Tim: Heinz, Our discussion started with me trying to show you how, despite the Bible saying that Jehovah is a jealous God and that He will never share His glory with another, it is phenominal that Paul, a jew schooled in the traditions of his fathers and now a believer in the man Jesus, attributed to this very
same Jesus glory and honor (i.e. the worship of all creation) that apparently was only due to God.

"the Bible refers to judges [Psalm 82; John 10:34] who teach God’s divine law as gods.  This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s divine law, not because they were actually God in any way.  This usage is quite common in the Jewish scriptures.  For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was God’s representative to Pharaoh.  In essence, Jesus’ reply supports the very opposite of what missionaries are trying to put forth.  Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his identification with God is comparable to the Jewish judges’ identification with God.

The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the Trinity.  It took many years from the time the last Gospel was completed for the defenders of the church to promote this alien creed.
-Rabbi Tovia Singer
see http://www.outreachjudaism.org/claimgod.html]

"The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is entirely without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained unflinching monotheists to this day. On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by his Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new Gospel indeed, but not a new theology. He declared that He came 'not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil' them, and he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.' His proclamation concerning himself was in line with Old Testament prophecy. He was the 'Messiah' of the promised Kingdom, the 'Son of Man' of Jewish hope...if He sometimes asked 'Who do men say that I the Son of Man am?' He gave no answer beyond the implied assertion of Messiahship." A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, 1900, pp. 4, 5 by L. L. Paine, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Bangor Theological Seminary.

Tim: Your first objection was to say that we should not be surprised at this for, "God's representatives are often that given the glory Jehovah is given."
>>This point is utterly bankrup. If we look to God's holiness we will understand why this is so. Jehovah is totally separate from all of creation. This is what Louis Berkof called the "majesty holiness" of God (see his systematic theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, p. 73). The uniqueness of God from all creation is affirmed in Ex. 15:11: "Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders?" And as such, it would be impossible for any idol, and by inference, creature to share the same honor and glory as God.

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder

Revelation 19:10 makes the point clear for the created order. The angel says to John as he fell down to worship him: "See to it that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your bretheren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!" The angel puts himself on par with John and thus we can
conclude that the only being that can be worshipped is God.
So, back to 1 Chron 29:20. You responded:
>>I am not interested in a discusssion of why you think the ASV, RV, KJV is a poor translation of the Hebrew Shachah (LXX proskunew) since it is rendered that way in many Bibles in the NT. This was not my point. I have no trouble with translating the verb proskunew "worship" as that is what it precisely means (see esp. Hebrew 1:6). The issue I have is that David, in 1 Chron. 29:20, is not the recipient of worship and thus you cannot use this to support your argument against Is. 45:23 cf. with Philp. 2:11! The SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION in the ASV and KJV have been corrected in the more recent Bibles: NIV reads "Praise [worship] the Lord your God." So they all praised [worshipped] the Lord, the God of
their fathers; they bowed down and fell prostrate before the Lord and the King." David made it clear from the start: it was the "Lord your God" who was to be worshipped, not the king. The fact that David remained standing is not proof that he intended himself to be worshipped and receive the "same
honor as God." The context refutes this. "Praise [worship] the Lord your God!" On the other hand, in Philip 2:11, Jesus receives worship and honor as all creation bows before Him.  This is all to the glory of God the Father as "all must honor the Son even as the honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent Him" (Jn 5:23). This verse goes far beyond making Jesus a mere ambassador who is acting in the name of a monarch, but gives him full and complete equality with the Father (cf. Phip 2:11).

B) Since anointed Christians will also share in the glory that was given to Jesus by God (John 17:22), they will now also judge angels. See 1 Corinthians 6:3

C) Jesus is now the mediator between God and men. 1 Tim 2:5
Whereas God used others in the past as his spokesman, he now only uses the His Son:

"At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets, but in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us in the person of his Son." Hebrews 1:1

As for the ASV, I don't think the NIV "corrected" anything.

"Then David said to the whole assembly, 'Praise the LORD your God.' So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate [MT Shachah; LXX proskuneo] before the LORD and the king." NIV

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"

"And Achimaaz cried out and said to the king, Peace. And he did obeisance [proskuneo] to the king with his face to the ground, and said, Blessed be the Lord thy God, who has delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king." (Brenton)

The Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University's Truett Theological Seminary Millard J. Erickson wrote, "There will always be a difference between God and human beings. The gap between us is not merely moral and spiritual disparity which originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, steming from creation. Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be his human creatures. We will never become God."  And thus we can never receive the same "honor and worship" as God. As such, only God can be worshipped and this is exactly what Jesus receives in Philippians 2:11.

>>I also am not interested in talking about Phillipians 2, since it is an
ambiguous scripture, and a rule of hermeneutics states that you cannot use
an ambiguous scripture as a proof text. You trinitarians are as unsure of the
kenosis of this text as you are of how to translate it:
"he did not think to snatch at equality with God." New English Bible
I am not interested in a modalist discussion, but one of the THREE in ONE.

Reply: Well, I guess that I disagree that it is ambiguous. v.6 declares that Jesus was in the morphe of God and verse 7 says that he is in the morphe of a servant. Just as the "form of servant" is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. In this passage, what Jesus emptied himself
of was not the divine morphe. There is no point in the passage that can
support this. Combined with Col.2:9, we can be certain that Jesus was the
fullness of God in body/flesh. Jesus emptied himself by "taking the from of
a servant." The participle phrase is an explanation of how Jesus emptied
himself, or what he did that constituted kenosis. While the text does not
specify what he emptied himself of, it is noteworthy that "form of a
servant" constrasts sharpley with "equality with God." It is equallity with
God , not the form of God, of which Jesus emptied himself. While he did not
cease to be in nature what the Father was, he became functionally
subordinate to the Father for the period of the incarnation. Jesus is the
God-Man.

If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those who hold such a position have a real problem.
These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning.
But what of the phrase, "form of God" or EN MORFH QEOU
Carolyn Osiek writes that the NIV translation, "being in very nature God," misses the mark since it "overstates the traditional
interpretation" by rendering MORFH as "very nature" instead of "form." Osiek goes on to say that MORFH [in the Phil account] does not mean nature, "but form, shape, or appearance . . ." She says more and favors the understanding "status" for MORFH. She goes on to say that "divinity in the absolute sense is probably not being ascribed to Christ."  EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. _Philippians, Philemon_. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60.
Also, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS, something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60).

I think she has something here regarding status, since EN MORFH QEOU (in the form of God) seems to be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU (form of a slave). A slave is not the antithesis of deity. A slave, or servant, has the bearing of status or function among humanity, serving humans while heavenly beings, angels, have also served and held a functional equality with God.
[See Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1.]
They are representatives, and as such, can even bear the title of "God." See footnote Psalm 45:7 New American Bible.
As Buchanan says, "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him"
But for sure, the notion that MORFH can also mean outer appearance, but too much cannot be read into this as assuming divinity in its absolute sense, as even sinful humans can have a "form [MORFWSIN] of godliness, although they have denied its power." 2 Tim 3:5 NASB

"But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his preexistent being was in - the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. II, p. 80.

"When he [Paul] says that Christ existed in the form of God, he implies that Christ was of the same nature as God, [yes a spirit] that the principle of his being was essentially divine. Since he had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to "equality" with him; he might have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented his inferior place and thrown off his obedience. (d) Yet he never attempted the robbery which might have raised him higher….But in Greek, as in English, the word "robbery" involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belongs to God….Paul…set the obedience of Christ over against that old conception  of a heavenly being  [Satan] who had sought by violence to make himself equal to God." (e.a.)-The Interpreter's Bible, in loc cit.

We will have more on Adam Christology below.

Tim: OK - Here goes the Trinity:
This doctrine is not polytheism or tri-theism. It is also not modalism. No
one in Christianity believe this or teaches it. Christianity insists that
only one God exists, but it is just as emphatic in maintaining that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all are God. Moreover, the doctrine can
be stated that God is one as to essence and three as to person. Christians
maintain that while the doctrine is nowhere stated explicitly in Scripture,
it is a logically warranted inference from what does say about God.

 This doctrine as dictated in 325 and 381, specifically the way it is
worded, seems rather technical and remote to our way of thinking. Some
people get the feeling that the church fathers were reacting to something,
but exactly what is not clear. And, of course, not everyone agreed with the
decisions of the councils, and the implications of the creedal formulations
for what Christians say about the Son's and the Holy Spirit's relation to
one another and to the Father continued to be a bone of contention for many
centuries among Christians. As you may know, one difference of opinion about
the Trinity still divides the Western and Eastern churches to this day.
Predominantly, when I speak of the Trinity to people, they grant that the
Bible does warrent belief in some kind of Trinity, but the biggest issue is
seems to be concerning how we are to understand what we are saying when we
teach that God is Triune. Perhaps this may account for the many paragraphs
like the one you quoted to me in your letter. Most scholars of the history
of Christianity believe in the Trinity. But the expression of it often gets
"muddled" and "confused." Now whether you like it or not, the finite will
always struggle to understand the infinite and the former will only be able
to comprehend what the latter allow him to comprehend (and only to a finite
degree).

 I will also conceed that most people in the Church do not understand this
doctrine, as they have never faithfully studied and meditated upon it. In
fact, most lay-Christians live as practical tri-theists. They don't even
seem to care about the doctrine or what exactly it states. This is a tragedy
of catastrophic proportions. As Wolfhart Pannenberg replies to those who
think this doctrine is unimportant:
"It is not a doctrine of only secondary importance in addition to some other
basic concept of the one God: if the issue is considered in terms like that,
the case for trinitarian theology is lost. It can be defended only on the
condition that there is no other appropriate conception of the God of
Christian faith that the trinity. In that case we cannot have first a
doctrine on the one God and, afterwards, in terms of some additional
supernatural mystery, the trinitarian doctrine. Rather, if the trinitarian
doctrine is sound, Christian monotheism can only mean that the three persons
of the trinity are not three gods, but one God only. Everthing that is said
in Christian theology on the one God has to be predicated, then, of the
three persons of the trinity in their communion.
If a case can be made out for trinitarian theology, the decisive argument
must be that the trinitarian doctrine simply states explicitly what is
implicit already in God's revelation in Jesus Christ and basically in Jesus'
historical relationship to the Father whom he proclaimed to be the one God.
If Jesus' relationship to the Father could be adequately described and
accounted for in other terms than trinitarian doctrine, the case for that
doctrine would be lost. It can only be defended if the trinitarian concept
of God can be shown to be the only adequate and fully explicit expression of
the reality of God revealed in Jesus Christ."

 Indeed, this is a most significant doctrine theologically. If Father, Son,
and HS are not coequally God and not of the same essence, there are serious
problem, for example, for the doctrine of salvation. It is generally agreed
in evangelical theology that because of human sin and guilt before God, a
radical remedy is required. Someone must die to pay the penalty, but who?
Evangelical theology contends that it msut be a human being, for humans have
incurred the guilt and penalty. But no mere human could atone even for their
own sins, let alone for those of the whole world, so the Savior must be God.
But if Jesus is less than God (above humans and even above angels, but still
not equal to the Father and the Spirit), how can he serve as an atoning
sacrifice for all? Redemption is in jeopardy. Moreover, if there is not
equality of being and purpose, then perhaps Christ's desire to offer a
sacrifice is contrary to the Father's thinking about how to atone for human
sin. Perhaps, as some earlier in church history have supposed , the Son's
propitiation of the Father attemps to win over a Father who is not inclined
to handle sin in this way. And what if the Father decided to reject the
Son's sacrifice?

 As to the Holy Spirit, if he is not fully God, the implications for
salvation are again serious. Scripture teaches that the HS regenerates
believers and indwells and fills them, but if the HS is a lesser God or no
God at all, how can we be sure that he can do any of these things? Moreover,
unless he is coequal in being and purpose with the Father and the Son, what
guarantees that even if he tried to do such things, the Father and Son would
recognize his actions as appropriate and relate to us accordingly?

Reply: Well, we have 961 words, and no Scriptures thus far. Let us examine a few points. You said:
"It is generally agreed in evangelical theology that because of human sin and guilt before God, a radical remedy is required. Someone must die to pay the penalty, but who? Evangelical theology contends that it msut be a human being, for humans have incurred the guilt and penalty. But no mere human could atone even for their
own sins, let alone for those of the whole world, so the Savior must be God. But if Jesus is less than God (above humans and even above angels, but still not equal to the Father and the Spirit), how can he serve as an atoning
sacrifice for all?"

Reply: God's death, I believe, is not a  proper or corresponding ransom, as God dying would too high a price. Besides, God cannot die, "Surely you, Yahweh, are from ancient times, my holy God, who never dies!" Hab 1:12
This is again, where the Adam Christology talked about above comes into play.

Rom 5:14 Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam was. He prefigured the One who was to come..."

1 Cor 15:22 Just as all die in Adam, so in Christ all will be brought to life.

1 Cor 15:45 So the first man, Adam, as scripture says, became a living soul; and the last Adam has became a life-giving spirit.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all-[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times."

H.A.W. Meyers says: “The word antilutron, is synonymous with antallagma
in Mt. 16:26; it is distinguished from the simple lutron only in this,
that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more
emphatic."--Meyers Commentary on the NT.

"Antilutron: a corresponding price."--Young’s Concordance.

"It signifies a substitute ransom price, a ransom in place of another or others." Paul's Letter to the Colossians-An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary by J. Hampton Keathley III-Biblical Studies Press 2001, p. 64

"the reference in 1 Timothy 2:6...has a substitutionary meaning." Davies, Christ in our Place, 89-90

"A ransom, price of redemption, or rather corresponding ransom. It
properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the
enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by
the life of another. so Aristotle uses the verb antilytroo for redeeming
life by life."--Parkhurst's Lexicon;47

 Tim: The doctrine of theTrinity is also significant in terms of the truth of revelation. In 1 Cor. 2, Paul tells us that the hidden things of God have been revealed to us by God's Spirit, the Holy Spirit. In verse 11 Paul writes, "For who among men know the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him. Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God." Paul's logic is hard to fault. Who would better know what you are thinking than you? Similarly, who would better know the truths
of God than God's own Spirit? But what if the HS does not share the divine essence but is a lesser one (even a none divine one)? Then, according to Paul's logic, the HS would not necesarrily be in the best position to know the truths of God, and if that is so, we are in deep trouble in relation to Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that revelation of God's truth comes through the Spirit and that the Spirit inspired Scripture (1 Cor 2:9-13). Believing this to be so and believing the Spirit to be coequally God so thathe really knows the truth of God, evangelicals take the Bible to be God's Word and understand it as a true revelation from God about himself, ourselves, etc. As Paul says, who would better know what someone is thinking than that person himself? If the HS doesn't share the divine essence withthe Father and the Son, he is not in a position to know. The implicationsfor our knowledge of God are staggering!

Let us look at some other examples of "the spirit of" in the Bible:
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life" Gen 7:22 ASV
"the spirit of their father Jacob revived" NJB "he recovered from the shock" TEV Gen 45:27
"whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom" ASV "whom I have endowed with skill" NJB Ex 28:3
"and have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "I have filled him with my power" TEV Ex 31:3
"have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "God has filled him with his power" TEV Ex 35:31
"this spirit of suspicion comes over him" NJB "a husband becomes suspicious of his wife" TEV Numbers 5:14
"Joshua, son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom" NJB "Joshua, son of Nun was filled with wisdom" TEV Deut 34:9
"and the spirit of Yahweh began to stir him" NJB "the LORD's power began to strengthen him" TEV Judges 13:25
"the spirit of Elijah has come to rest on Elisha" NJB "the power of Elijah is on Elisha" TEV 2 Kings 2:15
"the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul" ASV "the God of Israel roused the hostility of Pul" NJB 1 Chron 5:26
"the spirit of the Philistines" ASV "the hostility of the Philistines" NJB 2 Chron 21:16
More examples can be allowed, but I think you get the gist of it here. The Spirit of God is God's power, his breath, it is God Himself. There is no difficulty here, it is simply not another person within a triune Godhead.
"After being exalted to the right hand of God and receiving the sacred breath as promised from the Father, he poured out all this you see and hear." Acts 2:33 Unvarnished NT
For more on the spirit go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm and http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm

Tim: Think as well of the implications for revelation if Jesus is not coequally God. The Bible says that Jesus is the exact image of God (Heb 1:3) and that in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form (Col. 2:9). Jesus adds that whomever have seen him have seen the Father (Jn. 14:9). John says that while no one else has ever seen God, the Son knows him and reveals him to us (Jn 1:18). But if Jesus is a lesser god or not a god at all, thereare no such guarantees. In his very person he cannot reveal God, for he isnot coequal with him. Moreover, we cannot even be sure that his teachingabout God reveals the truth, for if he is not coequal with God how can we really know what he is talking about when he speaks of God? If so, then in knowing about Christ and knowing him personally by faith, we cannot be sure
our knowledge of God increases at all.

"According to Exod 34:29-35 the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

"Hebrews also considered Jesus a "reflection of the glory" which meant the same as being a "stamp of his nature" The Greek word for "stamp" comes from the verb charassein. "to mark, engrave, or stamp." The stamp, accordingly, refers to the characteristic and distinctive form, Isaac was claimed to have features (zlw 'iqoniw) like those of Abraham (Gen R. 21:2; 53 /6). This does not mean either that Isaac was actually identical to Abraham or that Jesus was identical to God. Both were reflections and had characteristics of their fathers. Jesus was the son, heir, and apostle of God (3:1). As apostle or agent he was sent with the full authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him. That which the apostle/agent does is in behalf of and has the approval and support of the one who sent him. He has the authority of an embassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country (Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who recieved his apostles whom he had sent recieved Jesus himself and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him (Matt 10:40-42;John 13:20). This is true because legally a man's apostle is like the man himself. The New Testament apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Legally Jesus was identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. Just as Christians thought of Jesus as an apostle of God, so Jews thought of Moses as the "apostle between Israel and their heavenly Father" (Sifra behuqqotai, perek 8:12; Lev 26:46). As the great apostle (magnus nuntius), Moses prayed "every hour, both day and night...to him who rules all the world" (Assumption of Moses 11:17). Samaritans also thought of Moses as their apostle of God: They called him a good apostle, a righteous apostle, an apostle of God, and the apostle of the true one whom God specially chose for apostleship. As apostle, he was also called "Son of the House of God", God's "man," "savior," "prophet," "faithful one," "crown of the righteous of the world," and "light of prophethood." As an apostle, Moses was entrusted with the mysteries and honored in the things revealed. To Moses was revealed that which preceded creation and also that which follows the day of vengeance. To him was opened the gateway to the unseen. He had drawn near to the holy deep darkness where the Divine One was and had seen the wonders of the unseen (Memar Marquah 2/12; 3/6; 4/4; 5/3; 6//3,11). There are many biblical illustrations of apostolic authority: Jehu was ritually made king when Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to annoint him. It was not necessary for Elisha to annoint him himself for the annointing to be authoritative (2Kings 9:1-10). Paul sent a message to the Corinthians, giving them authority to deliver to Satan the man who had been living with his father's wife, because Paul was "with them in spirit," meaning that his legal authorization was there (1Cor 5:1-5).
 "Bearing everything by the word of his power" does not picture the Son playing the part of Atlas carrying the world on his shoulder, nor in the sense that God is the "sustainer of the World" or "age" (sobel 'olam) (Exod R. 64c, /36:4). Rather, as ambassador or apostle, the Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him." The Anchor Bible-To the Hebrews, by George Wesley Buchanan

 Tim: The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards against all of these devastatingposibilities. The one who dies on the cross is fully God as well as fullyhuman. Salvation is not merely his idea, an idea of whose merit he mustconvince the Father; it is the plan and work of the whole Godhead. The Holy Spirit does have the power to regenerate, and in indwelling believers he brings the very presence of God (Father, Son, and HS) into our lives. Moreover, the Spirit as God knows accurately the things of God, so we can be sure that the Scriptures He inspired are both the truth of God and the truth about God. And Jesus is, as Scripture says, the highest revelation of God
that we have. Yes, he is a man; but he is also fully God (Titus 2:13).

 Now, lets dig in. What does the Bible say that leads many to formulate this great truth. First of all, the doctrine of the trinity is never explicitly stated in the Bible. There is no realiable verse that says, "God is one as to essence, three as to persons." Now, while no passage states this doctrine per se, there are other ways Scripturecan teach something. If Scripture makes various claims which, we taken together, necessitate or even warrant adoctrine, then the Bible teaches the doctrine by implication. It is easy to show that the Bible only teaches that there is only one God. Moreover, Scripture applies terms such as "God" and "YAHWEH" and predicates various divine attributes and actions to more than one individual. There is good Biblical evidence that these three individual are distinct and exist simultaneously with one another.If Scripture does teach all of this, it doesn't "say" that God is one in essence and three as to persons, but it requires the theologian and exegete to do a lot of explaining. For how can there only be one God and yet several distinct, simultaneously existing individuals who are attributed divine
qualities, called by divine names, and portrait as doing things that, according to the bible and reason, only a divine being could do? If the theologian and exegete are to avoid contradiction, the traditional formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity seems required.

 All of this means that the doctrine of the Trinity is inferred from things that Scripture teaches without actually being stated anywhere in Scripture. Inferential reasoning is notoriously slippery, for from one set of data it may be possible to generate several distinct inferences, each of which mutually excludes the others. But this is no reason to dispare. Careful attention to the text is possible and a reasonable conclusion is still within our God-guided reach. Formulating doctrines by inferential reasoning from Scripture can and will be difficult, but it is not an illegitimate wayto come up with doctrine. If the data warrant the inference, there is noreason to be apologetic about the doctrine.

 Here are a couple more ground rules. We do know what the early church fathers and church councils concluded about this doctrine. We also know from the writings of church fathers who attempted to expond and defend the decision of the church councils that rather sophisticated metaphysical distinctions were used to explain and defend this doctine. They introduced
Greek and Latin terms (such as ousia, hypotasis, substantia, subsistantia, persona) to elucidate this doctrine, terms that were never used in this way in Scripture to speak of the Trinity. This should caution all to be careful not to impose these terms and concepts on the Bible so as to force biblical writers to make sophisticated metaphysical points that they never intended
to make and possibly new little about. I know that it is frustrating for you and me to read various theological treatments of this doctrine in which theologians essentially "read back" into Scripture conclusions of the church councils that biblical authors never intended. That doesn't mean, however, that biblical authors would disagree with these claims and sophistications, but only that while we want to say whatever Scripture says about this topic, we should not make the biblical writer say more than they did. The secondcaution is to avoid reading current notions of "person" back into Scripture
and into the formulations and writings of the church fathers who bravely grappled with these ideas. As you may know, some dramatic changes occured with Immanuel Kant in our understanding of how the mind functions in the knowing process, and all of that has implications for our notions of conciousness and self-conciousness, and those concepts have significant implications for what we mean by a person. Don't assume that 4th and 5th century thinkers undrstood conciousness, knowledge, or personhood as Kant and Descartes did, let alone as we do.
A third rule deals with the relation of the NT to the OT. Progress of revelation means that God has not said everything that He wants to say about a topic in just one passage. It also means that as salvation-history progresses, earlier revelation is made more complete by later revelation. It becomes more clear. This is especially true for the doctrine of the Trinity. The truths that form the foundation of the doctrine are most clearly presented in the NT. Parts of the doctrine are at best only vaguely hinted
at in the OT. It is tempting to read the NT truth back into the OT, but we must, insofar as it is possible, resist that temptation. The reason is not that the NT contradicts the OT or doesn't flow from it, but rather that the OT does not say entirely what we claim on the basis of NT teaching. It is one thing to say, for example, that we can see how an OT passage that says the coming Messiah would also be God (Is 9:6-7) fits NT teaching that Jesus of Nazareth is the long awaited Messiah, and is the Son of God. It isanother thing to say that Isaiah is teaching that Jesus is God. Or again, itis one thing to say that a passage such as Is. 63:7-14 teaches that God, the angel of his presence, and God's Holy Spirit were all involved in Israel's exodus from Egypt and through the wilderness pilgrimage, and if the second member of that trio is the preincarnate Christ, then though this passage dosen't teach three distinct members of the Godhead, it can made to cohere with such a doctrine. On the other hand, it is another to say that this passage teaches not only plurality in the Godhead but also that each of the three individuals mentioned are distinct persons of the Godhead and coequal with one another. By being careful with OT texts, I don't think we lose anything of significance to the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand, we can clearly see the intimations of a triune God, outlines which, if not completely understood by the OT person, are still understandable in the NT era as seeds from which the fuller and clearer teaching would grow. Moreover, for the observant OT saint, those OT passages could have been a clue that ther is more to say about God that just that there is one God and YAHWEH is his name.

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD.

 This is a foundational claim of the Bible. This rules out all forms of polytheism. Moreover, Scripture makes it clear that this one God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is not Baal, Molech, or any of the other pagan deities. Both OT and NT are very clear about this.
 Frist in the OT, there are many indications that there is only one God. The best known is the SHEMA. Though the syntax is a bit difficult in the original, the meaning of the verse is quite clear. 'ehod occurs some 960 times in many contexts throughout the OT, and its predominant use is to designate something that is numerically one, and that seems to be its sense here. There is only one Yahweh; no one else qualifies as God. Other peoples have their own gods, but Israel's God is Yahweh alone. For Jews and Christians, the God of the Bible is the true and living God, so no other god is real. In light of Yahweh alone being God, v. 5 instructs Israel to "lovethe LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with allyour might." Ex. 20:3 and Deut. 5:7 command Israel to "have no other gods before Me." When Moses asked God what to tell Israel if they ask the name of this God (Ex 3:13-14, NIV), God replys that Moses should answer, "I AM WHO I AM. this is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you." "This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation
to generation" (v. 15). At various places in the OT God emphatically reiterates that he is the only God and that there is no other. Deuteronomy repeatedly makes this point. In chapter 4:35, 39 we read, "You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God, besides him there is no other...Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in
heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other." See also Deut. 32:39.

 In 1 Kings and Psalms we read the same thing (1 Kings 8:59-60; Ps 86:10), but by far it is Isaiah who make the point most frequently. If you read 43:10; 45:5-6; 44:6; 45:14, 18; 45:21-22 you can't help but see the point. Sure most are in response to idols, but the point is that regardless of who or what it is, there is only one God. Isaiah 46:9 proclaims, "I am God, and
there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me."  The last line of 46:9 says more than that there is only one God. It also says that there is no one, even including THE HIGHEST OF ALL BEINGS BESIDE GOD, to compare with him (do you still think that representative of God - excluding Jesus for now - can receive the same honor?). In Exodus 15:11, Moses makes a further point that when Yahweh is compared with other nations' gods, there is no comparassion. Moses asks, "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awsome in glory, working wonders?"

 The NT repeats this message in various ways. On one occasion (Mk 12:29-30) Jesus was asked which one of the 10 commandments he thought most important. Jesus's reply, taken form Deut. 6:4 was followed by the first commandment.
In verse 31 Jesus adds the command to love our neighbor as ouselves, and then his interlocutor agrees (v. 32) that "God is one and there is no other but him." Jesus also states that God is one in Jn 17:3.

 Paul is in agreement. See Roman 3:29-30. The logic is clear: there is only one God, so whatever rules apply to one group of people, apply to all. This is what we would expect from Paul for he was raised as an Orthodox Jew.

 In 1 Cor. 8 Paul discusses issues of Christian liberty (matters morally indifferent in themselves). The particular practice in question is eating food sacrificed to idols. In 8:4ff. Paul explains that idols are not really gods, and eating or not eating food sacrificed to them is morally indifferent. However, because some have scruples about such things, believers should be careful not to offend. As he makes this point, Paul affirms the tradition Jewish and Christian belief in only one God. See also
Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:5. There is only one God to whom we are accountable, and he has given us one means by which we must be saved, namely, through Jesus, the only mediator between God and man.  See also what
James says in 2:19. It is good to believe in only one God.

The upshot of all this is that Jehovah is uniquely God, he is uniquely good, he is our unique Savior, he is worshipped uniquely, he is uniquely holy, and Jesus is uniquely God's Son and our Lord and Master, in a way that no others are.
Gleason Archer, who is certainly a trinitarian [and one of the translators of the NASB], has to concede the following:

"One additional observation is in orderconcerning this occasional employment of Elohim in the Old Testament to refer to believers under the covenant. This seems to operate by the analogy of national designations like bene Yisrael (the sons of Israel), bene Ammon (the sons of Ammon), bene Yehudah (the sons of Judah), bene Babel (the sons of Babylon), etc. Any or all of these tribes or nations could also be referred to without the bene (sons of), as Yisrael, Ammon, or Yehudah. By analogy then, the combination bene elohim could be shortened to elohim alone - i.e., a member of the sons (or people) of God. (Other passages of this class, referring to Israelite rulers or judges as God's representatives on earth, include Exod. 21:6; 22:7-8, 27; Pss. 8:5; 82:1; 138:1 [or else 'angels']. Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties, p. 374

Tim: EVIDENCES OF PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD
We can begin with the fact that the typical OT word for Israel's God is
'elohim, and it is plural.

 A further intimation of plurality in the Godhead comes from the various references to the angel of the Lord (mal'ak yhwh).

 Tim: Further OT of plurality in the Godhead comes in teaching about the Messiah, God's anointed.  Some passages identify the coming Messiah as God.  Isaiah 9:6-7, which prophesies the birth of a son to Israel.  This is no mere human child, however, for the passage clarifies that he will sit upon Davids throne and his kingdom will last forever.  This can be no other than thelong awaited Messiah, but note the description of this child.  Among otherthings, verse 6 reveals that he is the Mighty God, so this passage connects
Messiahship with deity.

There can be no complaint of the above rendering in the NWT, but why do other Bibles not render it so? Isaiah 9:4 makes a
reference to the Midian's defeat at the hands of the Judge Gideon. Mentioning him here is no coincidence, as Jesus is the
greater Gideon, and all judgement will be committed to him (John 5:22). Now, Judges were also called "God," not only at
Psalm 82:1, but also at Exodus 21:6 ("then his master must take him before the judges ["God" footnote]" NIV; "then his master
shall bring him to God" NASB) and Exodus 22:8 ("the owner of the house must appear before the judges ["God" footnote]"
NIV; "then the master of the house shall come near unto God" ASV).
As we have also discussed before, Isaiah 9:6 was originally thought of as applying to a mere human. See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim.htm.

 Tim: We find something similar to this in Jerimiah23:5-6, where God says that he will raise up for David a righteous branchwho will reign as king over Israel and Judah.  Commentators uniformlyunderstand this as a prophecy about the Messiah, but beyond that, verse 6 says that his name will be called "the LORD of righteousness," or "Yahwehour righteous."  This is more than mere prophecy that people in Messiah's day will think possitively of him.  Rather, he will be called this because they will recognize him as God and will be thrilled with the justice and righteousness that he does in the land (v. 5).  So this passage identifies Messiah as divine.

 Another well known passage makes a similar indentification.  Mic. 5:2 predicts the birthplace of the Messiah as Bethlehem Ephrathath.  It also says that his goings forth are "from long ago, from the days of eternity."

  The Ot also frequently refer to the Spirit of God.  Though in some passages such as Gen. 6:3 ("My Spirit shall not strive") and Psalm 139:7 (the psalmist asks God, "Where can I go from thy Spirit?") it is not entirely clear whether the Spirit is a distinct personage or rather a reference to God the Father's Spirit, there are many passages in which the Spirit is distinct.

 Three final OT items are relevant for our study.  There are several passages where the name of God or the notion of his deity is applied to more than one person.  Three of these passages appear in Isaiah.  In 48:16 the speakers says "the LORD God has sent Me, and His Spirit."  Many interpreters judge the speaker in the verse to be the second member of the Godhead.  If one agrees, then all three persons are linked together in this verse.  On the other hand, if one rejects that identification, the verse still speaks
of the LORD God and his Spirit.  Is. 61:1 is a second passage, and again the Lord God and the Spirit of the Lord are said to be upon the one who speaks. From the context of chapter 61, this one who is anointed by the Lord and his Spirit does things (vv. 1-9) that could only happen in Messianic times, so one might on the basis of this chapter alone conclude that the Messiah is speaking.  What seals the issue for many, however, is the fact that in Luke 4:18ff., Jesus turns to this passage, reads it, and says that he fulfils it.
Christ's statement linking himself to Isaiah 61 is for many conclusiveevidence that 61 mentions all three members of the Godhead.

This is not to say that God is not portrayed as a Father (esp. to Israel) in the OT, for this is not the case (see 2 Sam
7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; 29:10; Ps. 89:26; 103:13; 68:5; Jer. 31:9; 3:19; Is. 63:16; 64:8; Mal 1:6; 2:10).  From these passages, it is abundantly clear that God plays a fatherly role in the OT.  My point, however, is that the phrase "God the Father," which in the NT often functions as a proper name, is absent from the OT.  The only exception might be 1 Chron. 29:10 - I'll let you look at that debate on your own.

NT TEACHING ON PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD.
 Indeed, the NT data on plurality in the Godhead are so plentiful that one
hardly knows where to begin.

JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.
 In many different ways the NT teaches that Jesus is God.  First, many passages, though not calling Jesus God, amount to saying that he is divine. In two passages in John, for example, Jesus in effect claims to be deity. In John 5 we find Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath, which infuriated the Jews.  When they challenged Jesus, he replied (v. 17), "My Father is working till now, and I Myself am working."  This made the situation worse, for his accusers understood Jesus to be calling himself God's son and making himselfequal with God (v. 18).  If Jesus meant that he was God's son in the sensethat angels or human were called sons of God, that would not have merittedthe charge of blasphemy.  But as his accusers complained, Jesus was making himself equal to God, and HE NEVER DENIED THEIR CHARGE, for that was exactly what he meant.

"This is not a statement about equality in the sense that it could be reversed to read: The Father can do nothing except what he sees the Son doing. The notion of equality is heavily qualified by the notion of dependence. The equality consists primarily of equal works, which had been the point of Jesus claim in 5:17...The Son's equality with the Father is grounded in and defined by his doing the Father's will and fulfilling his commision. It is also grounded in the claim that he is uniquely qualified to do so, since he is the Son of the Father, different from other people. His being is distinctive and enables his doing. In his being he is dependent and subordinate; in his doing he is equal. The inequality of dependence of the unique Son is also emphasized as the basis of his equality of deed and word in 5:36f." The Christology of the Fourth Gospel by William Loader, pp. 160,161

"Ison does not necessarily mean sameness or equality in every respect, as Matt 20:12 demonstrates. And the use of the term 'Father' in the statement that led to the charge ('My Father is working still, and I am working') suggests that ison does not mean 'exactly like' in this context. Moreover, what immediately follows makes it clear that that the Son is not 'exactly like' the Father: ' The Son can do nothing on his own account, but only what he sees the Father doing....I can do nothing on my own authority.'" The Subordination of the Son, Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 37/3, Sept. 1994, p. 360

 John 10 records a similar incident.  Jesus calls himself the good shepherd who give eternal life to his sheep.  In verse 29 Jesus says that the Father has given him the sheep, and no one can take them from his hand.  Jesus adds (v. 30), "I and the Father are one."  Now Jesus might have meant that heagreed with God's will as set forth in Scripture, but, if that was hispoint, no one would have accused him of blasphemy [and you cannot justright-off the Jews interpretation of everything and say that they weremistaken.  I would bet that the scribes and scholars that Jesus was engaged in had a much more sensitive understanding of most of the OT than you or Ido today.  Modern Jews have so much understanding of TANAK on most areas that it blows the mind].  When the Jews heard this, however, they took up stones to stone him.  When asked why they were doing this, they answered that they did this because, he, a mere man, was making himself out to be God.  Jesus answered the charge of blasphemy, but not by denying that he isGod.  His listeners understood him only too well.  Rather, Jesus' defense was that in the OT Scriptures mere men (even evil men) who served as judgesin Israel were called gods without blasphemy, so why should they object when he did good works and called himself God?  His accusers could not answer him, but don't be mistaken:  Jesus wasn't suggesting that they misunderstood him; He meant that he is God.

"Some missionaries will argue, as you point out, that Jesus’ statement in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one,” demonstrates that Jesus considered himself God.  The Greek word hen (one), however, does not imply being a part of the same substance.  We see this clearly in John 17:11 and 17:21-22 where Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one (hen) as are Jesus and God.  Clearly, Jesus is requesting that the disciples be of one unified purpose, not of the same substance or part of the Trinity.

Moreover, John 10:30-34 is particularly revealing.  The fourth Gospel describes how when the Jews heard Jesus proclaim, “I and my Father are one,” they immediately wanted to stone him.  When Jesus asks them why they wanted to kill him, the Jews responded because “you claim to be God.”  Upon hearing this, Jesus asked, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I have said you are gods’?”  This response is one of the most important statements in the Book of John, and should at least give Trinitarians pause.

The verse is found in Psalm 82:6 where the Bible refers to judges who teach God’s divine law as gods.  This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s divine law, not because they were actually God in any way.  This usage is quite common in the Jewish scriptures.  For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was God’s representative to Pharaoh.  In essence, Jesus’ reply supports the very opposite of what missionaries are trying to put forth.  Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his identification with God is comparable to the Jewish judges’ identification with God.

The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the Trinity.  It took many years from the time the last Gospel was completed for the defenders of the church to promote this alien creed.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer"

"a purely Jewish argument that is hard for us to understand. He quoted Psalm 82:6. That psalm, is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and defend the poor and innocent. The appeal concludes: 'I say, You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.' The judge is commissioned by God to be god to men. This idea comes out very clearly in certain of the regulations in Exodus. Exodus 21:1-6 tells how the Hebrew servant may go free in the seventh year. As the Authorized Version has it, verse 6 says "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges." But in the Hebrew, the word which is translated judges is actually elohim, which means gods. The same form of expression is used in Exodus 22:9, 28. Even scripture said of men who were specially commissioned for some task by God that they were gods. So Jesus said: 'If scripture can speak like that about men, why should I not speak so about myself.'" The Gospel of John-Volume 2, The Daily Bible Study Series, p. 77

 In Colossians, Paul makes two very powerful statements about Christ as deity.  In Colossians 1, Paul says that in Christ we have redemption and forgiveness of sins.  He then says (v. 15) that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God."  The word for image is "eikon" which means "representation" or "likeness."  of this term Kittel writes:
  "Image is not to be understood as a magnitude which is alien to the reality and present only in the consciousness.  It has its share in the reality.  Indeed, it is the reality.  Thus eikon does not imply a
weakening or a feeble copy of something.  It implies the illumination of its core and   essence" (Hermann Kleinknecht, "The Greek Use of eikon," in TDNT 2:389).
With this sense, we might even say that Jesus is a "corbon copy" of God.

How could this be true and he not be divine is hard to see for me.  In the
other passage (Col 2:9), Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of Deity
dwells in bodily form."

Reply: Dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/theotes.htm

"A recent and widely read acclaimed study of the Biblical view of Jesus-Christology in the Making, by James Dunn-alerts us to the danger of reading too much into Paul's words the conclusion of a later generation of theologians, the 'fathers' of the Greek church in the centuries following the completion of the New Testament writings. The tendency to find in Scripture what we already believe is natural, since none of us can easily face the threatening possibility that our 'received' understanding does not coincide with the Bible."

In a number of passages, he is directly called God (theos).  In John 1:1 John says theos en ho logos ("the Word was God").  In verse 14, we read that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  This speaks of Christ's incarnation; hence, Johnis calling Jesus the Word.  But in John 1:1 John says the Word was God.JW's like to claim that the absence of the definite article with theos means that John is saying that Jesus is "a god" (a lesser deity), but not at all equal to the Father Jehovah God.  I have read this claim in WT magazines and heard it from the lips of dozens of JW's.  There is no doubt that it is an official teaching of the WTBATS.  However, and what I continue to point outto all JW's, is that grammatical studies have shown that in this passage the anarthrous noun before the verb (en) focuses on the quality of the thing designated by the noun.  So in this case John is saying that the Word was ofthe quality of God, or qualitatively God.  John is saying then, that the Word is God.  I cannot see how Stafford's arguments have done any damage to Hartly and Wallace's defense of the orthodox interpretation of John 1:1.

"The Word was God?
Against the first of these interpretations ('the word was God') is the fact that the author has just said that the Word was 'with' God. If 'Word' means little more than 'words', then it would be conceivable that the author could say: God's words were with him; they are, as his words, part of God himself, in that sense, they are God. Dupont comes near to this in claiming that the Logos concept refers not to a person but to God's communication of himself. But the author goes on to speak of the Word as a person as distinct from God, so that this must be assumed also in the opening verses.

Nor is it likely that the author intends to his opening statement to make a gradual approach to what he wishes to say, so that 'the Word was with God' is merely a step along the way to the statement, 'the Word was God' which is repeated in 1:2.

The Word was a God?

The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level. Yet their evaluation cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author's wider frame of reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and its roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God. Langbrandtner reckons with this as the positions of the redactor, whereas the Grundschrift had thought of Jesus more as an extension of God into the world, but such a view on the part of the redactor is unlikely and unsupported elsewhere. It is true, *on the most natural reading of the text*, that there are two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over against which the second is defined. They are not presented as two equal gods."
The Christology of the Fourth Gospel by William Loader, p. 155

Tim: Frequently in the NT Jesus is also called Lord.  The Greek word is kyrios, the word the Septuagint uses the render the OT divine name YHWH.

"We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)

Of the early beliefs, as express in II Clement, Adolph Harnack writes,

"It is necessary to think of Jesus as one thinks of God, (1) because he is the God-exalted Lord and Judge, (2) because he brought true knowledge and life and has delivered mankind from the dominion of demons,
from error and sin, or will deliver them. Therefore he is Savior, Lord our God, Son of God and God, Lord and God, but not THE God." (The THE is italicised in the text.)

Jesus Christ as "Lord"

Jesus is addressed as "Lord" in the four Gospels, most often in Luke and John. In the first century C.E., the title was one of respect and courtesy, equivalent to "Sir." (John 12:21; 20:15) In Mark's Gospel the term "Teacher," or Rab·bo'ni, is used more frequently in addressing Jesus. (Compare Mark 10:51 with Luke 18:41.) Even Saul's question on the road to Damascus, "Who are you, Lord?" had this same general sense of polite inquiry. (Acts 9:5) But as Jesus' followers came to know their Master, it is apparent that their use of the title "Lord" expressed much more than simple respect.

Following his death and resurrection but prior to his heavenly ascension, Jesus appeared to his disciples and made this startling announcement: "All authority in heaven and on the earth has been *given to me.*" (Matthew 28:18) In Acts 2:36 we are told that Jesus was "MADE Lord."
Because of his faithfulness to the end, Jesus was resurrected and given the highest reward. He then entered into his lordship in the heavens.

Ephesians 1:20, 21 states that God had "seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come." NASB
Jesus Christ's lordship is above all other lordships, and it will continue on into the new world. (1 Timothy 6:15) He was exalted to "a superior position" and given "the name which is above all other names" so that everyone should acknowledge "that Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11) The first part of Psalm 110:1 was thus fulfilled, and "angels, ruling forces and powers" were subject to Jesus' lordship.-1 Peter 3:22; Hebrews 8:1.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the expression "Lord of lords" applies only to Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:2, 3) But Peter under inspiration said of Christ Jesus: "He is the Lord of all." (Acts 10:36) He is indeed "Lord of both the dead and the living." (Romans 14:8, 9) All Christians acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Owner and show him obedience as his subjects, as they are bought with his most precious blood. And Jesus Christ has ruled as King of kings and Lord of lords over the church since Pentecost. But now he has been given authority to rule in that capacity with his enemies placed as a 'stool for his feet.' The time has come for him to 'go subduing in the midst of them,' all so that Psalm 110:1, 2.-Hebrews 2:5-8; Revelation 17:14; 19:16 are fulfilled.

But if you compare scriptures like Luke 4:19 with Isaiah 61:2 in either the King James Version or The New Jerusalem Bible  people will maintain that Jesus took over the title "Lord" from Jehovah and that Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh. But God and his Son, Jesus Christ, are always carefully distinguished from each other in Scripture. Jesus made known his Father's name and represented him.-John 5:36, 37.

In the following examples, note the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures as they appear in the New Testament. Jehovah God and his Messiah, are both mentioned at Acts 4:24-27, which quotes from Psalm 2:1, 2. The context of Romans 11:33, 34 is clearly referring to God as the Source of all wisdom and knowledge, with a quotation from Isaiah 40:13, 14. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul repeats the quotation, "Who has ever known the mind of the Lord (Jehovah)?" and then adds: "But we are those who have the mind of Christ." The Lord Jesus revealed to his followers the Lord Jehovah's mind on so many important matters.-1 Corinthians 2:16.

Sometimes a text in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to Jehovah, but by virtue of His delegation of power and authority, it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Psalm 34:8, for example, invites us to "taste and see that Yahweh is good." But Peter applies this to the Lord Jesus Christ when he says: "Provided you have tasted that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:3) Peter takes a principle and shows how it is true also of Jesus Christ. By taking in knowledge of both Jehovah God and Jesus Christ and acting upon it, Christians can enjoy rich blessings from both the Father and his Son. (John 17:3) None of this makes them consubstantial.

The relative positions of Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus Christ, are made very clear by the apostle Paul when he says: "Yet, to us, there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and, we, for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and, we, through him." (1 Corinthians 8:6; 12:5, 6 Rotherham) Writing to the Christian congregation in Ephesus, Paul identified the "one Lord," Jesus Christ, as being quite distinct from the "one God and Father of all."-Ephesians 4:5, 6.

Apocalyptically, "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord [Jehovah God] and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 514) says: "When Christ has overcome every power (1 Cor. 15:25), he will submit himself to God the Father. Thus Jesus' lordship will have achieved its goal and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28)." At the end of his 1000 year Reign, Christ Jesus hands back to his Father, Almighty God, the power and authority previously delegated to him. Hence, all glory and worship are rightly given to Jehovah, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ."-Ephesians 1:17.

Although Jesus is now Lord of lords, he is never called God of gods.

  "When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor do they think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the Prologue to St. John, which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is *less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [the·os'] than it appears to be in English.*"-"The Divinity of Jesus Christ," by John Martin Creed.

 Further evidence of Christ's deity stems from the fact that NT writers predicated attributes of Christ that belong only to God.  By saying that Christ possessed those qualities, they were attributing deity to him.  We find, for example, that he is eternal and fully living (John 1:4; 1 John 5:11-12).  He is immutable (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8); omnipotent (Philp. 3:20:21; John 5:19; Rev. 1:8); omnicient (John 2:24-25 [cf. Jer. 17:9-10]; 6:64; 21:17; omnipresent, despite all his limitations in space and time during his
earthly pilgramage (Matt 18:20; 28:20; John 14:23); loving (Jn 13:1, 34; 1 Jn 3:16); truth (Jn 14:6); holy (Lk 1:35); and possessing life in and of himself, i.e., having the attribute of aseity (Jn 5:26).

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD

Reply: Dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm
and http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm
and http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm

THE FATHER, SON, AND HS are distinct persons see Matt.3:16-17; John 14-15; Jn 12:27-30; Matt. 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:35; 2Peter 1:17
YET THE FATHER, SON, AND HS ARE ONE
 There is evidence that the Father, Son, and HS are considered as one. Various passages show that the writers and speakers mean more than just that the three happan to think alike.  Rather, ontological (though that word is never used in Scripture) unity is the point.  Christ's listeners understood
this to be his point, and they accused him of blasphemy.  That charge could have easily been refuted by saying that his point was that he agrees with God's way of thinking.  While Jesus and the Father agree, Jesus never used that defense.  Instead, his response to the accusation shows that he was saying exactly what they thought.  This is what is going on in John 10:30. This is the point in John 14:9.  This is revealed in the high priestlyprayer (Jn 17:21, 22, 23).  Moreover, passages such as Col. 1:15 and Hebrews1:8 not only clarifiy that Christ is God, but the language (eikon,charakter) speaks of unity between the two.
There are passages that speak of the Son and the HS as one.  See Rom 8:9-10.  Having Christ is having the Spirit and vice versa.  See also 2 Cor. 3:17. There is also unity between the Father and the Spirit.  1 Cor. 3:16.  Cf. this with Col 1:27 and you can put Christ into the mix.  Father and Spiritare seen well together in 1 Cor. 2:10-11.  Their unity enables the HS (as no mere human could) to reveal the thing of God.

THE THREE ARE EQUAL

 From biblical teaching surveyed so far, the most natural conclusion is that if there is only one God and yet Father, Son, and HS are God, the three most likely are equals.  Indeed, if there is any metaphysical difference among them in terms of their essence, were are on the road to polytheism.  Hence, the most natural conclusion is that they are ontologically equal.  Scripture uses neither the term "ontological" nor "metaphysical," and outside of the data presented to the effect that the three are one, there is no direct biblical claim that the three are equal.  Still, certain elements of NT teaching FIT this notion of equality, even if they do not directly teach it.

 An initial point is how the NT authors list the members of the Godhead when speaking of all three together.  If the three were inherently unequal, we might expect a consistent order in listing them whenever they are mentioned together.  This might even seem like a formulaic prioritizing of the three.  However, the NT refers to the three in a variaty of orders.  See Matt 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2.

While Tim reads alot into the order that they are mentioned, the Bible is quite clear that only ONE of them was God, and the Scriptures are quite consistent in differentiating God from the Son and the holy spirit. Where all three are mentioned together, only one, the Father, is God. In fact, all visions of heaven exclude the person of the holy spirit, and show the Son at the Father's side, often along with the angels (Acts 7:56; Dan 7:13, 14; 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron 18:18; Rev 7:9 etc.) Why is this if they are equally part of the same God?  [There may be some interesting exceptions here, as in Revelation 1:4, where we have seven spirits before the throne, and Zechariah 6:5 where we have four spirits of heaven. Which one of these is the Holy Ghost, or is the Trinity simply quite crowded?]
When we look above at the Scriptures that make mention of the God, and the Son, and the angels, we see that they are in differing order also.

NT CLARIFICATION OF MEMBER OF GODHEAD INVOLVED IN A DIVINE ACT.
  Here my point is about the relation of OT and NT texts.  In the OT various actions are attributed simply to God, in particular to Jehovah/YHWH.  On the other hand, the NT more specifically attributes those divine acts either to the Son or to the Holy Spirit.  Hence, while all members of the Godhead are invlolved in every divine action, a certain member is more particularly designated in the NT as the one doing it.

 The point is easy enough to illustrate.  In the OT, YHWH is depicted as the redeemer and savior, whereas in the NT it is the Son of God who clearly stands out in that capacity.  See Job 19:25; Ps. 19:14; 78:35; 106:21; Is. 41:14; 43:3, 11, 14; 47:4; 49:7, 26; 60:16; and Hos 13:4.  In constrast, the NT depicts Christ as savior in Matt. 1:21; Lk. 1:76-79; 2:11; Jn 4:42; Gal 3:13; 4:5; Phil. 3:20; and Tit. 2:13-14.

 Tim: The same narrowing focus also occurs with respect to the HS's ministry.  In the OT, YHWH is said to dwell among Israel and in the hearts of those who fear Him (see Ps. 74:2; 135:21; Is. 8:18; 57:15; Exek. 43:7-9; Joel 3:17, 21; and Zech. 2:10-11).  In the NT, the HS indwells the members of the church (see Acts 2:4; Rom 8:9,11; 1 Cor. 3:16; Gal 4:6; Eph. 2:22; and Jas. 4:5).

"Spirit" is a word of wide and elastic meaning, derived from "breath." And the same idea holds good in the Hebrew and Greek of the Scriptures. "Spirit," as referred to the Father by the Lord Jesus, means the divine force, breath and even nature as opposed to flesh and blood. And Jesus himself, when raised from the dead and glorified, is called "a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15 : 45); that is, a "spiritual body," as the apostle here explains. And the angels likewise are all "ministering spirits" (Heb. I : 14), like Christ. But God speaks also of His "spirit" in the sense of His power breathed forth from His personal presence in heaven. From the KJV, "My spirit shall not always strive with man" (Gen. 6: 3). "Thou testifiedst against them by thy spirit in the prophets" (Neh. 9: 30). "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created" (Psa. 104 : 30). "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1 : 2). "By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens" (Job 26: 13). "The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon" Samson (Judges 14: 6), and made him stronger than a lion. "The Spirit of the LORD God is upon me, because the LORD hath ANOINTED ME" (Isa. 61 : 1). So said "the spirit of Christ IN" Isaiah (I Pet. 1 : 11). In all these places there is no indication of a Person, but of the Power of God sent forth and bestowed for His divine will and purpose.

Because God speaks by His spirit in the prophets, we have by metonymy the expression, "The Spirit speaketh,. "The Spirit speaketh expressly" (I Tim. 4: 1); that is, God by His spirit in the prophets and apostles, speaketh. "The spirit of Christ in them (the prophets) . . . when IT testified beforehand" (1 Pet. 1 : 11). "Well spake the Holy Spirit by Isaiah the prophet" (Acts 28: 25). "It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit"' (Mark 13: 11). "David himself said by the Holy Spirit" . . . (Mark 12:.36). "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the. churches" (Rev. 2: 7, 11, 17, 29; 3: 1, 6, 13, 22); that is, hear what Christ commanded John to write. The personification is natural and effective when you clearly understand its original use.

You can blaspheme God's name...and the Spirit (Lev 24:11; Matt 12:31)
We can pray for God's spirit...and sing praises to His name (Ps 68:4; Mk 14:8)
The Name can have dwelling...and so can the Spirit (Deut 12:11; John 14:17)
The Spirit is Holy, but so is the Name (Matt 6:9)
God's Name is powerful, and so is His spirit (Prov 18:10; Micah 3:8)
The Name is associated with glory, as is the Spirit (Ps 115: 1; 2 Cor 3:8)

This is the bottom-line. If our eternal life is dependant on our knowing God, and it is (John 17:3), and the Bible does not articulate a Trinity, then this doctrine should be rejected as man-made.

"Is it not as gross an Absurdity to say, the One God of Heaven and Earth, is Three or Four Persons, as to say, the One King of Great Britain and Ireland, is Three or Four Persons? Is not the former altogether as false as the latter?"

Back to Main Page