An Alien Among Us
And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Luke 2:7 NASB
Firstborn son – For four hundred years, Christianity struggled to define the person of Jesus. You would have thought that this task was simple. After all, the Greek text makes it quite clear that he was Mary’s huion prototokon (son firstborn). The standard Greek word, huios, had been used for the idea of “son” since the time of Homer. This isn’t theological metaphysics. This is common communication. Everyone knows what it means to be a “son.” Everyone except the bishops who formulated the wording of the Chalcedonian Creed. Catholic theologian Thomas Hart reveals the problem:
The Chalcedonian formulation makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus immediately becomes very different from us . . . He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted, but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? Can it be called temptation at all? . . . Jesus [does] not have a human personal center . . . we cannot identify with this Jesus.[1]
When Chalcedon created the formula “true God and true man,” it provided no definition of its use of the terms. One must wonder, as does Hart, how any definition could be provided without stripping “Jesus” of all that is really human. And that’s the problem, isn’t it? Perhaps it’s palatable in some sense to claim that Jesus is God, but it makes no sense in any human terms to claim that he is also Man as we are. That is pure equivocation. It simply means that when we ascribe humanity to Jesus, we have no idea what we are saying.
Everything about the Gospels reveals a human Messiah. He sleeps. He eats. He doesn’t know everything. He demonstrates a full range of emotions. He suffers. He dies. Everything about this man is completely understandable because we experience the same things. In fact, the letter to the Hebrews explicitly makes the point that this Messiah is fully related to us because he has fully experienced what we experience. And then comes Chalcedon, and suddenly his humanity doesn’t mean anything like what we experience. It is Church formulation to address a philosophical problem that did not exist for Jewish believers. And it remains a philosophical problem two thousand years later. What you might not realize is that this problem, the “dual nature” of Jesus, actually split the Church and even today half of the Christian world does not believe what Chalcedon affirmed.
Chalcedon returned the Church to a Docetic Christ, a God who appeared to be a man but actually wasn’t human, an alien in human skin. This is an ancient threat to the real Messiah, one that Paul and John both warn against. It is Gnosticism, the application of a timeless, abstract concept to a divine person.
“Every thought of the real and complete human personality of the Redeemer was in fact condemned as being intolerable in the Church. Its place was taken by ‘the nature’ [of Christ], which without ‘the person’ is simply a cipher.”[2] In other words, Chalcedon gave the Church a code without the means to decipher this code. The words of the affirmation of the dual nature can be repeated, but they have no meaning to us because they claim to describe something that we cannot comprehend.
The Gospels are Jewish and human. They speak about divine intervention, divine purposes and divine assignments, but they speak in language that we humans can understand. As soon as our religious beliefs become incomprehensible, we leave the world of the Gospels and enter the world of the Greek philosophers. You have a choice here. You can side with Plato, the Gnostics, Athanasius and Chalcedon and attempt to use ordinary language in ways that can’t be understood, or you can read the text as any ordinary Jewish person would have read the text with words that have common meaning. Just be ready to live with the consequences.
Topical Index: Chalcedon, dual nature, firstborn son, huion prototokon, Luke 2:7
If you are concerned about the Christian formulation of the dual nature of Christ, an excellent history of this development can be found in Kegan Chandler, The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma (Restoration Fellowship, 2016).
[1] Thomas Hart, To Know and Follow Jesus (Paulist Press, 1984), pp. 46-47.
[2] Alfred Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. II, p, 10.
Basically, Chalcedon created the first version of “Superman”… (Kal-El son of Jor-El …… “El”… as in Elohim)
Perhaps we err in attempting to make Yeshua too much like us…too human. He didn’t have an earthly father…that’s not like us. He could heal leprosy (among other things)…that’s not like us. He never sinned…that’s not like us. His birth, life and resurrection were prophesied about all throughout the Scriptures…unlike us. He is named the King of Kings…unlike us.
Philippians 2:6-11
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
I’m no Roman Catholic, but if Hart advocates against Chalcedon, then he cannot be in full communion with Rome. The basis for Chalcedon was largely ‘Pope’ Leo I’s Epistola Dogmatica (better known as Leo’s Tome), which I think all should read. It can be found here: ccel dot org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vii.html
I don’t think humans, Catholic or Jew or any of us, can actually grasp Who Yeshua is. He remains the biggest mystery of God. Philosophy commits the error of reduction, but we need to be careful, as fellow pots, from calling that kettle black else we ourselves might be tempted to commit that same error. I stand with Judi. I think He was so much more than we humans that we have no true idea at all; so, I remain in the camp of Don’t Understand. I think I am going to stay there. It seems safer.
I think we can grasp who Yeshua is, but we have to be brave enough to suspend our beliefs (and/or what we’ve been taught by the traditions of men) about him long enough to study what the NT writings actually say regarding him. Of course, it helps to have a firm foundation of what the Tanakh says, and that begins with understanding the opening chapters.
Man was made in the image and likeness of YHVH Elohim. <– This is a huge statement that often gets overlooked.
Man was blessed with fertility and granted dominion. <– Important to understand.
And God saw everything that He made, and behold it was very good. <– This too is big.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
When we can grasp who *man* was made to be, then I think we can begin to grasp who Yeshua is.
From what I have studied, I believe that Yeshua was born of a woman as we all are, and begotten of a man, like us. He had to learn right from wrong, again, as we all do, and was presented with the choice to do the will of the Father or not, the same as us. While there are distinguishing features beyond this that ranks him higher than us, particularly that which he was chosen to be/have, it is this common ground of humanity that we all hold with him.
As for what seems safer, I think it's safer to seek to understand. Oftentimes when we don't understand something, it affects how we behave, but when we do, that too affects how we behave. 🙂 Shalom.
The only time Y’shua said he was divine,is when he said that I am di vine and ye are the branches.
lololol
Funny…!
Interesting that this writer and 6 people who have given a “thumbs up” think this is either just funny, the truth, or both. There’s no way of knowing what anyone here truly thinks or believes. I’ve heard people say very funny things and not mean what they say at all. I do that often. I’ve also often witnessed professing believers in Messiah as very apparently thinking that funny things are more important than the truth, like people would rather be entertained and humored than to know the truth. I used to witness that a lot in the Christian church, people talking abouBut t the funny guy behind the pulpit but not even able to remember what the message was about, and often just trying to be funny and never having anything of any spiritual substance to say, even often times not esteeming YHWH enough to be unique and creative, but just copying or using someone else’s humor to get attention or fit in. I’ve been told that I happen to have quite a good sense of humor, I enjoy humor a lot, I have very funny adult children, and my best friends have always been very funny people, and think that it can be a very good thing. I even think this statement is both the truth and funny. But the truth is, there is not much humor in the Scriptures or any sure indication that having a sense of humor was important to Messiah, even though Jewish people are often the funniest people I have ever known. Of course, everyone is entitled to give a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”, but why not make it count. Why not reply with some substance. Otherwise, what value is there in this? The writer here only gets “kudos” and neither he nor anyone else knows what is being “kudoed”. the content of the message, the joke of the message, or both. So, which do you think I gave and why?
But I have another questions still, because I think you must have misquoted Yeshua. If He actually did say He was di vine, would He, therefore, not have also said, we are di branches?
Humor is a good way of communicating truth. If you only witnessed people communicating other things through it up until now, doesn’t mean humor is bad. You should give that a ponder 😉
And that opinion is based on what? If humor is such a good way to communicate truth, why do you think that Yeshua, the apostles, and the prophets are not recorded as expressing humor? Why are we not instructed by YHWH to “be humorous”? We’re told to be sincere, bold, wise, humble, confident, truthful, patient, and many other such ways, but not humorous. Could it be that humor, as much as we find pleasure in it, is not any more important than your favorite piece of pie and scoop of ice cream? Wink, wink, grin, grin, fart, fart.
Now, did you give a “thumbs up” or a “thumbs down” or neither here, and whatever you did or didn’t do, why? What do you think of the implied meaning of this joke? True or not? Is Yeshua divine or not? Does being divine mean being equal to GOD? Can someone be divine without being GOD? Is Yeshua YHWH or not? Etc., etc..
Au contraire! I think Jesus expressed humor quite often, in his hyperbolic expressions. A camel through the eye of a needle? Sure, He was making a serious point, but He did so with hyperbole in order to make it memorable. While I don’t think I can adequately place myself in the first century, I can imagine myself snickering at times, especially when he used hyperbole as a rhetorical tool to berate the pious, falsely humble Pharisees.
As a believer in the Trinity, I do believe I’m well in the minority here, but I thought Irv’s comment was funny. I’d never heard it before.
And if you don’t think YHWH has a sense of humor, just take a look at the animal kingdom.
Thanks for your thoughts. I can see the hyperbole. It may have been humorous. Not so sure. Doesn’t make me laugh, which is generally a significant criteria for something to be considered humorous. But often? That could be a stretch. I do believe He has a sense of humor. I am questioning the importance of it in the nature, plan, design, or purposes of YHWH, and the significance that many people seem to give it in relationship to the truth, as well as the significance of it in and of itself as a great virtue. It is not an instruction of YHWH to be humorous and I find that interesting. I very much appreciate humor, but I am weary of pulpit preachers and believers giving it so much significance as though the important qualification of a preacher or a believer is to be exceptionally funny. Charisma is often valued above character. I also said I think the comment was funny and there is some truth in it. I think there could be more of it here at times, but we’d have to see if it adds or detracts value to effectiveness of what is communicated. I think like so many things, it’s a tricky matter that must be managed thoughtfully. I also think that humor can significantly diminish the power and effectiveness of truth as much as it can enhance it. I’ve seen that a lot!
Like music and art, humor is somewhat subjective. When I said “quite often” above, I chose those words carefully, as I do think Jesus is quite often humorous. When He engages with Nicodemus, He tells him that one must be gennēthȩ̄ anōthen, “born again/from above”. Yeshua could have used other words, but I think anōthen was chosen specifically because of the double entendre, as He knew Nicodemus would miss the real meaning, the spiritual, by focusing on the literal instead. Later in this same exchange, Jesus would say, “You are Israel’s teacher (ho didaskalos tou Israēl) and you do not understand these things?” Hilarious! Once again, using hyperbole to humorous effect, as, certainly, Nicodemus wasn’t ‘the teacher of Israel’/Israel’s teacher, as if He were the premier, or sole, teacher of all Israel.
I am particularly fond of John’s Gospel, for, as I am self-learning Greek, the Greek is relatively basic, but the text is especially rich in meaning, with a multitude of rhetorical flourishes. Many miss the myriad subtleties in this Gospel by not knowing the Greek. Chapter 5 is particularly rich. The word poieō (make, do) is used to great rhetorical effect. “The Jews” question the now-healed man about who poieō him well, and it was Jesus who poieō on the Sabbath. Yeshua responds with ‘My Father is always ergazomai, and I, also, ergazomai’. At this Jesus’ adversaries are furious because He’s both ‘breaking the Sabbath’ and calling God His own Father, ison heauton poiōn, equal-Himself-making, with God.
In response, Yeshua doubles down, so to speak, using poieō three different times in 5:19, speaking in the third person and using “himself” (heautou), in effect, continuing to call God ‘His own Father’ in a very particular, familial manner by referring to Himself as “the Son” (ho huios) instead of just “a son”, claiming to poieō (do) what He sees His Father poieō (do)—and we know that no one [no human] can ever see God. And the fact that He can see the Father is precisely why He is ergazomai on the Sabbath in concert with the Father, and, in fact, the Father shows Him (because Yeshua sees the Father) these poieō, and even greater ergon, works [the noun form of the verb used in 5:17 for ‘working’], as the Father grants the Son the singular role of contemporaneous and eschatological Judge.
Once I saw all these verbal connections, I saw what I perceived to be the humor in Jesus’ response. He is most certainly making a claim to be God’s unique Son, and hence God.
In this comment here I’m expounding on my initial comments in this thread regarding humor in Scripture, specifically Yeshua. I see no need to unnecessarily widen the scope to include your charisma vs. truth dichotomy in preaching.
Thank you, Craig, you gave me something to do.
You’re welcome. Curious: if you don’t mind me asking, what did this comment inspire you to do?
Go look at the Greek in chapter 5.
Side note: in your studies, have you been able to determine why the RSV takes out “the Lord” in 1Cor. 15:47?
OK, great!
I’d never looked at 1 Cor 15:47, but I have software and helps which make it easy to find this sort of thing. There’s a textual variant there, with the earliest manuscripts (the Alexandrian), as well as some other later ones, containing “man” only, while yet others have “man, the Lord”. With the agreement of all the Alexandrian mss., most textual critics would deem that “man” is most likely the ‘original’ text.
CORRECTION: Codex A, which is Alexandrian, has “man, the Lord”, but most critics think an agreement between two others–namely א and B–to be persuasive.
Thank you.
De nada.
Thanks Craig. Good points. Isn’t it a bit of a jump, though, to say that Yeshua was saying that Nicodemus was THE teacher of Israel or Israel’s teacher, as in only or premier, instead of a teacher of Israel? And how does Yeshua being the Son of God mean that He IS God, when He said the Father was greater than He and therefore not equal. I guess that has to be the way it is if there is a trinity: God is one but His parts are not equal, though each is still God. No. that doesn’t work for me yet.
Here’s a related question: We know that Yeshua said that His followers should worship the Father, but did He ever directly say or imply that He, Himself, should be worshiped equally to the Father, or even worshiped at all?
They did worship Him. “And while blessing them, He departed from them and was taken up into heaven. After worshiping Him, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” [Luk 24:51-52]
But did He tell them to worship Himself? Or did YHWH give instruction that Messiah be worshiped?
Why is this an “either/or” question? Worship in the first century did NOT mean what it means today. Homage, dutiful respect, adoration (what we call worship) was given to many people and many gods. Our contemporary vocabulary limits the activity but that was not the case in the Roman world.
It isn’t an “either/or” question. I can see why you assumed that, though. I could have asked other questions beginning with “Or”. I just didn’t. I’m asking these questions about “worshiping” Yeshua, to promote discussion about who He is, especially in regard to seeking to better understand whether He is God, YHWH, divine, more than a human being, more than a man, etc.. and what YHWH’s instructions are as to how we are and how we are not to regard Yeshua the Messiah. I was understanding that the idea of “worship” might have a broader interpretation, implications, and application.
However, I would appreciate you would be more direct in answering my questions. As well as what is the Hebraic understanding of worship if not that of the Roman world or our contemporary vocabulary?
And now, also, this one: Being that YHWH gave us the great instruction to have no god before Him, and, as I think you have said, Yeshua is not YHWH, and, He’s not greater than the Father, how are we to “worship” Him and how are we to not “worship” Him”? If Yeshua is a god or elohim, but not YHWH and not equal to the Father who is YHWH, and we are to have no god before YHWH, then certainly we must take care regarding how we regard Yeshua, the Messiah, and how or even whether we ought to “worship” Him as we think of worshiping YHWH, right?
Let me suggest this. First, read all the prior posts on “worship.” Second, listen to the lectures on understanding the Roman Empire in the first century and the formation of the Christian Church. Third, don’t presuppose that Yeshua is “more than a man,” as that is neither biblical nor doctrinal. Even Trinitarians would not be so bold as to claim that he wasn’t FULLY human. Fourth, take a seriously long look at the academic work on worship in the biblical text and in the cultures surrounding the biblical text (since words do not function in a vacuum). THEN, we can discuss some more. 🙂
1st suggest is a good one. 2nd suggestion is also good, as I have those and haven’t yet gotten to them. 3rd suggestion – I’m no longer presupposing Yeshua is “more than a man” and that’s why I am posing the question, to get the thoughts of others. 4th suggestion – may be a good one – I understand words don’t function in a vacuum, but I’m not trained in doing “academic work in the biblical text and in the cultures surrounding the biblical text.
Maybe the 1st and 2nd suggestions will suffice for now.
Thanks for that.
Please directly answer this, if you can, and I’ll take it from there: Do you believe our worship of Yeshua should be different than our worship of YHWH, of the Father? Yes or no?
The Greek, in its most literal sense, reads “the teacher of [the] Israel” (or “[the] Israel’s teacher”). This is precisely why I phrased my comment in the manner in which I did. If the article (ho ~ = “the” in English) did not precede “teacher”, then it would be “a teacher”. I understand you’ve made comments about not knowing the original languages, but, you can at least get an idea by viewing such sites as this one: studylight dot org/interlinear-bible/john/3.html
In 3:1, the narrator makes it evident that Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a Jewish leader. It seems evident to me that he came not just to enquire (“we know you are a teacher…”), but to interrogate Jesus (see their interrogation of the Baptist: 1:22, 24; 5:33, etc.). Therefore, Jesus called Him, somewhat sarcastically, “the teacher of Israel” in response to Nicodemus’ “we know you are a teacher…”, since, in reality, Nicodemus was sitting in front of the REAL Teacher of Israel.
Some exegetes think that Nicodemus really was recognized as the teacher of Israel, as teacher par excellence. Perhaps, but I disagree.
You wrote: And how does Yeshua being the Son of God mean that He IS God, when He said the Father was greater than He and therefore not equal.
He also said “I and the Father are one”. But, the familiar refrain I read here is that this means they were merely ‘one’ in function. OK. I understand Hebraic thought to be function over form (~Greek), concrete over abstract (~Greek). So, when Jesus makes the statement that the Father “judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” (both contemporaneous and eschatological), we see the Father abdicating a strictly divine function to another, namely, the Son. As I’ve pointed out here more than once, even the Rabbis ca. AD95 proclaimed that YHWH does not give the key of the resurrection of the dead to any agent (shaliach) [nor the key to births and the rain].
If it functions like a duck, and we are to respond (worship) like a duck, it may be a duck, even though the form that is following that function differs in personality/name?
I am stuck on the possibility that our notion of person is Greek: i.e. form, and therefore, may be exactly backwards in ascribing function accordingly. What if the form of person follows the function? That would mess BOTH Unitarians and Trinitarians up on their most fundamental respective platforms, wouldn’t it?
Sorry, you’ve lost me.
English language is set up grammarly speaking, as subject-verb. Function (verb/action) is being produced by form (noun/subject). We think like that, using that language. It was not until I started learning Latin with my kids that i realized that the verb was actually considered the most important word that determined the sentence/thought – in Latin, anyway – and not the subject, and it is not the only language designed with the verb ‘first’.
I can’t seem to get past the thought that if person (form) determines action (function) we indeed have God (Person) doing things, but if function determines form, then we would have action (verb) determining person (form). I’m sorry, but if we don’t even have the right language to talk/think about faith as a verb, we probably lack the ability to talk about God as one.
OK, I recall you writing comments in this vein, but I could never track with them, as I was experiencing a cognitive dissonance. I must have missed the notion that ‘function determines form’ as such. I may not be correct, but my understanding on the ‘Hebraic mindset’ is that when viewing a physical object its function is used as its description rather than its color, size, etc. I didn’t understand it to be ‘function determining its physical form’.
In Greek the finite verb encodes both person and number (not gender), which means that a single verb can make a complete sentence. That is, the subject is encoded. Of course, there must be some mention of the subject in the context prior to it so that the reader can understand just who/what the subject is.
Also, in many cases, the verb is first in the sentence in Greek. In addition,
It may be that Yeshua is being sarcastic. I think it’s quite likely. However, without seeing and hearing Him and maybe knowing more than I do, it could still just be that He was making the statement according to the mindset of others who thought of him as “THE” teacher of Israel. It may also be that Yeshua was reproving him and/or challenging him, but not with any intent or nature of being humorous. I’m still not convinced, by the words alone. Sorry. Believe me, there’s part of me that wishes He had been much more overtly humorous so that I could read it today and without even knowing Greek or Hebrew, it would make me laugh. I’ve just never had much of that experience as long as I’ve been reading the Scriptures, and I do laugh often, otherwise.
And regarding Nicodemus referring to Yeshua as “a” teacher, yes. He hadn’t yet been convinced, but I see him as having been acknowledging of His greatness and authority, and even being somewhat submission and teachable. Wasn’t he also under Gameliel who was not anti-messiah by any means, really. So I really don’t think Messiah was being as sarcastic as He was even somewhat respectful but challenging, maybe. Anyways….
Yes. – “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.” [Joh_5:22]
But, what of this? – “And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile…” [1Pe_1:17]
As I understand it, the same word for “judges” is used in both verses.
Also, Yeshua said – “….I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.” [Joh_8:28]
What do you make of that? It just sounds like the Father trusting the Son and the Son being obedient to the Father because the Son has learned to judge as the Father judges and has taught the Son, not independence or equality, but delegation, submission, and cooperation. Being one but not equal. Less than. Not even completely one in function necessarily, but one in character and mission, but not necessarily one in authority, roles, or responsibilities, even.
First of all, don’t overlook the fact that judgment is strictly a divine prerogative, not a human one. Secondly, this was never entrusted to any agent, shaliach. Roles certainly do overlap, though, don’t they? Certainly, the Son is obedient to the Father, as this was Jewish custom. But, to what do we attribute the Father granting the Son the divine prerogative of judgment? What Biblical precedent is there? What Rabbinical precedent?
There are other overlaps between YHWH in the OT and the Father and the Son in the NT. Look up “Lord of lords”. You’ll find the following:
Deut 10:17 (YHWH)
Psa. 136:3 (YHWH)
I Tim 6:15 (God, aka the Father? = YHWH)
Rev 17:14 (the Lamb, aka the Son)
Rev 19:16 (the Rider on the White Horse, aka the Son)
“Divine” only means “of, from, or like God or a god”, right? Besides, if the judgment comes from the Father by the Ruach and is received, discerned, known, learned, and pronounced by the Son, it’s still a “divine prerogative”, right? And I’m surprised by your statement that there is no precedent of the Father granting others the divine prerogative of judgment. There’s a whole book called “Judges”. Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other somewhere, somehow. “Prerogative” is “an exclusive or special right, power, or privilege: such as
(1) : one belonging to an office or an official body
(2) : one belonging to a person, group, or class of individuals”. Does not that apply to the Judges of Israel, even Moshe, etc.?
Let’s not import different definitions upon the terms used here. “Divine” in this instance (and look at my immediately preceding comments in this thread) is clearly one that strictly pertains to God YHWH and God YHWH only. I’m speaking of ‘judgment’ as it pertains to this context: eschatological (end times), i.e, the final resurrection of life or death (5:28-29, which flows directly from 5:22), as this is the context in which I began this particular discussion. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself in subsequent comments in the same thread (see January 12, 2018 7:56 am & January 13, 2018 2:50 pm).
I take pains to explain what I mean in my comments, and if you continue to try to divert away by changing definitions–in effect, erecting stawmen–I’ll no longer engage with you.
Wow, Craig. Maybe you will do well to adjust your expectations at least a bit, or inquire before you accuse, or otherwise serve yourself and don’t engage with me further, if that is His good pleasure. I simply did not have the recall of your definition. I’m sorry. I was in no way doing as you are accusing me. I am not trying to divert away from anything. Sorry for your disappointment. I guess you must consider my missing your comments as different from you missing Ms. Hayes comments according to your own acknowledgment at 6:05PM. And I think for me to have missed something once or twice, and us only to have recently begun communicating, and then for you to be near ready to no longer engage with me suggests you must have other much more significant priorities. Plus, I haven’t been trying to prove you wrong. I’ve only expressed that I don’t agree or am not certain, and offered my thoughts. But, regardless, I understand and respect whatever you need to do. Nevertheless, I also understand your frustration as you do give generously of your time, effort, knowledge, and usually patience.
I hear what you’re saying now though and your points deserve more of my consideration. So it seems your belief is the Father and the Son are both YHWH. Am I correct? And do you also believe it was Yeshua who appeared before Moshe on the mountain, giving the Torah? And Yeshua who wrestled with Jacob? Thanks.
OK, I am jumping in one last time here. This is MY blog site so I set the rules. And the rules are simple. We discuss ideas, not personalities. Comments that are directed toward individuals, their experiences, their thoughts or actions which belittle, denigrate or otherwise are personally affronting are simply not going to be allowed. If someone feels that it is impossible to engage with the idea without being confrontational to the person, then it’s time to go elsewhere. Enough said. Last time.
Hallelujah!
As Paul McCartney sang:
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be.
And when the brokenhearted people
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer
Let it be
I know the song (well), I just didn’t get the analogy. Sorry.
Primarily, it was what came to me for me – Words of wisdom, whispered from above, say, “Let it be” – of which the meaning is, at this point in time, “stop disturbing or interfering with” (and I would add, don’t meddle, accept what can’t be changed, let God be God, let Him have His way, it all belongs to Him), which could apply to anyone one of us, who have participated in the works of the flesh here in some way or another, whether in thought or words (despite thinking we are innocent and without guilt), and not purely His works.
And then the thought that we are all brokenhearted people in this world, and when we finally agree, we will all have received Wisdom from above, there will be an answer, and we will all, “LET IT BE”. Then there will be righteousness, shalom, and joy in the Ruach Ha-Kodesh!
Let His kingdom come. Let His will be done. On earth as it is in heaven.
For those who don’t know it well, here it is (and I don’t agree that it is Mother Mary who comes to anyone, but it is the Ruach Ha-Kodesh):
LET IT BE
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
“Let it be”
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom
“Let it be”
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be
And when the brokenhearted people
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer
Let it be
For though they may be parted
There is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer
Let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Yeah there will be an answer
Let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, yeah let it be
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be
And when the night is cloudy
There is still a light that shines on me
Shine until tomorrow
Let it be
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, yeah let it be
There will be an answer
Let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, yeah let it be
Whisper words of wisdom
As regards the “worship” question, I’ll take a large portion of a previous comment of mine here. Let me quote from Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). First, I’ll need to provide some background, and to that end I’ll use one of his footnotes (#10, p 31):
With “worship” defined, here’s a portion from the main text:
Hurtado goes on to note that even angels, especially lauded in extra-Biblical Jewish writings of the time, were never worshiped as such.
With this background he engages with some other writers, then moves to NT writings, specifically 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:
The author addresses the ‘preexistence’ question by engaging with some authors who deny this, mostly James Dunn (pp 118-126). Taking an example cited just above, 1 Corinthians 8:6, two clauses are set in parallel with one another, the first referencing God the Father, the second the Lord Jesus Christ. “All things” are from and for the former, while “all things” are through the latter. This means the Lord Jesus Christ’s preexistence is presupposed. Paul doesn’t even need to elaborate on this issue. It is just stated as fact, apparently because it was known among his readers at that time (pp 123-124). Not only does this verse presuppose preexistence, it proclaims the Lord Jesus Christ’s agency in the creation of “all things”.
First Corinthians was written ca. 55AD. And, as noted just above, preexistence was a ‘given’ at the time of Paul’s writing. This may be evidenced further in Scripture by passages that seem to be adaptations of Christian hymns (I’m using “Christian” here in light of Acts 11:26, not intending any sort of anachronism). Sticking strictly with Paul for now, Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20 are assumed by many to have been intact or redacted hymns, and each of these points to the Son’s preexistence. If these are indeed hymns inserted into the Philippian and Colossian epistles, this would account for Paul’s unqualified, matter-of-fact statement of Christ’s preexistence in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [Joh_1:1]
Is it possible, somehow, that though the Word WAS God, that when the Word became flesh, the Word was no longer God, because the Word now became His only begotten Son, though indeed a preeminently unique man of divine origin, yet still not equal to being God? After all, it is said of Yeshua that He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped and with that consideration, He humbled Himself and didn’t try to be equal to God. He only tried to be One with the Father. In fact that is why He received and had the fullness of grace and truth. So how could He be God, like the Father, but not equal to the Father and how could the Father be greater than Him but He still be God, especially when He didn’t even consider equality with God something to be grasped?
As the pre-existing Word and “agency” in the creation of all things, isn’t it possible that He was still, somehow, the Word, and God, being that He was in the mind of the Father, or maybe it could even be said that He was just a thought of the Father and not yet being made a separate entity as a man, a human being, the Son of God, the Word made flesh, through the Ruach Ha-Kodesh overshadowing Mary and her conceiving Him in her body without the agency of a man.
For most of this comment you are describing what is known as the kenosis theory, though it has a number of different variations. I’ve studied this at much length (I wrote a comprehensive review on one book of individual essays), and I don’t find the positions compelling for a number of reasons.
As to the latter part of what you wrote, I debunk this in a series I’d been writing on the prologue of John (1:1-18)–though, for various reasons, I’d taken a break after completing up to verse 5. You can read it in the following, by scrolling past my recent musings on ‘black Friday’: notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com/
In any case, I note that you did not address the worship issue in my comment.
Sorry. Just an oversight I think. Not avoiding it. Just a bit weary of mind and want to stay at rest on Shabbat. Was fine until now. Maybe another time. And I have noted your online references. Thank you.
hi Craig. regarding your Jan 12 7:56 post about “poieo” I am left a bit confused. Is Jesus not talking about what he “sees the Father DOING” in this verse? That is certainly different from “seeing the Father”. If you said to me “Come and see what a hurricane can do” I would be looking for effects…trees blown over, flooding etc. even if I cannot see the actual wind. Is it not possible that Jesus is talking the same way about Father God… seeing Him through the effects of His actions. Your comments “And the fact that Jesus can see the Father…. and hence God” doesn’t seem to flow for me.
HSB,
The form of the verb poieō used in this particular instance is a present participle = “doing”. It both connotes an ongoing process, and, more importantly, present temporal reference. He’s not looking at the after-affects; Yeshua ‘sees’ what the Father is doing in real time, and follows Him. And the Father shows the Son “all He does” (5:20)—not some of what He does, but all.
I’ll take a rather lengthy quote from Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John I-XII, The Anchor Yale Bible [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974], pp 218-219) regarding 5:20-30 (bold added):
Brown goes on to note the contrast between the “realized” (inaugurated) eschatology of these verses with the final eschatology of 5:26-30, most specifically 28-29. Earlier in the text, Brown noted what I’ve stated more than once here: the Rabbis recognized that YHWH worked on the Sabbath, to include giving life (birth) and executing judgment (death); yet, they also stated that God entrusts no agent (shaliach) with the key of the rain, the key of the womb (birth), and the key to the resurrection of the dead. As Barrett notes, “There is no evidence until very late for the belief that the Messiah would be entrusted with authority to raise the dead” (The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], p 260).
Craig: thanks for this. I adjust my “hurricane” comment accordingly… “what the storm is doing” as an ongoing situation. I like the idea of master with apprentice. I still think Jesus can be watching what Father is doing (ongoing). With regards to what the rabbis recognized… do you have any reference link that I can follow up. I would like to check that out…the withholding of “key of the rain” seems odd. We read today in Torah passage of Moses stopping the hail and thunder by raising his hands, then later Elijah’s actions etc. Is that what is under consideration? Also if these divine prerogatives could not be transferred (Pharaoh seemed to have transferred a whole lot of authority to Joseph) then why was this issue of presumption not raised at the trial? Not a word about Sabbath breaking, forgiving sins or claiming authority to judge.
I posted about the Rabbinical understanding regarding the “keys” in a comment a couple months or so ago; however, I learned a while back to first write in MS Word, then save the doc for future, easily searchable, reference. Thus, I have the source handy. Following is the verbiage; it’s from Rabbi Johanan in the Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anith 2a (halakhah dot com/pdf/moed/Taanith.pdf). I’ve taken out the footnotes, but you can follow it in the original doc (the pertinent part begins at bottom of page one, with footnotes on next page):
As to your last two questions, keep in mind we’re in John’s Gospel, and while I don’t think he’s contradicting the Synoptics, the writer has a different focus. The reason provided to Pilate for Yeshua to be put to death is detailed in John 19:7, and this has similar verbiage to 5:18:
We have a law, and according to that law he must die…
ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν
hoti huion theou heauton epoiēsen
Because son of God himself made.
…because He made Himself the Son of God.
Note those last two words in the Greek. The first is “himself”, which the narrator used in 5:18 and Yeshua used in 5:19, and the second is the verb poieō once again.
As regards “see” in 5:20, here’s a footnote in Bultmann’s commentary: “The Son’s proclamation is traced back to 1:18; 3:11; 6:46; 8:38 to his ‘seeing’. In the same way that ἀκούω [akouō, ‘hear’] 5:30 replaces βλέπῃ [blepȩ̄, ‘see’] 5:19, so too in 3:32 seeing and hearing are combined, whereas in 8:26, 40; 15:15 hearing stands by itself.”
I found some more information on the keys at yeshiva dot co
But were the view originates I do not know but luckily biblical references are provided.
Ah, yes; one can find it via the site’s search function by its title “The Three Keys”.
Craig I read your discussion on John 1 as referenced above. One addition on correct English translation is that we could also change the place of the comma which will then explain. That He who came into being was the preferred way of living or life….
This implying that wisdom the relation of word manifesting in action is what and how the creator engender us to live up to His desire. We on the other hand understood that this eternal shaping of human life needs perimeters and therefore introduced concepts of time and rituals into the creation. Which is why new aged thinkers consider scriptures as the initiating phase while spirituality is the outcome and mostly make religion a mind game rather than a communal activity… 2 cents of alternative worldviews as I am often reminded I tend to form.
Seeker,
Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote on John 1:3-4. The way I understand you here, your rendition doesn’t quite work, as it doesn’t account for the dative (indirect object) “in Him/it” (but see below). From what you wrote, I interpret you to mean “the preferred way of life” as a paraphrase for “life”, which works OK as a loose paraphrase in and of itself. Assuming that’s correct, this is what I perceive—the brackets to describe the subject and the parentheses your paraphrase for “life”:
That He who came into being [Wisdom/Word] was life (i.e. the preferred way of living).
So, if you add the dative “in Him”, it would be:
That He who came into being [Wisdom (/Word?)], in Him was life (i.e., the preferred way of living).
Does that convey, at least mostly, what you meant?
Yet still, I’m not sure exactly what you mean, that is, how it works in the context.
Hi Craig
Thank you for the response you understand more or less what I am trying to say. Look at the creation of Adam but not Eve and the other creatures. God did not blow into their nostrils the breath of life although they did live. As was in later scriptures the sons of the sons of God took daughters of man and married them. As is Job 38 the control and all is found in the day we are born…
As in Isaiah 45 the day called, anointed and sent out, as with Pentecost… Paraphrase these ideas as reborn into the life that pleases God. Reading further that life is the light of man. Paul explained this as getting enlightened eyes of understanding.
So yes the word or logos or incorruptible seed relates to the breath of life… Which is somehow connected to us gaining wisdom which manifests in power which is the John 1:12-14 those that accepted him God not Jesus calls sons and daughters.
You wrote
‘That which came to be, life was in Him/He (the Logos) was the life in it’
I propose
That which came to be in Him, was the life.
If this helps to understand where my thoughts come from…
Hey Craig, did you happen to read that article at yeshiva? Pretty interesting in that it describes Elijah and it’s quote at the end is “The secret power of the key holder, then, is that he is ennobled by the Almighty with something like divine power”. It doesn’t seem (at least on this site) that God reserves these attributes to Himself exclusively and is unwilling to impart those powers to another that He “trusts”. Interesting.
Robert,
Yes, I did read that. I’d read in some commentaries that some Rabbis cite Elijah as an exception. But, I think we need to define terms (and I don’t know what the original Hebrew states in the Ta’anith). The way I see it, there are three different types of coming back from the dead: 1) resuscitation—e.g. a non-beating heart is brought back in 5 minutes or so; 2) revivifying—a dead person brought back to life after having been dead for a significant amount of time, such as Lazarus (John 11); 3) resurrection—the end times resurrection to life or ‘eternal’ death. Note the distinction between 2) and 3) in Yeshua’s exchange with Martha, Lazarus’ sister, in John 11:23-26.
Using the example of Lazarus, Yeshua revivified him. But, was Elijah’s experience with the widow’s son one of resuscitation or revivification? If we understand it as a revivifying, then Yeshua merely did what Elijah did regarding Lazarus. But, this is not all that Yeshua did according to John 5:22-25, in which Messiah makes the claim that those who hear his voice and believes Him have already crossed over to eternal life (see the last two paragraphs of my January 13, 2018 6:39 pm comment). This is speaking of spiritual life (rebirth) in the then-present, which constitutes a fourth definition of ‘coming back from the dead’.
Then, of course, there’s the explicit mention that Yeshua will be the eschatological judge of all (John 5:28-29), i.e. the resurrection. So, the way I see this, even if we accept that Elijah revivified the widow’s son (as opposed to resuscitated), there remain two more types of bringing to life from death that Yeshua claims in John 5. This is unprecedented in Jewish literature of the time.
I just thought it was an interesting observation, in regards to reviving the dead and the distinction of the things God reserves for Himself. The commentators seem to fold back on their own statements. I think you’re pretty familiar with our differing views in regards to this subject and there’s been plenty of discussion and lots to think about here. At the risk of drawing this farther out, (which I don’t desire to do) I don’t have a problem with God entrusting the judging of men to another man, IF that man is in perfect alignment with God’s will and intent. As a matter of fact I see it as the preference of God beings as it involves the “human experience”. Judging the creation seems to have started with Adam as he didn’t just “give names” to the animals but rather dictated their authority. Just some thoughts.
I don’t know how I’d forgotten about the following humorous passage by Paul. In Galatians 4:19-20, the apostle expresses his frustration in having to teach the Galatians all over again (my translation):
The first part, verse 19, seems very likely to be based on a Hebrew idiom. In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 19b (see come-and-hear dot com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_19.html), is the following: R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan’s name: He who teaches the son of his neighbour the Torah, Scripture ascribes it to him as if he had begotten him…. Assuming I’m correct, Paul applies this to himself, but he’s in labor pains yet again, for the Galatians ‘unlearned’ what he first taught them. Of course, the Talmud was written later than Paul’s epistle, but I think it likely that the idiom was known among the Jews at the time.
Also, Philippians 3:19’s “their god is their belly” may qualify as humorous.
Yup. Sort of is. On both accounts.
Just a little earlier In Phil 3:2 (re Craig’s last comment), Paul uses the term, “katatome” instead of “peritome” to express “downcutting” instead of “circumcision”. This concision (KJV) or maim-cutting is meant to express a mutilation of the flesh. Strong says it is used “ironically”. (Ouch! I guess humor is in the ear of the beholder.)
J & L…It appears you guys enjoy the gift of “admonishment.” ?
Don’t have a clue about what that cute emoticon means. Would much rather stay focused on the other issues here than the petty, personal, or peripheral, but….sorry it bothers you and that you don’t seem to find any value in the offerings of “the gift”.
No, not necessarily enjoyment. No not necessarily the “gift of ‘admonishment'”. It may be called the “gift of prophetic exhortation”. Enjoyment is not so much the case as a sense of responsibility, calling, unction, or deep, constraining motivation out of the love of YHWH, the truth, and the greater purposes of His kingdom. There is a sense of His pleasure when there’s obedience and the “right” spirit. As with all gifts of the Ruach Ha-Kodesh in operation with us humans, there is often a mixture of The Ruach Ha-Kodesh and the flesh of man. So, it’s a work in progress.
Now, back to the original, more significant issue. Is Yeshua divine? Or, what place does humor have in the nature, plan, design, or purposes of YHWH? Or…..why does “the gift of ‘admonishment'” bother you so much? No emoticon. Sorry.
I rest my case.
Isn’t that what a prosecuting attorney says, one who has “the gift of ‘admonishment'” and not the alleged victim? And I thought it was JUDGE Judi, besides. But anyways, I think your case is weak, but congratulations that you feel convinced you were successful. Now we must wait for the jury to decide and for the Judge to declare the verdict. Meanwhile, back to the real issue. Please answer either of the questions before the court. And a suggestion: de-personalize.
Is Yeshua divine? Or, what place does humor have in the nature, plan, design, or purposes of YHWH?
Sorry guys…not biting on that bait
Why not? It’s kosher bait. It’s the questions that we should be hooked on, instead of the petty, personal, and peripheral stuff about personalities. This isn’t Facebook.
Instead of bait, why not try attraction? Even flies will respond to that.
Hello Jerry and Lisa. Please remember to keep responses kind. It’s often hard to tell the sentiment and tone behind words but please do your best to not be mean or aggressive.
It’s okay to disagree with people. But, if you’re going to “adamantly” disagree with anyone other than myself or Skip, then you will NEED to choose your WORDS wisely, kindly, respectfully and with compassion for how the other person might be receiving them. A good indication that they aren’t receiving them very well is to take notice of all the RED disagreements.
Thanks!
I hear you and will respect your request. It’s your website. However, I don’t entirely agree with you, your discernment, interpretation, or judgements, or necessarily the “thumbs down” by a couple of people who over-personalize things either for themselves or on behalf of others. There are many who also give “thumbs up” and there are others who receive as many “thumbs down”. Maybe “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” replies should identify who is giving those replies and/or it should be required that a comment be made in order to give those indications. What do such non-explained replies even mean or how do they benefit the conversation. But also, take Craig’s comments above regarding the humor of Yeshua who often used hyperbole and, in doing so, was often sarcastic. Maybe we need to re-think what He is really like. Apparently the view of Yeshua as just kind and compassionate and not sarcastic is a Greek mind-set carry-over from Christianity of who He is and what He’s like. Nevertheless, I’m not the only one who could use your admonition, if an honest appraisal were to be given. Those who dish it out ought to be willing to take it. And for whatever reason, to me, it is a one-sided take on the matter, but I accept your right to rule as you chose to. I will do my best to not “take the bait” or cast it out there myself. This is an important issue but certainly there are other important matters that are less petty, personal, and peripheral. Shalom.
First, this isn’t my website, it’s solely Skip’s. I built it, maintain it and watch over things when Skip asks me too.
My comment to you was based on what I was seeing taking place as well as experience from what I’ve seen happen in the past. It appeared to me like you were getting a little aggressive and others may be feeling it so I said something.
People are always free to disagree and to have completely opposite views but it has to be done carefully. Many of these topics are potential hotbeds of heated replies. After all peoples faith is certainly a serious matter.
The thumbs up and down feature isn’t an indicator, necessarily, of just agreeing or disagreeing with that particular comment. They are also a way for people to show they aren’t liking the way the interaction is happening. It gives us sometimes an indication attention should be given and that there could potentially be a problem forming.
It isn’t necessary that you even agree with me right now. My whole point was that maybe just back up a couple inches and consider how other people are perceiving your interaction with them based on the replies your getting. If you notice a possibility that someone is receiving your comments in a way that isn’t positive or leading to a respectful understanding, maybe just give acknowledgement of it and see if y’all can agree to disagree or at least allow for some kind of reconciliation.
Shabbat Shalom
Yes, Mark, I’m understanding how certain others see things here, and that the group has it’s core alliances and their preferred mores are already pretty well set, as well as how some people over-personalize things and like to use the RED “thumbs down” button to complain about others who “offend” them with their comments or delivery.
I spent decades in the Christian church, so I’m quite experienced with how this all works. It’s like the common saying goes, “You can take the people out of the Christian church, but you can’t take the Christian church out of the people”. I just thought this kind of thing would be different here. More like I’ve heard real Jewish discussions tend to go. Iron sharpening iron, like a sword fight. Like how I would have expected things were among Yeshua’s little band of brothers when they had discussions. Or how it would have been in the school of the prophets. Much more fiesty, spirited, truthful, confrontive, disagreeing, challenging, not being so hypersensitive and intellectual, etc.. Maybe it wasn’t like that among the scribes. I’m not sure. But maybe that’s more what some in this group prefers to be like. More studious. Heady. Bookish. Learned. Dignified.
I just think that maybe the best thing to do sometimes is to let the fire burn instead of putting it out. Sometimes fire is the best thing that can happen. Let the RED “thumbs down” button be pushed. Plus we need to prepare for being in the fire. There is going to be fire on the earth you know? In fact, YHWH is, Himself, a consuming fire. And so maybe some fire is a good thing.
And being so concerned about others receiving comments in a way that isn’t positive or leading to a respectful understanding, doesn’t really concern me and it doesn’t sound to me much like how Yeshua, the apostles or the prophets would have moderated a discussion, but then no one is claiming here that there’s been any fire falling down on them from above either. You know, the immersion with the Ruach Ha-Kodesh and fire.
But, anyways, I’ll take the unfortunate option. I’ll try to agree to disagree, sooner.
Thanks, Mark. As always, sensitive and fair.
But is that “sensitive and fair” according to the Hebraic mind-set, according to the example of the Messiah and the apostles and the prophets? Or according to the Ruach Ha-Kodesh? Or according to the instructions of Torah? Or according to our own human preferences? Or according to the indoctrination of Greek philosophical, Christian church mores?
I’m sincerely inquiring and not attacking. But I’m also not looking to just be polite, non-offensive, non-oppositional, cooperative, compliant, peace-keeping, popular, accepted, fitting in, pleasing to people, etc.. I’m looking to know and possess the nature of YHWH and the Messiah and the true intended nature of a priest in the priesthood of Messiah after the order of Melkizedek, one who is immersed with the Ruach Ha-Kodesh and fire. I don’t want to be “sensitive and fair” in that sense, if or when I shouldn’t be. I want to rightly divide the truth in this matter and be among others who are living according to it also.
What is the kind of godliness that results in persecution? What is the kind of godliness that is a martyr’s love, like that of Messiah, the apostles, and the prophets? I’m not seeking persecution or martyrdom. I’m seeking to know that godliness and that love, in keeping with the first and greatest commandment which is above the 2nd great commandment, which is not equal to the first, but only like it – just as the Son is not equal to, but only like the Father.
I believe this. There is a time to be passive. There is a time to be assertive. There is a time to be aggressive.
Apparently you believe you’re on the straight way when it comes to that and I’m not. I’m sorry, but I’m just not fully convinced that you are, nor that I am. for that matter. No judgement. No condemnation. Just agreeing to disagree, until He might convince me or you otherwise.
I think questioning and exploring this is as important as the other questions in this blog. It’s about re-thinking paradigms, teachings, indoctrinations, etc.. regarding His nature, instructions, and ways. I think the fire which was prophesied that Messiah’s followers would be immersed with, would not only manifest in being “sensitive and fair”, especially as it is most often defined by contemporary believers. It would also be marked by Messiah’s description of His own purpose, that He didn’t come to bring peace but a sword.
I’m not looking to divide. I’m looking to know, live, and proclaim the truth by the Ruach Ha-Kodesh and fire. I’m looking to continue to receive and impart the same, as well as to receive and impart the reproof, correction and training in righteousness, and the conviction of of sin, righteousness, and judgment, as the Scriptures say is the purpose of the Scriptures and the purpose of the Ruach Ha-Kodesh, even in and through the life of the followers of Messiah.
“He humbled Himself—becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” [Php 2:8] Why did His type of humility and obedience result in death? Because He was so “sensitive and fair”? Because He was just full of grace? Because He claimed to be the Messiah? Or was it also because He was so full of truth?
“For zeal for Your House consumed me…” [Psa 69:10]
“Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophetic messages…..” [1Thes 5:20]
Christianity has produced an ungodly fear of and pleasing of man, passivity, conformity to humanism, weakness of courage and boldness and spiritual authority, excessive submission to hierarchical authority, flattery, lukewarmness, love of comfort and ease, self-protection, a lack of hunger and thirst for righteousness, and hypocrisy. Of these things we must earnestly pray that He rid us, that we will be that royal priesthood, that devoted nation which He is awaiting for us to be.
I’ll read any replies but I will then move on.
I think you’re missing at least part of the point. In many ways I think I’m the odd man out here (belief in the Trinity and what is commonly known as ‘historic Christian orthodoxy’ for the most part), and my comments have certainly been confrontational and direct at times. Now, I understand that tone is sometimes difficult to discern in the written word, but the way I read some of your comments (not in today’s discussions, though) they come across as ad hominem. I suspect that is what prompted Mark Randall’s comment above.
Ok. Have you experienced that with me personally? I don’t think so. I haven’t had issue with your replies to me, except the most recent one whereby you seem to be making a false accusation out of your personal expectations and frustration, and I said what I had to say about that. So I’m not sure for the reason for your involvement and comment here, unless I have personally offended you. If so, please let me know. And have you followed other such threads to see how things started and developed. I do not think that my initial comments have been directly personal to anyone, but it appears that a couple of individuals, and maybe others, have chosen to take general comments that way, maybe because of my presentation, maybe because of the content of what i had to say was convicting and there was some resistance to the truth, and so then some have replied to me in a manner that has been directly personal toward me, and then I have dealt with it in a way that I thought was just, fair, and truthful. Others might choose to judge it as insensitive and unfair but I agreed to disagree as was suggested I could do by Mark, and Skip gave his support, because I know how things were dealt with by those others. And I’m fine with that, and will let YHWH be the judge of these things. He will have His way with us all, and I trust Him with that.
Having had our feet thoroughly immersed in both camps (RCC for me, high Anglican for my wife) and now independent monotheistic Messianic followers) I can see both perspectives. How? The bible told me that the word of God was given equally to Jews and all Gentiles alike so there had to be an answer and it should not be complicated.
There were two turning points for me, first, what differentiates one vertically integrated monolithic Catholic church from tens of thousands or horizontally distributed, differentiated Protestant churches and second, what separates all of these from its Abrahamic parent Judaism? When I could answer these two divisive questions, the solution was easy.
That which unites is strong, that which divides weakens. A house divided cannot stand. Will not stand. One Torah for all, the living Torah. Shema. Shalom. Peace. Not complicated!
If it were that simple, then why have some Hebrews accepted Yeshua as Messiah (while rejecting Christianity), while others haven’t, and why have some Hebrews fully accepted the Christian view of Messiah/Christ (e.g. Michael Brown), thereby acknowledging Chalcedon, etc.?
It is one thing to accept Yeshua as Messiah, it is a totally other thing to accept him as God Messiah. It is an interesting point to consider what one’s “choice” would have been in the late fourth century as a Jewish or Christian Roman citizen with a Roman sword in some centurion’s hands brandishing it in front of you. Monotheism or the Trinity? The Brits would call it Hobson’s Choice. Hmmm.
It is in fact the Spirit that unifies all the divergent parts of the body of Messiah, even if each of those parts has its own opinion of how the head thinks.
About “Mashiach”, we should take into account, that the concept of “Mashiach” is mostly hebrew (if not 100% hebrew), not found in any other culture.
So, it is important for us to really and truly understand and have full knowledge of what this concept is according to hebrew thought. This means, that we should dig into this “Mashiach” term, learning it from hebrew sources.
Without this understanding, we would be prone to misunderstand who Yeshua is.
I think that one of Skip’s objectives in this blog is to guide us to begin thinking in a hebrew cultured way, so that we don’t take centuries of “western”, “greek” way of thinking and approach to a Hebrew based Scripture. But, we need to dig, dig, dig…
I would like to agree with all you said, Alfredo, but there is one point I don’t see how I can, and that is the notion that Mashiach is unique to the Hebrew culture. Error always takes all its nourishment from the tree of truth, and would quickly wither without something to counterfeit. Messiah is no exception. We in the West have insulated ourselves from the rest of the planet, so perhaps we are not aware, but the rest of the planet is looking for Maitreya (or equivalent), which is that counterfeit. Perhaps it is time we took a closer look at this?
In the link below is the back cover image to Constance Cumbey’s first book, which itself was originally a full page newspaper advertisement placed in over 20 major cities around the world on April 25, 1982, proclaiming Maitreya, who is claimed be aka Christ, Messiah, Fifth Buddha, Imam Mahdi, and Krishna:
notunlikelee dot files dot wordpress.com/2013/03/christ-is-now-here1.jpg
At least, my point is relevant enough to make us understand that we all need to dig more before making statements on something… By the way, the term “Mashiach” is unique, in the sense that for example, Maitreya is a “successor”.
Of course, but to the world, Maitreya IS Messiah. And you are right, as far as I am concerned, with the rest.
As for Messiah; He is unique, but only to the ones who believe on Him. To the rest of the world, He is only one among many.
My main point, really is this: We all SHOULD DIG into Hebrew thinking, concepts and worldview. We know that Jewish people don’t see Yeshua as Mashiach, and we do…
But I think that we should try and find out Who are we looking at… and that means, that we should try to find out what “Mashiach” really means…
I already know, WHAT Mashiach has done for me… my experience tells me, and the Power of God, the Holy Spirit testifies who I am now…
I know all true believers have experienced the Power of the World to Come and the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are God’s children… but we can’t stay put at this point in time… I think HaShem wants us to find the Truth…
Alfredo,
I agree with you, but the problem as I see it is finding definitively dated resources about Mashiach. This term is not even found in the NT, for the two times “Christ” (Christos) is not used, instead the word is the translitered Messias, which comes from the Aramaic Meshicha rather than the Hebrew term, and this transliteration is not even found in the Synoptic Gospels, but in John (1:41; 4:25), which most date to late in the first century. This begs a number of questions, one of which is this: if one is of the (unsubstantiated) opinion that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic), then why wasn’t either the Hebrew or the Aramaic transliteration used for/instead of Christos, given that there are a number of other Aramaic and Hebrew transliterations in Matthew as it stands in the Greek?
I have more to say on this (pertaining to “agency”), but I’ll have to wait until I have all my thoughts together. For now, let me just state that the rabbinic sources regarding this subject (that I’ve found or seen referenced) are either definitely dated after Yeshua’s earthly ministry or they cannot be definitively dated. Thus, it can be argued that these references are works specifically to counter Christian claims in some way, and thus cannot be used to make a claim of Hebraic/Jewish pre-Yeshua Messianic notions.
Hi Graig.
In order to begin to understand the term “Mashiach”, we have to go all the way to the tanakh…
For instance, “Mashiach” appears in Isaiah 45:1, Daniel 9:25 and so many other verses… what I mean, is that we cannot stay with the Greek term Christos, as if we were greeks… we need to grasp the full meaning of that term “Mashiach”…
Now that I think about these things, there is something that Skip has taught me about the hebrew language…
Should we try to understand the term “Mashiach” using pictograms???
Alfredo,
Certainly we must start with the Tanakh, but, (1) the term is used in a number of contexts unrelated directly to the Messiah, and (2) given that so many 1st century Hebrews/Jews missed Yeshua as Messiah, the others are in need of interpretation from a [EDITED] pre-1st century, pre-Yeshua perspective.
Hi Graig.
I truly understand your point when you say that this term is used in a number of contexts unrelated directly to the Messiah… but… I just wonder… are we sure that these contexts are so much unrelated? Or should we think less of a greekly way? Should we think “outside the box”?
Let me give you an example… the term “Kippur” as in Yom Kippur is translated as Atonement, or in modern times, Forgiveness… so Yom Kippur is Day of Atonement, or Day of Forgiveness (at least in spanish, which is my mother tongue, is translated that way)…
But this term, Kippur is actually related to a verb that means “covering”… as it is related to Kaporet (the cover of the ark of the convenant), or Kaphar, the substance that was placed in Noah’s Ark and in Moshe’s basket in order to “cover” them from death by drowning in water flooding inside their “ship”…
Even, the term “Kippah” is related to cover someone’s head when being in front of HaShem presence… that is why Jewish men wear them…
So, with all this in mind, having several hebrew words coming from a single root, all of them are part of a “tree” of words… could we think of “Yom Kippur” as a “Day of Covering”???
As you can see, I’m thinking “outside the box” when I go beyond the usual context of a hebrew word, finding out more connections between all these words that are related, but used in different contexts…
I don’t necessarily disagree with you; however, when translating a word in a given context–excluding the obvious error of anachronism–one must be wary of: 1) unwarranted importing of all possible meanings, 2) unnecessarily limiting to only one meaning, 3) not allowing for possible double entendres, 4) not limiting to one definition only. It’s not an easy task, for sure.
I agree with you. Not an easy task, and has to be handled very carefully.
Since you mentioned pictograms, I can’t resist posting the following, which is a revision of a comment I made on my blog in response to a JW, who was countering the Christian claim that the cross of Christ was, in fact, a cross and not merely a pole (see Septuagint of Numbers 21:8 for stauros):
As we all know, word meanings sometimes undergo changes as time goes on. And it looks as though the (transliterated) stauros used in ‘crucifixions’ was not merely a single pole as the initial meaning of the Greek word, but rather a pole with a crossbeam at the top. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 70 – 130AD), an extra-Biblical Christian work, the writer uses the Greek letter tau (T) to indicate the stauros—specifically the one used to kill Jesus.
Moreover, as one of the many so-called nomina sacra (Latin for “sacred names”)—contractions of words with an overscore used in early Greek NT manuscripts, seemingly to indicate reverence or importance—stauros is contracted in a manner different from the others. A rho (P—fifth letter of ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ, the Greek majuscule [capital letter] form of the English transliterated stauros, this form used in the earliest manuscripts) is superimposed over the tau (T), such that the rho is elongated upwards, resulting in the half circle portion of it rising above the tau (T), in obvious depiction of Christ’s head on the cross (stauros). You can see what I mean by viewing the last page of this article here:
Larryhurtado dot files dot wordpress dot com/2010/07/staurogram-essay.pdf
It is clearly not the Egyptian cross, the ankh. Is it possible that it’s an adaptation of it? Perhaps. But, that’s hardly the same as the adoption of it. In reading Hurtado’s essay, one will see how it predates Constantine, as well.
To get an idea what the word looked like in the Greek manuscripts (in miniscule), see the last item here:
Larryhurtado dot files dot wordpress.com/2010/07/nomina-sacra1.jpg
I wanted to mention the above, as this symbol, the stauros is used as a pictogram, and is seen to denote the importance of the Cross in Christianity, as well as tangential reverence to the Messiah.
Since the fall of Adam we are born body and soul man or natural man . Unless Yhwh placed his spirit upon or in us we cannot perceive or know him.Yahoshua was not born a natural man like us . Yes he was human had an outer shell that functions just like us .He knows fully what we go through and knows our pain and I am most grateful for that or else he could not relate to us. Over emphasizing his human qualities hides the fact he was never born a natural man he had the fullness at the get go .No man before or since has had that uniqueness he truly is the son of God.
Dear Pam,
You might want to investigate where the idea of “body and soul man” came from. It isn’t Hebraic. Start with the early church fathers and look at Augustine, but don’t forget Plato. You might discover that this idea really isn’t in the Bible but arose because of the influence of Platonic thought. If the idea isn’t biblical, then your suggestion that Yeshua was not born a natural man is also the result of Platonic influence (and a lot of Roman Catholic theology). Have fun and let us know what you find.
Natural man is one who lives by his five senses and that is in the body and soul part of man. Aren’t we suppose to be a three fold being body soul and spirit.i was not born with the indwelling Ruach or even by the holy spirit.I lived totally in the 5 senses realm were it lead me I went.until I received the Ruach. Yahoshua was not ruled by his five senses even when tempted. He was born as a 3 fold being by the holy spirit and walked in the fullness of Ruach all the time to overflowing. I may have the Ruach but I do not walk in the fullness to overflowing at all times that’s for sure my 5 senses can overrule me the Ruach than causes me to grieve and I repent. I dont think Yahoshua grieved the holy spirit or repented and he could forgive sin he did not live his life in the 5 senses realm . Animals have body and soul they breath and have a body and live by the senses only and that’s all they will ever do just like some people.adam was a 3 fold being until he chose to walk by his 5 senses.
Again, your view comes from Greek philosophy even if it is included in Christian theology. Rather than tell me what you believe, why not investigate the SOURCE. Find out where the three part man idea came from. It didn’t come from the Hebrews, that’s for sure.
Trying to comprehend ALL of who Yeshua is, is like trying to comprehend the burning bush. “The bush appeared to burn. It was not an illusion…rather it was really burning. Yet, the fire did not consume the bush. The miracle encapsulates the paradox inherent in divine revelation. God is at once both immanent and transcendent. The infinite intersects the finite. The Unfathomable One speaks and reveals Himself in the language of men. The Unknowable One makes Himself know. The bush burns, yet it is not consumed.” The Depths of Torah, Book 2, p. 478
Many Protestant Christians are unaware that Muslims also highly revere Mary. The Koran states “Mary, God has chosen thee, and purified thee; he has chosen thee above all women.” ( Quaran – sūrat āl ʿim’rān). Because she is revered by Muslims and Roman Catholics alike this may be scarlet thread that the current Pope will use to bind the two major world religions into one new world religion – Chrislam. If successful it will bring together billions of people and not a few religious zealots, terrorists and martyrs who may seek to quickly reinstate the infamous holy wars, inquisitions and persecutions against Jews, Messianics and Christians alike. It is not surprising that in the last century we have seen the global rise of woman’s rights and feminism because of the physical, emotional, sexual, financial, spiritual abuses women have long endured. It has not gone unnoticed by these women that religion has been the primary factor in the origins and licensing of this abuse and that all religions are patriarchal dominated systems. What better way to detoxify religion and bring peace to man than to dethrone men from their seats of religous authority and place a female as their representative. Certainly to the Western mindset the ways of Islam as set by the personal example and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad are chauvinistic, misogynistic and draconian. Thanks to modern media this understanding is finally beginning to take root in the minds and hearts of the women of Islam. How long will it be before the burkahs blinding their eyes are removed? And then… Hell have no fury. But the entire quote reads “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.” Will their love of Mohammad turn to hated due to the scores of centuries of flagrant abuse? In like manner will the false conceptions by many Christian women hold regarding the teaching of the Apostle Shaul give rise to this anti male sentiment as well. Is it possible that this is all part of grand conspiracy theory by the grand conspirator himself to bring about the mediation of the blessed Mary to the rescue of man’s divisive religions? HaSatan will come as an Angel of Light and who better to impersonate than the Virgin Mary?
Over the centuries there have been many apparitions, visions and visits by “Mary” which bear messages of warning of a coming judgement. She/It states that: “I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved (Apparition of Atica, – June, 1973).
Enquiring minds want to know…but enlightened minds will want to pray.
Now I am confused.
Son versus Messiah versus Christ. Three different terms identifying Yeshua. Which is the correct one as each seem to imply a different meaning for the individual referenced. I understand that:
Son refers to guided by or born out of.
Messiah refers to redeeming entity
Christ is often revered to as anointed or sent while Paul defined it as power and wisdom of God.
Although each seem to imply a similar purpose or intent. Each seem to mean something different in the context it was written.
Who do you think I am … Christ
What says the people who I am … Messiah
My Father who has sent me…
Then later records seem all to refer to Christ as referencing the anointed or sending or apostle… The author and forerunner of the redemption process…
Alfredo and Craig thank you for the further thoughts…
Christ and Messiah mean the same thing. The two times Messias is used it is in conjunction with Christos (check John 1:41 and 4:25). Now, yes, “the Son (of God)” is not necessarily the same.
Craig.
Thank you for the response.
John 1 is a reference to Yeshua as the Messiah then a side note saying translated as the Christ. Was this in the original scripts or added for clarification…
The same seems to be with John 4 as Christ is referenced to in brackets. As added for interest sake.
Not so clearly stated in the 2017 Christian Standard Bible which is more accurately translated than the KJV and English Standard Version bibles I have. Is there another translation that is more clearly recorded? The Jewish Authorized English PDF bible which I have seems also to add Christ for clarification purpose rather than stating as a fact…
In both cases both terms are specifically in the manuscripts (there are no variants); so, the translations are placing them in parentheses as a matter of interpretation. This is why you’ll see no brackets in the KJV, for example. I think either setting it off in commas or by em dashes would be better–but that’s, admittedly, my own interpretation. [And see here: www dot thepunctuationguide dot com/em-dash.html ]
I’ll add this: In cases, for example, where there are differences in manuscripts such that it is not clear if a given word should be included or not, the ‘Critical Text’ (NA28/UBS5), the Greek text, will put the word/words in brackets [ ] rather than parentheses; and, usually the translation either accepts the word/words and translates it/them or it doesn’t accept the word/words (and does not translate, obviously). Thus, when you see words in parentheses, this shouldn’t indicate that the words may or may not be in the manuscripts. Perhaps if there were brackets [ ]–and I don’t know of any off-hand–then the words in question may not be in the manuscripts.
The following may further help. 1 Corinthians 4:17 contains a bracket [ ] in the Critical Text (CT):
ἐν └Χριστῷ [Ἰησοῦ]┘ = en Christō̧ [Iēsou] = in Christ [Jesus]
The “L” and backwards “L” indicate that the words in between them form part of a variant, and the detail for this variant is in a footnote (technically, it’s called ‘the apparatus’). Since the editors of the CT were unsure whether or not “Jesus” should be in the text (thus the bracketed “Jesus”), some translations include it, while others do not (see here: biblehub dot com/multi/1_corinthians/4-17.htm ).
Taking John 1:41, the Greek is:
τὸν Μεσσίαν, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός
ton Messian, ho estin methermēneuomenon christos
the Messiah, which is translated Christ
Since the original Greek has absolutely no punctuation, it’s not always clear just where a given quotation begins or ends. It seems certain that “the Messiah” is part of Andrew’s words to Simon, but it’s not clear if the rest are the narrator’s words or Andrew’s. I think it’s the narrator’s, so I’d render this:
…the Messiah”—which is translated Christ.
[Conveniently, one can just substitute the latter part of the biblehub link above with the applicable Bible verse to find other translations = multi/john/1-41.htm ]
The bolded portion above is found verbatim in Matthew 1:23:
“…and they shall call Him Immanuel”—which is translated God with us.
Here’s John 4:25, with my rendering:
οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός
oida hoti Messias erchetai ho legomenos christos
“I know that Messiah is coming, the one called Christ…”
[I just noticed something a bid odd. The NA28 text capitalizes Messias but does not capitalize Christos, while the UBS5 capitalizes both. The two have the exact same text, but have some differences in punctuation. I have software of the NA28, and it is from there, conveniently, that I copy the Greek text and transliterations.]
Craig, I am impressed (sometimes) by your technical cognitive interest in the bible (ten times today) but we never seem to read anything about your interpretive relational life experiences with YHWH or others. It would be much more interesting and meaningful and beneficial to me for one to learn a bit about that aspect of your life instead of your Greco interpretations.
I really like the technical aspect that Skip presents in TW but what really rings my bell is the balance of the personal apsect of how people’s lives are or have been affected by the bible both today and historically. Isn’t that what this blog is mostly all about? Is the technical bible more important to you than the personal God? Is the bible not about the relational experiences we have, or should have, with our Creator? Life is for living not for learning.
Just askin’. Sorry for any perceived impudence.
George,
I just don’t find that sort of thing germane to my purposes here. My contributions here, much like on my own blog, should be judged by their veracity. Sure, some of the comments are based on interpretation, but I always try to back them up with tangible, related facts and reasonable inferences.
In any case, I don’t see the dichotomy in your line of questioning as an either/or thing. I just don’t feel the need to express the more personal aspects of my faith here or pretty much anywhere online. I view what I do here–like on my own blog–as apologetics, and with that it’s ‘facts over feels’. With that in mind, I quite purposely try to keep the information emotionally neutral (but I certainly fail in that regard at times), though sometimes tempered with a bit of humor for levity, and that carries over into most all my comments. I do fear, though, that my attempts at neutrality may be misconstrued as callousness at times.
Craig thank you for explaining the authors intent in so much passionate detail. The truth really means a lot to you and this is clear from your technical responses.
So whenever I read Christ in the bible I should read Messiah … Got that, a word in a different language.
With that out the way then the interesting part why did Paul explain that Christ is the power and wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24 instead of just the anointed redeemer or saviour as Yeshua says. I did not come to judge but to save, the lost sheep. This tells me that the redeeming role is the emphasis instead of the advantages of the anointing.
Then in Ephesians 4 Christ seems to imply a body or collective gathering for a specific purpose, which implies what Yeshua said where two or more are gathered in my name there I am in their midst. While Yeshua is rendered but the symbol of the manifested empowerment or fullness of the redeeming and anointing task.
Later in other scriptures explained by the same Paul the collective gathering is referred to as the apostleship or those sent… While the revealing of this gathering is explained as the world is longing for the appearance of…
So either, as George implies, we use the records as a foundation to form a relationship or we thrash out the truth on the technicalities of interpretations so that a collective gathering can transcend…
First a personal issue becoming like Yeshua or secondly a communal issue being humbled into serving each other to build up the body that the world longs for… Some deep thoughts to ponder on. Thank you Craig and George for giving some guiding directions.
You’re asking quite a lot in this comment! But, in a nutshell I’d say that Christ’s primary role is as redeemer/reconciler. And I think (most?) all texts should be understood through that rubric.
I don’t think you should view this as either/or (George/Craig). One must have an understanding of who Christ (or God) is in order to follow Him in relationship. There are many who are following the wrong “Christ”, forming a relationship with an unreasonable facsimile.
Thank you for the reminder. This evening on the way home I thought about Paul’s reference to Christ be the reminder that the anointing is the manifestation of the power and wisdom of God. Instead of a choice we make to serve…
Will continue thinking about these points…
Seeker, it might be useful to ask yourself why everybody isn’t anointed; why many are called but few are chosen. Perhaps that is because only few choose to be anointed? The “manifestation of the power and wisdom of God” cannot advance any faster than the choices of those through whom it is manifested.
What is that power, and how do we choose it? Pentecost only happened after all were “of one accord”. Power is connection, but only if we want to be connected. Power serves the purpose of unity. Folks can claim to be anointed, but if they are not connecting to those around them, they are only “sounding brass and tinkling cymbals”, right? This community is empowered because you continue to choose to be connected to it, Seeker; but it is the power of God that is actually accomplishing that (thank you to you both, and to this community that continues to choose to allow that, too!).
We are not puppets. If that were so, there would be no purpose for free will. Yeshua cried over Jerusalem that He would have gathered them, but that they “would not”.
Laurita thank you for joining the discussion.
I have asked those questions over and over again. Then I have asked why don’t I feel some sense of being called. I cannot respond to something someone else says and then claim God is calling. I acknowledge the wisdom shared then measure it against scripture and as Skip so often reiterates we must be careful of reading into scriptures. And I find a lot of this reading into happening.
But being called I have not felt that yet…
Standing amazed at how often I reflect on incidents and have to humbly acknowledge that God is answering my unspoken prayers by protecting those I desire to be protected from harm and yes even death…
Being a witness, no problem I can share experience and my understanding… Have no qualification to do more. Being called and empowered I keep that prayer on going… For that is the only way I can accept that I have not failed in showing myself approved. as mine is the only soul I can offer through my humble search to find the truth…
Seeker, we must all stay that humble. May YHVH bless you abundantly for it.
We are all called; but the “chosen” are those who choose to shema (hear/obey). Change your standards of ‘hearing’ to ‘obeying’.
Change standards of hearing and doing… Maybe more doing and less listening needed?
John 7:17.
If I obey (love connection) I am in position for the next right love encounter. Totally experiential. Its like a treasure hunt; I get the next instructions when I have followed the last ones. Soldiers cannot be used who are not in position. Love flows best if it is already flowing. If I did not take the last step of my turn in the dance, my Partner cannot take His next right step with me, leaving me with no responding step because He was not able to take His, because I did not take mine…well, you get it.
Thank you
Hi Skip,
From this topic I am lead to Colossians 1:19-20. “For it pleased God to have His full being live in His Son…”.
If Yeshua is man, what do we make of verses like these? If Adonai’s full being lives in Yeshua, what does that make Yeshua? God? Man? God-Man?
I appreciate your exploration on this topic as I am struggling with clarity on this.
But the issue is what does the word pleroma mean, Greek term translated “full being” for your version (clearly leaning toward the Trinitarian view) but typically “fullness.” And can’t we say that a man who represents the complete agency of the one who sent him is in fact the FULL representation of the sender? The translation “full being” imports ontological ideas into the word, but it is used in just ordinary ways in lots of places. Take a longer look at the Greek before you adopt any particular English version.
“And can’t we say that a man who represents the complete agency of the one who sent him is in fact the FULL representation of the sender?”
If God sends a “man” to do work that only God says He will do (judge, i.e. life and death; see John 5:22ff), then what does this make the “man”? Even the Rabbis ca. 95AD claimed that YHWH reserves three functions for Himself, entrusting them to no agent (shaliach): the key of the rain, the key of the womb, and the key of the resurrection of the dead (see b. Taanith 2a.; b. Sanhedrin 113a; cf. Midrash Ps. 78:5).
Thank you for providing insight into this! I will study further. Much appreciated!
You may want to look at the verses you cite in conjunction with Colossians 2:9:
ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς
en autō̧ katoikei pan to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs
in Him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily
Part of the problem in interpretation is the term theotētos, which is found only here in all the NT. But this term is found in the Jewish apocalyptic text Apocalypse of Sedrach (2:4), and “Deity” is precisely the meaning. This term is also found in Christian satirist Lucian of Samasota (2nd century) with the same meaning.
“Chalcedon returned the Church to a Docetic Christ, a God who appeared to be a man but actually wasn’t human, an alien in human skin.”
Sorry, but that is not the definition of docetic. This word comes from the Greek dokeō, which, at root, means seem, or think, suppose, consider. Applying it to the heresy known as Docetism, the word means to deny the true humanity of Christ (‘He only seems to have a body’). While one may not care for the Chalcedonian Definition, finding it internally self-contradictory, e.g., one cannot deny that it affirms the true humanity of the Son. In short, Chalcedon proclaims that Jesus is truly human but not merely human.
“…The words of the affirmation of the dual nature can be repeated, but they have no meaning to us because they claim to describe something that we cannot comprehend.”
No meaning to you, perhaps, but they have meaning to me and millions upon millions of others throughout the centuries—not that mere numbers confirm its veracity, of course. But just like the Scripture Judi Baldwin quoted above—Philippians 2:6-11, and I’ll add 1 Timothy 3:16—it’s a divine mystery. And I’m OK with that.
Not all my questions are answered, but, at this point, I can say I believe this:
Messiah never said He was God. He only said He was the Son of God, one with the Father, the Father was in Him and He was in the Father, if we see Him we see the Father, He did the works of the Father, and the Father was greater than He.
Shouldn’t we be able to say that we are sons (and daughters) of God, we are one with the Father, if indeed we are one with the Father, the Father is greater than us, and that we can do the works of the Father (including “supernatural” works, like miraculous healings and the sort, like He said we would do and the apostles did)? Will we not be resurrected like Him if the same Spirit that dwelt in Him dwells in us (it will give life to our mortal bodies)?
A name given to Yeshua was Immanuel, God with us, but that does not have to mean Yeshua IS GOD, but the GOD was in Him, and therefore “with us”.
Yeshua said, ““Isn’t it written in your Writings, ‘I have said you are gods’?”
Elohim (plural of god) is used to refer to angels and men. If we rightly understand what it means to be gods, then shouldn’t we be able to say we are gods, though He is greater than us.
Messiah only tried to convince others that He was sent of the Father, and that He was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but through Him, because He was the exact expressed image of the Father and was One with Him, only spoke His works and only did the works of the Father.
To NOT be EQUAL with GOD, to not BE GOD, doesn’t mean that He is not divine, not the Son of God, not the Messiah, not the One sent by GOD, or that He didn’t do the works of GOD. Nor does it mean that He and the Father are not One. Nor that He is not the exact expressed image of GOD, the way, the truth, and the life, or that He does not take away the sins of the world. It also does not mean that He is not our great high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
Jerry and Lisa, I completely agree with your position. Also, I am reminded of the scripture which says that God put all things under His (Yeshua’s) feet, except the One (God) who put them there. There is God the Father. And there is His Son, to whom God has given everything except Himself. Seems pretty clear to me.
That seems to be a good point to me. Thanks.
Have You Seen This Man?
~ And without controversy [ oh?? “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)
Quoting our LORD (Is it “safe” to do so?)
John 5:39-47 King James Version (KJV) –
“{Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and these are they which testify of Me.
And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
I receive not honor from men.
But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you.
I am come in my Father’s name, and you receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.
How can you believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuses you, even Moses, in whom you trust.
For had you believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.
But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?”
The foundation of our opinions/beliefs/paradigms need to be based upon what is revealed throughout all the scriptures. “Search the scriptures” is His admonition – (not mine!). All we know of HIm (in this life) is and will be revealed through and by “It is written!”
The written word of G-d reveals the Living “Word of G-d.” (His very Name, btw). The Christ (the Anointed) is both crucial and central to us (the best “Gift” ever!) as He is the final “Word” (the incarnated Word) from G-d to man.
Yes ma’am and yes sir!! – God “SO loved the world…!!
BTW, “if” (no, “since!”) every knee shall bow… – why wait? Let’s d≠o it now!!
Regarding this verse, it seems most translations say, “YOU search the scriptures….”, not “SEARCH the scriptures”. I’m certainly not saying Messiah doesn’t want us to search the scriptures, but in this passage you are using, it is not certain that He is exhorting us to do so, but that He is commenting that this is what they were doing, and yet they missed HIM in their search. Why is that? Because they were not of the Ruach of Elohim,. It takes the Ruach of Elohim to find Him in the Scriptures, to know Him, to find eternal life. They are spiritual words, spiritually discerned. They are not understood merely by the intellect of man. They are understood by the Ruach of Elohim, the One who is responsible for the writing of them, through men.
You say, “All we know of HIm (in this life) is and will be revealed through and by “It is written!” It is certain that He will use the scriptures to reveal His Son, but to say that the full revelation of Him is limited to the scriptures is not entirely so. For instance, even the scriptures says that He is reveal through was has been created and He is also revealed through the lives of those in whom He dwells by the Ruach of Elohim. It is the Ruach of Elohim that is the truth and the way by which all we will know of Him is revealed, whether through creation, the lives of men, or the scriptures. We must be born of the Ruach of Elohim. We must receive the Ruach of Elohim. We must be immersed with the Ruach Ha-Kodesh.
“Messiah Yeshua is the One who came by water and blood—not by water only, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify— the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are one. If we accept men’s testimony, God’s testimony is greater—for this it is the testimony that God has given about His Son. The one who trusts in Ben-Elohim has the testimony in himself; the one who does not trust in God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given about His Son. And the testimony is this—that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. The one who has the Son has life; the one who does not have Ben-Elohim does not have life.” [1Jn 5:6-12]