The Trinity: Affiliation
Before we continue, and before we leave this topic for awhile, I think it’s important that we all work from the same idea of this doctrine. So, here’s the view expressed by most Christian theologians. CLICK HERE. You can see that the Trinity is considered fundamental, essential and the distinctive difference between Christianity and other religions including Judaism. Important! Yes.
So, now we go on a bit. There are now over 100 comments on this subject.
Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” Matthew 8:20 NASB
Son of Man – Before we declare that Yeshua uses the title “Son of Man” as a claim about divinity, let’s backtrack a bit to the source of this expression. We can start with Daniel 7:13. In that prophetic verse, Daniel declares that he sees a son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days to be presented before him. The expression in Aramaic is kebar ‘enash. This Aramaic word combination (“son of Man”) occurs only in Daniel 7:13. It’s Hebrew equivalent is ‘enosh, but it may also be used like ‘ish and ‘adam. TWOT comments: “The corresponding Hebrew phrase is used frequently in Ezekiel to mean ‘a person.’”[1] But this isn’t quite right, is it? The concept of “person,” so much a part of our Western thinking about being human, is not the equivalent of ‘ish. Once we recognize the difference, lots of things change, including the way we understand kebar ‘enash.
David Stein has analyzed all the instances of ‘ish in the biblical text. Along with Speiser and Grant, he concludes that ‘ish is primarily a designation of affiliation, not an individual (like “person”).[2] “Certain semantic fields will evoke our noun’s contextual semantic domain of representation: ‘one who acts on behalf of others.’ When the group in question is a corporate household (Israelite society’s basic unit of organization), its ‘ish is its authoritative representative: the ‘householder’ or paterfamilias. . . . Hence rendering ‘ish in English as ‘man’ distorts the biblical text more than is usually recognized.”[3]
Pay attention here. If ‘ish is primarily a noun of group affiliation representation, then any expression that implies individual gender identity is misleading. Since Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related sister languages from the same cultural base, we can be reasonably certain that the same societal assumptions are also true of Aramaic. Therefore, “Son of Man” is not a designation of an individual “person” who fulfills a divine role. It is a designation of an authoritative representative of another, just as a “man” is the authoritative representative of the household. The term ‘enash or ‘ish is a term designating the summary of relationships that result in representation of the unit. When Yeshua uses this term within the semantic domain of Israel, he is not suggesting that he is a divine “person.” He is claiming that, as Messiah, he is the authorized representative of the Ancient of Days. Our concept of “person” distorts this meaning, forcing us to interpret the text as if it included a Greek idea of individual identity.
What does this mean? It means that Yeshua’s use of “Son of Man” is a claim about being the Messiah, God’s official, authorized emissary, given a special and unique relationship with the Father in order to carry out the Father’s will. It does not mean that Yeshua claims to be God Himself (at least not in this text). In fact, the text suggests that the Son of Man is presented to the Ancient of Days precisely as the authoritative representative, perfectly consistent with the semantic domain in Hebrew/Aramaic thought.
Now we must ask, “If Yeshua is the Messiah, the fully authorized representative of the Father, able to speak on the Father’s behalf and fulfill the Father’s perfect will, have we really given up anything absolutely necessary for understanding who he is?” Isn’t that what the semantic domain of the word “divine” includes as well?
Topical Index: Trinity, Son of Man, ‘enash, ‘enosh, ‘ish, person, Matthew 8:20, Daniel 7:13
[1] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 1999 (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (990). Chicago: Moody Press.
[2]David Stein, What Does It Mean to Be a “Man’? The Noun ‘ish in Biblical Hebrew: A Reconsideration, available on line at http://scholar.davidesstein.name/Memoranda.htm
[3]Ibid.
My comment is not really about the subject of the Trinity, but to express my thanks to Skip (and others who have made comments) for making me think and examine the “nuts and bolts” of my faith.
Really what I wanted to post is not my comment. There’s another blog that I read regularly and comment on occasionally where the author of the blog was reviewing a book about the divinity of Yeshua. A very intelligent lady who comments on this blog made a comment that I thought was great. I haven’t seen her on this blog so I am going to “borrow” her statement (I did ask her permission to use it). It was in response to someone who basically said (in my words) that we were wasting our time trying to figure out some of the difficult things in Scripture and that we just needed to accept them by faith. Here is her response:
She said: “Just as Socrates was reported to say, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” I believe that the unexamined faith is not worth pursuing. It troubles me that most people put more time and effort into purchasing a car or home than choosing their faith community and beliefs. I don’t want to validate my beliefs; I want to test them and see if there are holes or weaknesses, rather than protect them. I don’t want to be so invested that I fail to move forward.”
This is why I am thankful to Skip for forums like this where we can test our beliefs and try to make sure there are no holes in them. Not just so we can know these things. But so when we interact with people we can properly represent our Master and the message of the Kingdom. I regret that for many years I did not examine and question enough what I was taught (although I have always tried to examine teachings in light of Scripture). But we have all seen some of the problems with doing that if we don’t understand the proper context and what the speaker really said in that context. I have had to repent of quite a few things that I have taught to other people over the years. I don’t want any more dogma in my life if I can help it. Webster defines dogma as: “a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.” I just want the truth. If I have to change (and I’m sure I will need to), so be it.
The quote you borrowed is a great expression of the motivation for examining paradigms. Thanks.
Fantastic ! It’s fantastic to see everything fitting together.
My understanding is that the Messiah in the Bible was to usher in a new era
Of obedience to the commandments and a life without sin
K
The crucifixion of Jesus by the Jewish priests and Roman aristocrats
Led to the Catholic Church, with its focus on Trinitarian beliefs
And to what some refer to as the Dark Ages
It is fine with me to argue that Jesus was divine
But God is one (not three) IMO
Skip. You have responded a few times that my posts were confused. I will grant you that my writing may be confusing. I am no writer, just a hillbilly construction worker/ goat farmer. But I myself am not confused. I try to start with what God is trying to do and follow it to its end. It all makes sense to me, and is confirmed by scripture and the teachings I have seen on hebrew as well. When I began posting, you were tired of going over the same old scriptural ground, so I have tried to give you a more conceptual point of view. I really appreciate your role as teacher and your goal of making us all think, and I love reading all the comments. But what I am still confused about, is what your conclusions are. Who is Jesus to you? To me divine equals God equals YHVH. Pretty simple. You have told us a lot about what the trinity is not, are you going to give us your version of what it is? I know none of us have it all figured out, but I really want to know how you explain God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Good question. And you will get an answer. But first we have to look at the equation: Divine = God = YHVH. So I will have to write something about the semantic domain of “divine.” Please me patient.
And I don’t think YOU are confused. Hardly anyone is. But sometimes when we express ourselves we say things that are confusing to others. I do that all the time, I’m guessing. I hope you don’t think I am being personally critical. That is not my intention. Thanks for sticking with this.
Skip, now I’m confused.
I tried to find the TW where I asked you about God’s abhorrence to child sacrifice, and why He would then turn around and sacrifice His own Son?
I couldn’t find that TW. But your answer, which really settled it for me was – Yeshua was not only His son, but also God, so He was not sacrificing His son, but (part of) Himself.
So now all that has changed?
God abhors child sacrifice. But is that the same as the voluntary submission of atonement? I don’t think so. The two are similar only in the death of the child, but not at all similar in the motive or means. I don’t think God “turned around and sacrificed” His Son. I think the Son volunteered to act as the atonement for sin. What EXACTLY that involves we are not told.
The conclusion that this settles the issue – that Yeshua is God – doesn’t seem to follow from anything I wrote in the TW. What I tried to show is that Yeshua is the fully authorized, unique, representative of the Father with all the attending glory, power and authority. This is what makes him divine. But it does not make him “part” of God Himself any more than the one that I designate as my power of attorney is me. By the way, this doesn’t settle the issue of what it means to be divine nor does it finish the discussion of the Trinity doctrine. But it helps us understand how to read “son of man.”
As I was listening to the Israel audio with Skip and Bob, this point about “ish” came up. Then I realized that I was feeling a bit perturbed that Skip, from whom I learned the meaning of “ish,” is now telling us that THIS use of “ish” is something different.
Every time I learn something new, it reminds me of my (greater) ignorance. At this rate, I am wondering what I will be in a couple of years. 🙂
Hi Gayle,
I certainly don’t want to perturb you. Did you think that my previous teaching on “isn” wasn’t in line with the material presented by David Stein? I have been following his analysis for quite some time, so I am concerned that something I said in Israel doesn’t line up. Can you elaborate?
Sorry, my point was about MY IGNORANCE. It was meant light-heartedly. 🙂
I am very appreciative of this information which reveals the Creator’s purpose and design. It’s just that there is so much that I have not known, and I wonder if I am making any progress in “drawing near.” I simply MUST learn how to live according to the WAY, so that my grandchildren will see it, and will hear and obey.
“Son of Man” is a claim about being the Messiah, God’s official, authorized emissary, given a special and unique relationship with the Father in order to carry out the Father’s will.
PRAISE YHVH. He loves us THAT much that He gave us His Son for the purpose of giving those who would follow Him, the WAY, victory over death and sin.
Mel, PERFECT POST and perfect timing. Thank you.
OOps, in re-reading my post, I see that it reads as if Mel posted the top part about Yeshua. It was SKIP WHO WROTE THOSE WORDS. Sorry.
Mel posted a more generic post that was loving and beautiful and maybe calming at a time when, for some who participate here, feel as tho Skip has fallen on his head and is shaking the foundations of Christian faith. Even if both are happening, coming to Skip in love is what is needed.
This entry for Today’s Word is excellent. Albert Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” If we could, with a little knowledge, such as Skip has presented here on the use of the term Son of Man, take that knowledge, and leave behind terms such as “divine” and “Trinity,” and with a great deal of imagination put ourselves in the first-century audience, I really think these things that Yeshua said would be much clearer to us. We might even say–Why, that was simple!
When did this idea of the trinity, the 3 distinct PERSONS in One, show up? Around 400 A.D., right? That should raise red flags right there.
I’m with Mel: if I have to repent of believing and following and teaching things that I just accepted, even after reading/studying the Bible (English translation and “explained” by pastors/priests as to its meaning), but I find out later that those things are not what YHVH nor Yeshua taught, then so be it.
Thank you Mel. That was perfect!
Really great comments, Mel. Thanks for sharing with all of us today.
Skip, I wish I could directly reply to comments but each time I try my comment ends up at the bottom, disconnected from the one I was attempting to link to.
Yes, we know. It is a problem with the TEMPLATE, not the web site and Mark Randall is trying to fix it.
Hello Mark
Has this been a problem for you before now?
Could you tell me what your using for a computer please? I’d also like to know your screen resolution and browser your using.
Skip, the other day someone commented and echoed a question I’ve also had about Yeshua our Messiah. If we are to separate him from being essentially YHVH, and I think we need to if that is how YHVH views His son, I’d really appreciate knowing if Yeshua had a beginning (his birth) or pre-existed creation (being an eternal constant).
Thanks so much for your patience with all of us as we unwind a lot of dogma that has deeply impacted our views of the Father, His anointed emissary and many other Scriptures to boot.
A good question, posed by Ian originally, and needs an answer. But the answer is, I’m afraid, very complicated and might not be able to be expressed in a one-page Today’s Word. I can see that there is a seminar coming on this stuff. Give me awhile and I will do my best to address some of the linguistic and philosophical issues involved.
“Son of man” is NOT the declaration of our LORD concerning His deity- it is His HUMANITY!! The Word, (the word of God) became FLESH. God became a MAN!! – There goes all my “excuses!” – After all, “I’m only human..”- Sorry..- that one won’t fly any longer! Why? Because so was He!! (hello).
This is the WONDER of it all! Jesus (who is the) Christ IS the human face of God, or God in (mortal) flesh. And let me (please) be quick to point out- I (of a certainty) do NOT understand all that I know!! Somethings (and Someone!) are far beyond my human abilities! And you sir? Or you m’am? Are you just like me?
How does a brown cow eat green grass and give white mile and yellow butter? Explain this to me- (in a proper Hebrew sort of way of course!) or tell me “o enlightened one”- what exactly does go on within one square inch of soil? But don’t feel so bad, I doubt Einstein was capable either.
But I do believe in cherry pie. Yes, oh yes..- I do. (round 2- anyone?) We’ve (also) covered this ground before! Ginosko knowledge vs eido knowledge. ~ Draw near unto God and He (has promised) to draw near unto you! ~ Have you ever? Has He ever? Have (sumdumduy) inquired, has there ever been ~ times of refreshing that come from the presence of the LORD?
Last I heard, (but what do I know) – we (all) serve a Risen Savior! (hello). (Human) eye has not seen, neither has (human) ear heard the things God has in store for them that love Him, for the ones who are called according to His purpose. – Nope, no “explanation” necessary! – It’s going to be (going to be?- it already IS!) – good. Prepare to be- surprised!
Dear Carl,
I’m afraid that you are wrong about the meaning of “Son of Man.” In the Bible, it is a term of dignity. It really doesn’t matter what it means in OUR culture since we didn’t write the text. Please consult any of the lexical helps on this.
Thank you, Skip. This series has really made me dig into the source of my beliefs. I so appreciate what Mel wrote — that is my heart exactly. It’s not about being right with doctrine, it’s about being rightly aligned with YHVH. Usually that means that I must change.
I’ve been sharing these posts with my son, Philip, who is currently deployed somewhere in the Persian Gulf. He can’t always log on to your page because the connections are very slow on ship, so he’s missed some of the comments. But we have been having a wonderful nightly email exchange about the Trinity doctrine which has made us both think more clearly. Thanks for being persistent!
BTW — I like the new comment format. It’s very easy to read.
Thank you Suzanne. As you can see, I’ve deleted a lot of our comments to each other because it’s interfering with this thread. But, I’ll keep trying to figure out why some are able top reply in the proper nested order and why some aren’t. My guess is that some people just aren’t selecting the proper “Reply” button to respond to the comment they want too, as Mel commented below that he did that too. However, that probably isn’t true for everyone.
So, I’ll keep trying to find a solution. What I can’t do though, is crawl into everyone’s computer to see what’s going on from their end.
Hi Mark,
I too like this new comment look and function. Thanks for your work!
OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING . . .
Seems like we may be out of our league trying to understand
if our One and only God could BE anything or anyone He
wanted to be. Father? Son? Spirit?
He lovingly consoles us: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord.” IS 55:8
Yet, we persist on pushing the envelope despite the wise
counsel of PROV 3:5-6 He’s the potter, we’re the clay.
Miraculously, He’s given us the mind of Christ and the world-
dominating gift of faith. “But as it is written: Eye has not seen,
nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things
which God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Cor 2:9
It’s God’s good pleasure to hold some things back. For now.
About the concept of Jesus being God: Jesus Himself said, “I and
the Father are one.” Jn 10:30 I believe that by faith.
Jesus also prayed to the Father, “Holy Father, keep through Your name
those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.” Jn 17:11
My faith believes this, too.
Thank God I don’t have to only rely on my own understanding.
I gratefully lean on “holding the mystery of the faith with a pure
conscience.” 1 Tim 3:9
The magnitude and majesty of God, beyond what His Word tells us,
is way, way beyond me.
Lebron James, D Wade and Cris Bosh are “one” when it comes to winning the NBA championship. So I guess that there is only ONE player on the floor then, right?
Sorry, please don’t me offended. Just a kind of joke to show that the idea of “being one” has multiple meanings, doesn’t it?
From what I have read, I don’t think saying “Son of Man” refers to Yeshua’s humanity is quite as simple as it might appear. For example, if you look at this blog by Dr. Larry Hurtado about his book “Who is this Son of Man?” and click on the three links he provides for blogs he published earlier, it appears this is a complicated issue. Dr. Paul Owen who is the co-author of the book says in the second link: “I have a brief discussion of 1 Enoch 37-71, 4 Ezra 13, and Ezekiel the Tragedian 68-89, showing that they all interpret Daniel 7:13 as speaking of an individual who functions as God’s chief agent,,,”. The one referred to in those passages may be human but he doesn’t sound like a “normal” or “ordinary” human being to me.
Right. It’s not simple. But if you look at the rabbinic interpretation of the idea, you will find that the title “Son of God” is used to refer to human beings. In fact, Yeshua himself uses it this way. The title “Son of Man” is used to refer to divinity in some way. I am sure there are many possibilities but we have to look at it from the perspective of the first century. I would consult Daniel Boyarin on this one.
@ Mel:
I don’t think anyone is saying that Yeshua is a “normal” or “ordinary” human being. He is the firstborn, (at the head of the pack) with unique authority delegated to Him by the most high God. I think the point of “ish” is that the “ish” is a reflection of headship rather than designating person. And I don’t think any of us would disagree on Yeshua’s authority as God’s chief agent. But that doesn’t mean he is “God, the son”.
@Suzanne, I used the reply button under your post, but it still looks like my comment was posted at the bottom instead of being “nested” under yours. Oh well.
@Suzanne, I should have read the whole conversation you had with Mark Randall and maybe my response would have made more sense. I was actually responding to the comment Carl Roberts made earlier where he said “Son of man” is NOT the declaration of our LORD concerning His deity- it is His HUMANITY!!”. But it looks like Skip responded to him too. I don’t really understand it but I have read that “son of man” actually refers to Yeshua’s divinity and “son of god” to his humanity. Since I don’t understand it, that is probably the way it is. 🙂
Well, now this second one worked right. It makes me think I probably DIDN’T do the first one right. Operator error!!!
No, I think you did use the reply button correctly. One of your replies did go in the right place so maybe Mark R is having some luck figuring this out. 🙂
Inane analogy. But that’s your understanding!
(Please, no offense.)
“When Yeshua uses this term within the semantic domain of Israel, he is not suggesting that he is a divine “person.” Sorry Skip, with all due respect, you are ignoring the literature from the Second Temple Period.
Just because you think that you can be reasonably certain that Ben Adam or Ben Ish applies to Bar Enosh, and that therefore Yeshua saw it as you do, doesn’t make it so. When you read the literature, you will find that when the Son of Man is being discussed in this period, the issue being discussed is whether the Son of Man is YHVH or not. If your analysis would be correct why would they even discuss it at all?
The Son of Man was equated with the Logos, the Metatron, and the Principal Angel. The problem was whether they could equate this being with YHVH! And people that argued He was, were not deemed to be heretics as long as they believed in One God.
Clearly the title “Son of Man” had a much deeper meaning than merely being a Messiah or representative.
Daniel Boyarin:
Only if he has the power to redeem sins does it make sense to declare that he will not forgive their sins if they rebel against him. (Of course, the rabbinic reading is: Don’t confuse him with me [YHVH] for he cannot redeem sins but only I can. The “heretical” reading, I’m afraid, is much stronger and more adequate to the language.) In other words, the min argues that Metatron seemingly has precisely the redeemer features that are characteristic of his direct ancestor, Enoch the Son of Man, or for that matter Jesus, the Son of Man as well, including the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). According to the sectary, the verse must read: He has the power to forgive sins but will not for those who rebel against him. Two Powers in Heaven, indeed.
I would suggest, moreover, that, in typical midrashic fashion, another verse underpins this comment of the min. Joshua 24:19 reads: “It will be very difficult for you [lit. you will not be able to] to worship YHWH, for He is a holy God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your sins and your iniquities.” In other words, the logic would run: if there it remarks of YHWH that he will not forgive sins and iniquities, then if the same language is being used here, ought it not indicate that the divine figure being spoken of has the same attributes as YHWH? Moreover, if there the context is one of worshipping YHWH, then here too worship of Metatron, the second Lord or lesser Yahu, would seem to be implicated as well. The comparison is rendered even stronger when we notice that exactly the same context is involved in both the Exodus and the Joshua verse, namely the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land of Israel and the warnings to the people of Israel to be worthy of this benefit and to worship YHWH, or their sin will not be forgiven at all. It certainly seems as if the verse in Exodus can be read as equating Metatron to YHWH and therefore demanding worship for both figures. [Pg 331-333 – D. Boyarin – Beyond Judaisms]
“I would propose rather that the Gospel text is evidence that these religious ideas were present among Jews in the first century and are being first named and excluded as heresy in the rabbinic text, in other words that there is no a priori reason to regard this as heresy in the first century at all before the talmudic intervention. Do not worship a second God as (many of) you have been accustomed to doing so far is the burden of the Talmudic narration of the interaction with the min.” [Pg 333 – D. Boyarin – Beyond Judaisms]
Let me draw out the implication of this reading a bit more. It is important to note that Rav Idi does not deny the existence of Metatron; he does not finally, cannot it seems, deny even the power of Metatron, of his capabilities as Second God. What he claims, rather, is that Israel has rejected such worship, even refused to entrust Metatron with leading them in the desert. Or as the Haggadah has it: Not by means of an angel, and not by means of an agent, and not by means of the Logos (that one’s only in old manuscripts). You may exist, Metatron, say the Rabbis, but we will not worship you. Somebody, it would seem was doing just that. .” [Pg 333 – D. Boyarin – Beyond Judaisms]
[“I] rather offered as a hypothesis that it was the growing importance of the church as an institution in late antiquity that partly prompted a rabbinic rejection of the traditional readings of Dan 7 and the theological implications that they had produced, including the idea of a second divine “person” if you will and his coming to earth in the form of the Messiah. This led, as I hope to have shown above, to some very labored— even special pleading—interpretation of some biblical texts, labored interpretations that are explicitly marked within the rabbinic texts as being designed to eliminate the possible “misreading” of the biblical texts as conducing to “Two Powers in Heaven.” The conflict is internal, not with any already-given external group.” [Pg 363 – D. Boyarin – Beyond Judaisms]
All this being said, I can’t understand how you can write in your book “Cross Word Puzzles”:
“These texts support the claim that the “Son of Man,” term of divinity, not humanity, pre-exits the formation of the world and is worthy of worship as divine.” (You got that right! Rein) “The common phraseology applied to Yeshua by Christians is found in this Jewish literature. Verse 3 calls the “Son of Man” a “light of the Gentiles” or “The light of the nations.” If the Son of Man in 1 Enoch is worthy of worship and a light to the nations, then he has obviously fulfilled the requirements that allow the Gentiles to approach YHWH in worship and he is himself divine. Remember that these are Jewish texts, written at least 200 years before Yeshua was born. Clearly some factions of Judaism were looking for the kind of Messiah that Yeshua claimed to be. It is a very short step from this literature to claim that the sacrificial work of the Messiah also occurred before the foundation of the world.” Pg 192
pg.195: “Guilt is a matter for atonement, and God deals with that matter through His Son “before the foundation of the earth.”
How can the sacrificial work of the Messiah [Yeshua] be before the foundations of the world if He is not the Son incarnate? If Yeshua is the Messiah, His work is before the foundations of the world, then who is Yeshua?
Like!
If all of this is to point to Yeshua as divine, then we are in agreement. But if you mean that by pointing to him as divine he is therefore identical in essence with YHVH, then I fail to see the relevance of your last few questions? Why can’t I say that Yeshua is divine, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the agent and agency that provided atonement before the foundation of the world and NOT say that he is therefore identical in being with the Father? And even if Second Temple Judaism struggled with a “second God,” why are we therefore compelled to assume that Yeshua’s use of Daniel 7 means that HE accepted the rabbinic view?
Consider the following texts which Yeshua said about Himself or the evangelists about Him.
(Mat 13:41 ESV) The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
(Mat 16:27 ESV) For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
(Mat 25:31 ESV) “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
(Mar 14:62 ESV) And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
(Luk 21:27 ESV) And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
This is divine council language! The same language as in Dan 7. – council – sitting on thrones – angels – and coming on clouds of the Son of Man.
Or what is this all about?
(Joh 3:11-13 ESV) Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
If Yeshua is pre-existing before the foundation of the world, before creation, what kind of being is He?
When I read John’s Gospel, I see that John deliberately sets up his Gospel to emphasize the deity of Yeshua by making allusions to the first book of the Bible. The first words in the LXX for the translation of Gen 1:1 are exactly the same as John 1:1.
John’s Gospel is full of parallels between the acts that are only ascribed to God but here are also ascribed to Yeshua.
1) Yeshua raises up whom He wants: – (Joh 5:21 ESV) For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. This is a quote from Deut 32:39 . See ye, now, that I–I am He, And there is no god with Me: I put to death, and I keep alive; I have smitten, and I heal; And there is not from My hand a deliverer,
(1Sa 2:6 ESV) The YHVH kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.
(Joh 5:26 ESV) For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
2) Yeshua receives the SAME HONOUR! as the Father [John 5:23] And here I thought that God does not relinquishes His Glory: Isa 42:8 I am YHWH, this is My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images. Isa 48:11… And Mine honour to another I give not.
Well stated! You have certainly given us lots to stop and ponder before we all jump on this band wagon!
So if the scripture tells us that YHVH can both kill and give life, and if the scripture tells us that the Father has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and if the scripture tells us that there is nothing too hard for YHVH, then who made the rules, if there are such, that say that He cannot be both fully God and fully man, (why can’t He?) and that the God part cannot kill the man part of Himself and raise Himself back again?
And why is my name in red? lol
That is a question for which I have no answer. 🙂
Your name is red because it means that you have a website associated with your name. Just like mine is red because I have my website associated with my name. What I’m not clear on is where you would have done that at. But, to answer your question, that would be why. It appears that the website you have with your name is Skip’s site. You’ll also notice that under the “recent comments” area on the sidebar, some peoples names are white and clickable. Again, because they have websites associated with their names.
Thank you, Mark; I am a babe in cyber woods!
By George, you got it Mark!
Mi ha’Ish/ Who is the man- Ps 34: 12-14, one of a few beautiful songs we were taught from the very beginning by our Hebrew teacher from Negev, now will have a broader meaning, thanks to Skip. “…rendering ‘ish in English as ‘man’, or simply “human” deprives ish of its full context of being a fulfilling personality as the above verses in Psalms 34 depicts, regardless of gender.
Then this verse in Psalm 34 could well be translated as “one” in place of “man/ish”.
From another blog while searching for “ish”…
” in a related midrash in Bereshit Rabba (31:8). The midrash notes that God told Moshe to make a seraph (Bamidbar 21:8). Moshe, however, makes a copper snake – a נחש נחושת – nachash nechoshet (21:9). His reason for doing so was that this was lashon nofel al lashon – the words nachash and nechoshet resemble each other.”
Skip has written on this topic of the copper snake a few days ago.
Roots, meanings and translations- very interesting and revealing.
If you have a way of finding that TW, you can see that you said Yeshua is God.
You believed it then, but you are questioning it now. Will this new path bring you closer or lead you away from your Heavenly Father? Because this is a public blog, others are influenced, or confused as well.
Antoinette, I think you could find your answer here…..https://skipmoen.com/about/ Read paragraph five under “A Brief Personal Statement” where Skip states (not sure the date of this though):
“But I must say that I find it amusing, and a little annoying, when someone takes one sentence from the thousands of pages I have written and determines that I don’t believe Yeshua is God or that I think all Christians are Torah-resistant fools or that every Christian doctrine is an attempt to deliberately manipulate us. Here’s my suggestion: Read a few hundred pages before you pontificate or before you get flustered because you think your most precious doctrines are under attack. I am sure we could have profitable dialogue about omniscience, forgiveness, atonement, inerrancy and a dozen other theological issues. But the key for me is dialogue, not doctrine. I do not find myself shackled to ossified propositions from past philosophical dilemmas.”
Thanks for reminding me that I need to keep that up to date too. So I made a small change. “Yeshua is divine” rather than “Yeshua is God.” Not that I have changed my mind about His status or His divinity, but I find that the other way of saying this is too loaded with Trinitarian confusion.
@Skip,
Talk about confusion. So now you are saying God did not sacrifice Himself for love of us. Yeshua volunteered. Then we must ask, Who is the most loving God?
This whole discussion has a feel of “the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge”, and an arrogant display of intricate sidestepping and avoiding straight answers to questions. It creates doubt and uncertainty and leads us away from God not closer to Him. I liked you better when You thought Yeshua was a face of God, not another God, Actually I think Our Heavenly Father did too.
But Yeshua is the face of God. He is the audio/visual representation of the Father in every Hebraic sense. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” That statement is absolutely true, but why do you insist that it must mean the two are identical in essence (a Trinitarian claim). Can’t Yeshua be the fully authorized, fully glorified, fully human manifestation of the Father’s character, will and purpose? Can’t His sacrifice, even a voluntary one, be the exact expressed purpose and will of the Father? What is love? To be COMPELLED to die or to VOLUNTEER to die? Why do you think that pursuing this line of thought is arrogant? The Church argued about this for 300 years before they derived the doctrine of the Trinity. Are we not allowed to question it?