Tim: As a matter of fact, there are no scholarly publications that mention either of
these two [Greg Stafford/Rolf Furuli] individuals! When Stafford wrote his first edition, he sent it to nearly every scholar he could think of and the response was total silence. The only place where Stafford has been addressed (and refuted) is on the internet. There are some cult groups that have addressed him and will continue to do so, but I know from first hand experience that he is ignored by scholars of any rank (scholars with a capital "S"). Dan Wallace, for example, has left addressing him (on certain issues relating to NT) to his students (like Don Hartley). Wallace and others knew all along that if eminent scholars did address him, he would bequeath to himself a scholarly status, which he doesn't deserve and he has not earned. The tide, therefore, has only turned in the minds of JWs who tend to view reality a bit differently than the rest of us.

Heinz: Really Tim! Do you stand by that? The first I read anything of Greg's was in the book The Forgotten Trinity by James White. I guess James White is not a "scholar of any rank" which is heartwarming to me. I know that Rob Bowman Jr is also writing alot concerning Greg Stafford, and I can give you his email address as proof if you want it. And since Hartley is only a protege of a scholar, I guess we can discount any further comments from him. And then there is Ed Komoszewski, Christianity Today magazine, and the folks at http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/nt_gram.htm . And if you are holding everyone by your standard above, then Walter Martin and Ron Rhodes (which you like so much) are not "scholars of any rank" or ....the WT is.  Fact is, Greg Stafford only sent it to about 4 or 5 people, and one of them, Countess, praised it in many respects. I have already sent you Greg's email address so I will let it go at that.
 

Tim: About man and wife. Ephesians states they are one flesh (Eph. 5).  You state, "In fact together you are plural." Exactly! Now ask yourself Heinz how they (two persons) can be one (of substance) of anything? Added to this is that the allusion goes back to Genesis where out of one man came Eve, thus they were indeed one flesh (this pertains to nature, thus one in nature), which is reunited in marriage. The married couple are one flesh in a like fashion that the Father and the Son are one God. They are one in nature, two in persons. This text, therefore, supports the notion that plurality of persons does not militate against unity of substance, whatever that substance might be. It also gives insight into the issue of man made in the image of God. Here, they
(Adam/Eve, man/wife) are one flesh, with the Father and Jesus, they are one God. And if two can be one, why not three one? I'd like to hear the Abbot and Costello routine, that you so flippantly refer to on such occasions, applied to the marriage union! Now this would be funny (Who's on first . . .?)!

Heinz: But a husband and wife are not part of a triune anything. They are not one in substance, as a husband and wife can divorce and therefore split and no longer remain as one. To further prove my point that there is no sharing of essence/substance between a husband and wife, nor a consubstantiality. Jesus prayed that his followers "may be one just as we are one" Jn 17:11 NEB. Is there a sharing of substance between all of Christ's followers. No! They are one in purpose. There is a close unity between husband and wife, and a sharing of purpose, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" 1 Cor 11:3. So there seems to be a hierarchy instead of an equality.
Since 1 Corinthians also calls Jesus the "Last Adam" (15:45), then my Abbot and Costello routine stands.
 

Tim: On the blasphemy of Jesus. You should check out the book by D. L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of Key Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61–64, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, ed. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius, vol. 106 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1998). I'm sure you have not read this work and it is an important study on this issue. The book is divided into four sections. The first is a summary of research on the issue in Mark (pp. 5-29). The second is an examination of Jewish texts (pp. 30-112). He goes through various sources including the Hebrew Scriptures, Qumran texts, the LXX, the Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah and Tosefta, the Targums, the Midrashim, the Palestinian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud and Aboth de Rabbi Natham. The
third section is on exalted figures in Judaism (pp. 113-183). This includes both human (Adam, Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Jacob, Levi, Moses, David, Isaiah, Elijah, Exra and Baruch, Son of Man/Chosen One, Messiah, Martyrs/Prominent/Righteous) and exalted angelic figures (Gabriel, Michael, Prince of Light/Melchizedek/Heavenly Man, has an excursus on the Seating of
Angels in Heaven, Yahoel [Iaoel], Eremiel, Michael, Surafel [Uriel, Raphael], Gabriel, Asuryal, Metatron, Angels). The final section is devoted to focusing on the blasphemy and Jewish examination of Jesus in Mark (pp. 184-237). It is a fine book and a good illustration of how research into these areas should be performed. I highly recommend you getting a copy of it either at the library or ordering it through Amazon.com.

Heinz: Well thank you Tim, I am always looking for recommendations, but since we are supposed to be discussing the Trinity, might I recommend When Jesus Became God by Frend
Mankinds Search For God, Should You Believe in a Trinity,
Harpur's_For Christ Sake, The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianty's Self Inflicted Wound by Anthony Buzzard,
Jaroslav Pelikan's _Christian Tradition_ (Vol. I), Robert Grant's _Gods and the One God_, Karen Armstrong's _A History of God_, Robert Wilken's _The Myth of Christian Beginnings_, Frances Armstrong's _From Nicea to Chalcedon_, F.H.C. Frend's _The Rise of Christianity, the Two Babylons by A. Hislop, When Jesus Became God by Rubenstein, and of course, the Holy Bible.
Since you brought up the Dead Sea Scrolls. here are some quotes from G. Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls in English that gives us enlightenment as to how the Jews viewed angels/Gods.

"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of
the highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The
spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal
holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling
of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I
i, 30-46]).

"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of
glory; the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the
eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the
spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits
of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the
living 'gods,' forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art
are marvelously linked, many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the
'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks of splendour and majesty.
All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are
holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound
of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]).

The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this
chamber was were the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah
dwelled (symbolically). Everything in the Most Holy was made of the finest
gold. The Bible tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of
angels (1 Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods"
ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with the Bible. The curtain
that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels
("gods") woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14).

"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits
of the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge
enter by the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the
entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the
fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they
undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229
[4Q405 23i]).

The War Rule we read that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for
the Day of Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment
titled by Vermes as The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an
incomplete sentence that says that there is "a throne of strength in the
congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,
neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is
also held as saying "I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is
in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am reckoned with the 'gods,'
and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126).
In the Pseudepigrapha, exalted beings like Metatron are given the name of Jehovah, as are many other angelic princes. (See 3 Enoch 10:3-6; 48C:1; 48C:7; 48C:10; 48D:6-9.) The point not to be missed, though, is that they are given SOMEONE ELSE'S name. It is not their own name they are given (!), but that of their God, which could mean it is now part of a new name they have been given (such as when Metatron took on the name YAHOEL), or that they are now endowed with the authority and power that comes with one who speaks for and represents the Most High God.

The Jewish idea of monotheism does not seem to conflict with calling others with the title "god".
 

Tim: Matthew 9:34.  You insinuate in your comments that Jesus did not correct
this conclusion of the Pharisees, namely, that Jesus cast out demons by the
prince of demons. First of all, here the comment is not in the presence of
Jesus nor addressed to Jesus.

Heinz: Are you sure Tim...perhaps you should read it again.
 

Tim: Second, Jesus does indeed deny this assessment
later in 10:25 and so it does not go uncontested. Later in 12:24 the
Pharisees infer the same idea and when Jesus "knew their thoughts" he opposes
it directly (12:25). He ends up condemning them by laying to their charge the
unpardonable sin (12:31-32). Jesus hardly remains silent about their error.

Heinz: And does all of this prove the Trinity Tim? The fact is, the Jews were not always accurate in their portrayal of him, as it shows in Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. Jesus never actually says "No" in these circumstances, he uses common sense arguments to drive home a point. When the Jews accuse him of making himself "a god" (NEB), he uses a scriptural arguments. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, "Christ's point is that if the O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, then the Jews should not oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God." If Jesus were really "Equal to God" as the Jews have wrongly claimed by making God his Father, then here would have been a great opportunity to explain the Trinity to an unbeleiving nation. But what does he do? He answers, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing. No explanation whatsoever of a Triune Deity. Amazing!
 
 

Tim: Your caricatures on the Trinity.  You constantly refers to the Trinity in
false terms like "three-forked god," or "three way deity."  I challenge you to
produce any documentation from recognized Trinitarians that use this type of
terminology. The problem is that you do not understand the doctrine and if
you do then you should represent it correctly if not fairly.  Your tactic in
this area smacks of straw man argumentation and suggests you do not have
real objections against the actual doctrine as it is plainly enunciated by
Trinitarians.

Heinz: The terms I use above are verbal representations of medieval art. If you think that I don't understand the Trinity, then I am pretty much in line with most trinitarian Xtians. "It is so misunderstood that a majority of christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical definitions of the Trinity." Page 16, The Forgotten Trinity by James White
 

Tim: The use of O KURIOS in direct address.  Your evasion in Revelation 4:11,
where this is patently so and admitted as such by himself, is very damning to
his case. That you appeals to issue that Revelation has unusual grammar is
beside the point here, for this is not unusual grammar at all and is not
cited as such in manuals that deal with the unique style of that book. Now go
back to Hebrews 1:8 and address the issue of the Father calling the
Son O THEOS (not KURIOS)! Compare this same construction in Hebrews 10:7
where the Son (pre-incarnation) calls the Father O THEOS as well. "To do your
will O God" (10:7) with "Your throne, O God" (1:8). Both nominatives are used
for the vocative, both are used as an afterthought to a main idea (throne,
will), both call the referent O THEOS. The only objection is that the speaker
of the first is God the Father who speaks to God the Son, while the second is
God the Son speaking to God the Father.  You will deny one of these for
obvious reasons. Blessed consistency.

Heinz: You are the master of the overstatement Tim. Let us take a look at "lord" shall we. You mentioned earlier that Ps 110:1 is key to your understanding of the Trinity. "Psalm 11:1 provides a major key to understanding who Jesus is. The Hebrew Bible carefully distinguishes the divine title adonai, the supreme Lord, from adoni, the form of address appropriate to human and angelic superiors. Adoni, "my lord", "my master", and adonai, the Supreme God. No less than 195 times in the Hebrew canon adoni marks the person addressed as the recipient of honor but never as the Supreme God. This important fact tells us that the Hebrew Scriptures expected the Messiah not to be God, but the human descendant of David, whom David properly recognized would also be his Lord." The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound by Anthony Buzzard/C.F. Hunting p.47
Now, the Hebrew and the Greek has been very careful to differentiate between Adonai/Adoni and Kyrios/Kyrie. That Revelation 4:11 seems to put the Lord God on the same level as his creatures is not complimentary to him or your theology.  Revelation utilizes unusual grammar, and I could point to John Hurtgen's 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like
"Anti-language in the Book of Revelation" for a discussion of why the grammar is bad.
David Aune's assessed that when compared to other instances of Biblical and (secular) Hellenistic literary Greek that of of Rev is "peculiar". This is not something new. One early Christian writer, Dionysius of Alexandria (d. ca. 264) who was a pupil of Origin and became head of the Alexandrian Catechetical School and later bishop of Alexandria. He is cited at length
by Eusebius (HE 7.25.24-27). I will just repeat the pertinent ending of a lengthy citation from the translation by J. E. L. Oulton in the Loeb Classical Library:
"And further, by means of the style one can estimate the difference between the Gospel and Epistle and the Apocalypse. For the former are not only written in faultless Greek [APTAISTWS KATA THN TWN hELLHNWN FWNHN] , but also show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their reasonings, and the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a complete
absence of any barbarous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For their author had, as it seems, both kinds of word, by the free gift of the Lord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I will not deny that the other writer had seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy; nevertheless I observe his style and that his use of the Greek language is not accurate [DIALEKTWN MENTOI KAI GLWSSAN OUK AKRIBWS hELLHNIZOUSAN AUTOU BLEPW], but that he employs barbarous idioms, in some places commiting downright solecisms [ALL IDIWMASIN TE BARBARIKOIS CRWMENON KAI POU KAI SOLOIKIZONTA]. These there is no necessity to single out now.  For I have not said these things in mockery (let no one think it), but merely to establish the dissimilarity of these writings."
 

Tim: About Thomas.  You answer an issue that is, again, beside the point.
What Thomas doubted (that Jesus was raised) is only indirectly not directly
related to what he affirmed to Jesus (and about Jesus) in John 20:28 (that he
was YHWH). In other words, it was because he was raised from the dead (by his
own power according to John 10:17-18), that Thomas reaches the conclusion
about his identity. The statement was about the identity of who was raised,
not about dispelling the doubt about the resurrection in an address to God
the Father.  You wishe this to be connected to the latter in a fashion that
is hardly verifiable.  Heinz, attempt to prove this and see what happens.

Heinz: Ok. The whole issue of the context is that Thomas doubted whether Jesus was actually ressurected, not that he was God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity. The chapter starts off  "Now on the first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb." So the setting is by the tomb of Jesus. Let's look at vss.8,9 where Peter enters the tomb, " Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead."
So they believed WHAT? Not that he was God Almighty, but that he had risen. In vs.17 he says, "I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." So here he is calling the Father his God...and his followers "brothers". Let us continue: vss, 20,21 "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first [day] of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. And when he had said this, he showed unto them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you." Adam Clarke's Commentary says "So it appears that his body bore the marks of the nails and the spear; and these marks were preserved that the disciples might be the more fully convinced of the reality of his resurrection." Now lets move to Thomas: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. (v.25) Of this Barclay says, belligerent in his pessimism, he said that he would never believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he had seen and handled the print of the nails in his hands and thrust his hand into the wound the spear had made in Jesus' side.
None of the context leads us to beleive that Jesus was setting up a Chalcedonian understanding of himself. The focus of the entire chapter is on his resurrection, not his being Jehovah. "It has long been held and taught that in the Southern Presbyterian Church that Christ is Jehovah; that is, the He who was worshipped as Jehovah by the OT saints did, without ceasing to be God, become man "for us men and our salvation"...But the Scottish professor of systematic theology in Union Seminary, New York, has recently challenged this statement, writing in The Presbyterian of the South as follows: The orthodox view is surely not that 'Christ is Jehovah'-such a phrase is new to me." William Childs Robinson, "Jesus Christ is Jehovah," Evangelical Quarterly 5:2 (1933): 144.
 

Tim: About oneness.  You quote John 17:22 but misunderstand the meaning. It
says, "That they (elect/disciples) may  be one, even as we are one." The
stress is on the outworking of the plan of God among his people in unison
just as it is worked out by God the Father and God the Son. It is the effect
of their unity that is stressed not the fact of their unity--the latter is
assumed. The full equal deity of both God and the Son is assumed behind an
outward unity just as the full humanity and/or like nature of humans (who are
elect) is assumed in the latter. To be consistent, you would have to contend
that some humans are by nature higher or lower in nature (and therefore not
human at all) if you are going to suppose that for the former (one is YHWH, the
other is a god). Context is the key.  You will no doubt appeal to John 10:30
but 10:33 gives the interpretation of that sense as pertaining to his full
identification as YHWH with the Father.  You will go to this passage (as
Stafford does) and assert that the Jews were wrong in their assessment and
argue instead for Jesus claiming to be part of the divine council of gods
(Psa. 89 et al)--but this argument doesn't follow.

Heinz: I think you are putting too much stress on "One", and of course, your view of nature. "I will no doubt appeal" to other prominent trinitarians of the past that do not share your view on this matter. Speaking of John 10:30, Erasmus says,
"I  do not see how thias text is of any value in confirming the opinion of the orthodox, or in restraining the pertinacity of the heretic."
Even John Calvin noted, "the ancients improperly used this passage to prove that Christ is of the same substance as the Father. For [Jesus] does not argue concerning unity of substance, but speaks of HIS AGREEMENT WITH THE FATHER; so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the Father's power."
C.F. Ammon, another trinitarian asserts of this passage, "if the doctrine of the Trinity, and the unity of essence, be immediately inferred, this is a faulty application of the dogmatic system, because THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE IS NEGLECTED. "
The Jews to this day not believe in a Trinity, so they are consistent in their assessment of Biblical monotheism, and they, like Trinitarians DO NOT believe that Jesus and his Father are really ONE IN NATURE/SUBSTANCE.

Tim: Herod a god? In Acts 12:22 it does not refer to Herod as a god (even if
it did it would not prove anything, or perhaps prove too much). It states
that the people (Jews?) shouted "The voice of a god, and not of man!"
Whatever this means, it does not support the contention that a man could be
called YHWH or even a god without consequences. Notice that Herod was struck
by an angel of the Lord, died and was eaten by worms (12:23)! If they were
affirming his deity (doubtful), then the question arises as to why this
judgment is reserved only for Herod and not for Jesus? Further, this comment
was based on the manner of how Herod spoke not based on an inference to his
claims (as with Jesus). Thus it was not borne out of discursive thought, but
emotion. Nevertheless, he was struck down and Jesus was not (by God). But are
not those who come to conclusions based on thought more responsible than
those who do so out of emotion? It would follow that Jesus, rather than
Herod, should have been struck down by an angel in that scenario. But he was
not. Something to consider.

Heinz: Something else to consider....since Kings in the past were referred to as God (Ps 45:6), as were other representatives of Jehovah (Ex 7:1; Ps 82; compare also Genesis 18, Genesis 16:13,Judges 6:12,13, and Judges 13), I think it is fair to conclude that Herod was no friend or representative of Jehovah. Also, since the appearance of the messiah Jesus, there is no need or reason to have any other such claim made of humans or angels. That is why Paul did what Herod should have done(Acts 14:11), and distance himself from any such honor.
  But you are moving away from my argument here. You claim that the Jews has special knowledge of the unique Deity of Jesus (which in your case would make 1/3 of a consubstantial Trinity). Since they have also called others "god" and they have wrongfully assumed Jesus to be demonic etc at Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20, then I think it is fair to say that they were mistaken as to a good many things J.A.T. Robinson in his Twelve More New Testament Studies says, "Jesus refuses the claim to be God (John 10:33) or in any way to usurp the position of the Father...Jesus is prepared to ignore the charge that by calling God his own Father he is claiming equality with God (John 5:18) and accepts that of being the Son of God (10:36), while vigorously denying the blasphemy of being God or his substitute." p. 175,176
As to John 5:18, the Interpreter's Bible says, "To this charge Jesus makes a formal reply. His words had been misinterpreted..."p.545
As to John 10:33 this same work says, "Jesus met their attack by a two-fold argument. First, he parried their thrust with a weapon that they were bound to respect, for it was quite sound reasoning on principles of rabbinical exegesis. He quoted Ps. 82:6, where God says to the judges of Israel, 'I said ye are gods, sons of the Most High-all of you.' If an inspired scripture allowed that title to mere men to whom God entrusted a message, how much more so can he, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, claim to say I am the Son of God (vs.36), without incurring the reproach of blasphemy? But the second line of defense was a repetition of the contention that his works were of a character to reveal the presence of God with him (c.f. 5:20, 23, 36). Jesus is the revealer of God. In all that he says and does God is speaking through him." p.634 Emphasis theirs
 
 

Tim: Mathematics 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 and you, apparently do not go hand in hand. Each numeral (1 x 1 x 1) is the same yet distinct, a point you miss (they are not the same "1", there are three of them!). They are in the same class (left of the = ) but the answer is a distinct class (right of the = ). You have two separate classes on each side of the equation. It is the same with YHWH. But I think this issue will continue to elude JWs not because they cannot understand this simple point, but because they refuse to admit of its simplicity. It disrupts their view that the Trinity is incomprehensible. So they have to make elemental mathematics incomprehensible.

Heinz: Well let us take a look at the following diagram:

Tim: On Hebrews 1.  Your understanding of hermeneutics is flawed, as well as your
understanding of "mediators" and the context of Hebrews 1. On Hebrews 1:8, from a grammatical perspective, there is no doubt that Jesus is called O THEOS by the Father. It is a nominative used as a vocative and you know it. I have seen some interesting (but flawed) understandings of this verse and some ingenuous (but invalid) means of arriving at a view that denies the attribution of deity (YHWH) by the Father to the Son here in the past. Even when JWs admit that "OK it is a nominative used as a vocative, it still doesn't mean YHWH . . . " is just a good example of their circularity. When O THEOS refers to the Father it is YHWH, when it refers (and some JW admit it does) to the Son, it does not entail the same meaning, even when YHWH the Father says it! How convenient. I wonder if you would argue that God the Father should be struck down by an angel for calling Jesus O THEOS? Was he wrong (like the Jews)?

Heinz: Since this was earlier used of a human king, then maybe your understanding of hermeneutics is at fault here.
"Vincent Taylor admits that in v.8 the expression "O God" is vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the Son enjoys enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but servants. Therefore in the citation no major was being made of the fact the the Son can be addressed as God. Yet we cannot presume that the author did not noticethat his citation had this effect. We can say at least, that the author saw nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar situation in Heb. 1:10, where the application to the Son of Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord. Of course, we have no way of knowing what the "O God" of the Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews when he applies it to Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and the analogy of the "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "GOD" MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKED ON SIMPLY AS A ROYAL TITLE AND HENCE APPLICABLE TO JESUS AS THE DAVIDIC MESSIAH." Jesus, God and Man (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 25, 25
"For the author(of Hebrews), the Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature (1:3, 6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor Bible with Commentary by G. W. Buchanan.
Harris and I both accept that QEOS is used of Christ in the NT. We just disagree on which ones. According to the Friberg Concordance the word QEOS occurs 1317 times. In Harris' conclusion on a chart on page 272 he give only four scriptures that he is "certain" apply QEOS to Jesus. He considers three to be "Very Probable," and one to be "Probable." I might add, that Harris expresses other "possible" views. It seems to me that the Father EXHAUSTS the title of QEOS.
Trinitarian Karl Rahner's view of the NT use of the word "God" bears a mention here, "In no N.T. text is theos [God] used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with Him who elsewhere in the N.T. figures as ho theos, that is the Supreme God"..."Nowhere in the N.T. is there to be found a text with ho theos [God] which has unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitarian God as a whole existing in three Persons" Theological Investigations, 1:155, 1:143.
 

Tim: I hope this keep you awake at night.
I plan to give you much more evidence from the Bible in the next two days on why I believe in the Trinity.

Heinz: I slept like a baby...thanks;)

Back to Main Page