not match either you or your wife, it may have come from a distant ancestor whom you never knew. You merely carried the blueprint.
You are correct. Which is why I am not of the Trinitarian view in the common understanding. My child is not me in the sense that she is her own person. She does carry my DNA which is the reason she is who she is. In the same the WORD/Seed was God
Oh, and for the record, I really like Brad Scott. Very understandable, and having had a chance to speak with him, a very caring and generous man.
Sorry for the double post. Yes, I love Brad. He and Skip both have been instrumental in our lives.
Okay, so I am getting hung up on what you wrote. Not because I think it is incorrect, but because I am thinking of what the trinitarian argues. Assuming your DNA argument, how can Christ be “Fully God and Fully Man”. Half his DNA is from his mother (flesh) and half is from YHWH (spirit).
In the same way the two become one flesh. I do not see “one flesh” as the sexual act, but the DNA of father and mother becoming “one flesh”- offspring. Interestingly the root word for “flesh”/basar in Genesis 2:24 is the word for “good news and glad tidings”
My own understanding has also changed. I feel that the whole argument over whether Yeshua is “God” or “divine” is irrelevant. Yeshua pointed men to YHWH and expected that the “faith” of his disciples would also be placed in YHWH (read 1 Peter 1). Just as Pharoah vested Joseph with certain authority, YHWH vested Yeshua with certain authority.
You are tracking with my thoughts. Did you know that the word “divine” does not appear anywhere in the Tanakh. The issue is about vested authority. Joseph is a good analogy.
Agreed. Which is why so many of the Psalms put David in a almost obvious “divine” status. We can say today they are “Messianic” which I agree with but you cant argue that they were originally about David
I am not sure I follow, or agree with, your “one flesh” analogy. Not all married persons will have children. By virtue of your argument, failure to have children would negate the ability to become one flesh. I think that “one flesh” has more to do with unity between a man and woman, which brings them closer to being like YHWH. Likewise, I think that the idea of YHWH being echad has to do more with a unified, or complete, whole, rather than a numerical value. Which is why Y’shua can say that he and YHWH are one (which is based not on the numerical concept of being “one and the same”, but on the idea that Y’shua walked in lock-step with YHWH’s instructions and therefore showed his unity with YHWH. This is why Y’shua can prayerfully request that the disciples be made one with both YHWH and Y’shua. The church-at-large seems to understand that Y’shua’s prayer that the disciples be made one with YHWH has to do with unity. For the sake of doctrine they miss it in regards to Y’shua and YHWH. This is not to say that there is not an aspect of “Elohim-ness” in Y’shua, but to say that “Jesus is God, and God is Jesus” is grammatically and physiologically inaccurate.
DNA=letters is a WAY oversimplification. I should not have said that. Its represented by letters.
You are correct. Which is why I am not of the Trinitarian view in the common understanding. My child is not me in the sense that she is her own person. She does carry my DNA which is the reason she is who she is. In the same way the WORD/Seed was God
No one addressed Christopher’s bringing up John 1. Also what about Colossians 1, He is the image of the invisible G_d … All things were created for Him and a through Him …?
Interesting discussion by the way.
These verses have been investigated before. Try searching Today’s Word for the verses on the home page. skipmoen.com