Genesis : Trinity

[Matthias]

Okay...and thank you!

However, since you have said "a God", it should be clear that just as is modeled in marriage (that "the two become one flesh"), the Oneness that these things portray is that of God and that Oneness that did and does again exist with the Father and Jesus. But I should think that since you also mentioned Jesus' pre-existence where He shared the same glory as the Father, that you know this.

All of which says two things:

1. That Jesus' pre-existence of, and now again sharing the same glory, refers to them being One God.
2. And, that Jesus' short time as having "become flesh" and separated from God (as we also are for a time), does not make Him not God, but rather [in addition to] being God, also makes Him a man...because, for the sake of salvation He was [also] a man for a time. Which definition of Oneness is confirmed in the scriptures as God being "all in all"--that is, that all is "in Christ, in God", meaning all in God.

When I said “a God” I was referring to “the one God”, his God and my God, the Father alone, Yahweh.

I don’t agree with your premise that Yahweh shared his glory with Jesus. The glory which Jesus had with Yahweh was nothing more than glory in prospect.

 

[Matthias]

“It rests on a misconception of the New Testament mode of speech and conception if we immediately infer that the declaration of Jesus, that he had glory with the Father before the world was created is simply and necessarily identical in meaning with the thought that he himself preexisted … According to the mode of speech and conception prevalent in the New Testament, a heavenly good, and so also a heavenly glory, can be conceived and spoken of as existing with God and belonging to a person, not because a person already exists and is invested with glory, but because the glory of God is in some way deposited and preserved for this person in heaven. We remember how, according to the report of Matthew, Jesus also speaks of the treasure (Matt. 6:20) or the reward (Matt. 5:12, 46; 6:1) which his disciples have in heaven with God … and further, how, in the description of the final judgment of the nations, the kingdom which those blessed of the Father shall inherit is described as one prepared for them from the creation of the world (Matt. 25:34); and how also (Col. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:4) the hope of salvation of the Christian is represented as a blessing laid up in heaven for them … Jesus asks for himself not something arbitrary, but what was to be given according to God’s decree and what had always ideally belonged to him …; the presupposition for this declaration, however, is certainly the thought, which finds decided expression at the close of the prayer in verse 24, that Jesus himself, as the Messiah, did not indeed really exist from the beginning with God, but was the object of the love of God, of His loving thoughts, plans and purposes.”

(H.H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, Vol. 2, pp. 169-172)

 

[ScottA]

When I said “a God” I was referring to “the one God”, his God and my God, the Father alone, Yahweh.

I don’t agree with your premise that Yahweh shared his glory with Jesus. The glory which Jesus had with Yahweh was nothing more than glory in prospect.

Not true.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.​

 

[ScottA]

“It rests on a misconception of the New Testament mode of speech and conception if we immediately infer that the declaration of Jesus, that he had glory with the Father before the world was created is simply and necessarily identical in meaning with the thought that he himself preexisted … According to the mode of speech and conception prevalent in the New Testament, a heavenly good, and so also a heavenly glory, can be conceived and spoken of as existing with God and belonging to a person, not because a person already exists and is invested with glory, but because the glory of God is in some way deposited and preserved for this person in heaven. We remember how, according to the report of Matthew, Jesus also speaks of the treasure (Matt. 6:20) or the reward (Matt. 5:12, 46; 6:1) which his disciples have in heaven with God … and further, how, in the description of the final judgment of the nations, the kingdom which those blessed of the Father shall inherit is described as one prepared for them from the creation of the world (Matt. 25:34); and how also (Col. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:4) the hope of salvation of the Christian is represented as a blessing laid up in heaven for them … Jesus asks for himself not something arbitrary, but what was to be given according to God’s decree and what had always ideally belonged to him …; the presupposition for this declaration, however, is certainly the thought, which finds decided expression at the close of the prayer in verse 24, that Jesus himself, as the Messiah, did not indeed really exist from the beginning with God, but was the object of the love of God, of His loving thoughts, plans and purposes.”

(H.H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, Vol. 2, pp. 169-172)

Teachings of men.

I have highlighted the part in error which just as well could (and should) mean that it is obvious that Jesus was One with God, meaning God who is One God.

 

[Matthias]

Teachings of men.

I listened to your teaching, man. I don’t find it persuasive; it’s not consistent with the Messiah’s own Jewish monotheism.

I have highlighted the part is in error and just as well could (and should) mean that it is obvious that Jesus was One with God, meaning God who is One God.

You’ve highlighted the part that doesn’t conform with your teaching, man. You call it error. That’s fine.

I call what you teach error, because it presents us with a deity which isn’t the Messiah’s God.

There is no God besides the Messiah’s God.

That’s the bottom line for me. If whatever is taught can’t meet that standard then it doesn’t agree with what the Messiah believes.

 

[Matthias]

Not true.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.​

Yahweh doesn’t share his glory with anyone. Jesus shares his glory with all who belong to him.

 

[Behold]

Yahweh doesn’t share his glory with anyone. Jesus shares his glory with all who belong to him.

Jesus shares His Glory with those who are "One with God" because by His Sacrifice all who believe are now a part of God.

This is God the Word made flesh sharing glory as spiritual union with God.

IN the OT, in Isaiah 42 that you are referring to Matthias,, Christ had not redeemed anyone back into Spiritual Union, with God... as "ONE with God" through the CROSS, and that is why you read that Glory was not shared.

Keep in mind that "GLORY" is more then one understanding... and the one you are not tracking is this one....>"Christ in you, the HOPE of Glory".

So, there is God sharing Glory........including Heaven as Heaven is "GLORY".

Paul teaches that "God gives us ALL THINGS richly to enjoy", including "Glory", and "God's presence" and the Holy Spirit, and eternal life, and Heaven itself.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus shares His Glory with those who are "One with God" because by His Sacrifice …

I agree with this much of your position.

…all who believe are now a part of God.

That’s the departure point. Man’s destiny isn’t to become God, nor to become a part of God. The one God isn’t divisible into parts.

This is God the Word made flesh sharing glory as spiritual union with God.

IN the OT, in Isaiah 42 that you are referring to, Christ had no redeemed anyone back into Spiritual Union with God as "ONE with God", and that is why you read that Glory was not shared.

Keep in mind that "GLORY" is more then one understanding... and the one you are not tracking is this one....>"Christ in you, the HOPE of Glory".

So, there is God sharing Glory........including Heaven as Heaven is "GLORY".

I’m definitely tracking “Christ in you, the HOPE of glory.” I’m doing so as a Jewish monotheist, not as a trinitarian - whether that be “Classic” or “non-Classic” (to borrow your language) trinitarianism.

Jesus himself, the Christ, isn’t Yahweh himself.

There is no God besides Yahweh.

 

[Matthias]

@Behold your teaching sounds similar to @ScottA’s teaching. Do you see differences between what he teaches and what you teach? If so, could you point them out for us?

 

[ScottA]

I listened to your teaching, man. I don’t find it persuasive; it’s not consistent with the Messiah’s own Jewish monotheism.



You’ve highlighted the part that doesn’t conform with your teaching, man. You call it error. That’s fine.

I call what you teach error, because it presents us with a deity which isn’t the Messiah’s God.

There is no God besides the Messiah’s God.

That’s the bottom line for me. If whatever is taught can’t meet that standard then it doesn’t agree with what the Messiah believes.

It is not my teaching, but the truth from God.

But you are not even hearing yourself. For lack of understanding you are being redundant: "Messiah's God" in translation means God with us' God.

Yahweh doesn’t share his glory with anyone. Jesus shares his glory with all who belong to him.

Again (you are not hearing yourself).

"God doesn't share his glory with anyone"--is not even biblical. On the contrary, "God so loved the world"...He did everything--He sent Messiah (God)!

 

[Matthias]

It is not my teaching, but the truth from God.

It is your teaching. If it was the truth from God it would agree with the Messiah’s belief and teaching; it would be in agreement with the Messiah’s identification of who his God and the God of his disciples is. Your teaching doesn’t do that. That’s why I call your teaching error and reject it.

But you are not even hearing yourself.

For lack of understanding you are being redundant: "Messiah's God" in translation means God with us' God.
Again (you are not hearing yourself).

The Messiah has a God and his God isn’t your deity.

"God doesn't share his glory with anyone"--is not even biblical.

God himself says that he doesn’t share his glory. Look it up. Or don’t.

On the contrary, "God so loved the world"...He did everything--He sent Messiah (God)!

There’s only one God. (See post #45.) Everything else is idols.

 

[ScottA]

It is your teaching. If it was the truth from God it would agree with the Messiah’s belief and teaching; it would be in agreement with the Messiah’s identification of who his God and the God of his disciples is. Your teaching doesn’t do that. That’s why I call your teaching error and reject it.

Again, that is due to your lack of understanding.

What you have not understood, is that Messiah is a man--that is a man created in the image of God, making "God with us" (Messiah) an actual image of God, just as it is written. Yet it is indeed correct to say a picture (or image) of a man is not the man but a mere image, but also correct to say that the picture is God when referring to the image because it is his image. Thus the confusion. But the actual error is not in calling the image the man (or in this case God), but rather in calling him another. Such is the thinking of men. That is your error.

Likewise, it was correct for Christ to call the Holy Spirit "another", because the Spirit is not an image. But in the case of Christ, He and the image He is of, are One and the same. And it is by this same Spirit which I have answered and told you the truth from God--which you have rejected...which is to say, you have not rejected me, but rejected the truth from God.

But I have not taken it personal (claiming nothing of myself), and I recommend you not take it personal either, but rather believe also that part of the scriptures that I have presented, reconciling all that is written rather than only part.

 

[Matthias]

Again, that is due to your lack of understanding.

What you have not understood, is that Messiah is a man--that is a man created in the image of God, making "God with us" (Messiah) an actual image of God, just as it is written. Yet it is indeed correct to say a picture (or image) of a man is not the man but a mere image, but also correct to say that the picture is God when referring to the image because it is his image. Thus the confusion. But the actual error is not in calling the image the man (or in this case God), but rather in calling him another. Such is the thinking of men. That is your error.

Likewise, it was correct for Christ to call the Holy Spirit "another", because the Spirit is not an image. But in the case of Christ, He and the image He is of, are One and the same. And it is by this same Spirit which I have answered and told you the truth from God--which you have reject...which is to say, you have not rejected me, but rejected the truth from God.

But I have not taken it personal (claiming nothing of myself), and I recommend you not take it personal either, but rather believe also that part of the scriptures that I have presented, reconciling all that is written rather than only part.

Thanks.

I think you’ve missed the mark badly, stemming from your position on Jewish monotheism, the rejection of which is the source of the errors contained in your teaching.

I think we’ve reached the end of the line. To put it in your words, “enough already”.

 

[ScottA]

Thanks.

I think you’ve missed the mark badly, stemming from your position on Jewish monotheism, the rejection of which is the source of the errors contained in your teaching.

And that is fine. But do understand there is a difference between thinking and knowing. Man thinks to study and learn, and that is good, but it is God who makes all things known.

 

[Matthias]

“As you sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. John 7:18 NASB

Sent - The Jewish law of agency, known as shaliah, is crucial for understanding the idea of an apostle. In fact, the verb itself, apostello, used here to speak of the mission of Yeshua and the mission of his disciples, cannot be correctly interpreted without a full appreciation of this law. …

If we apply this correct view to Yeshua’s remark in John’s gospel, we discover two very important facts. The first is that Yeshua is the fully-authorized emissary of YHVH under this law of agency. Therefore, anything and everything he does is as if YHVH had done it. Yeshua confirms this over and over. What this means is that Yeshua acts as if he were God. His decisions, his actions, his teaching, his character are to be viewed as if they were the decisions, actions, teaching, and character of God Himself. In other words, under shaliah Yeshua is “God” without being God. If we miss this point, we will draw a different conclusion from the text.we will conclude that Yeshua cannot act as he does without being God. But shaliah makes this conclusion unnecessary. …”

(Skip Moen, Hebrew Word Study, “Shaliah”)

Shaliah | Hebrew Word Study | Skip Moen

 

[Behold]

I agree with this much of your position.



That’s the departure point. Man’s destiny isn’t to become God, nor to become a part of God..

Did you know that Jesus said......." ""Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High. """"

So, i am not teaching that Man becomes a God... as that would be religion.

Paul teaches that restored spiritual union with God, is to become 'ONE with God", exactly as Adam had this spiritual union".

 

[Behold]

Jesus himself, the Christ, isn’t Yahweh himself.

Your position on "one God" contradicts ..."let US make man in OUR image'.

See that? That is not going to go away, as its a fact.

And if you just apply the US and OUR" to John 1, as God the Father, and Christ the WORD, then you have found the "us and our".

God manifested in the Flesh, is not the Father, manifested, its the WORD manifested as the Son. = John 1:14

There is your "us" and "our".

 

[Matthias]

And that is fine. But do understand there is a difference between thinking and knowing. Man thinks to study and learn, and that is good, but it is God who makes all things known.

In that case, I’ll amend my comment.

I know that you’ve missed the mark badly. Your teaching presents a rival deity - which is nothing more than an idol - to the Messiah’s God.

Blessed be the God and Father of the Messiah. There is no other God.

 

[Matthias]

Did you know that Jesus said......." ""Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High. """"

Yes, I know.

So, i am not teaching that Man becomes a God... as that would be religion.

I may be mistaken, confusing you with someone else, but weren’t you the one who told me that Jesus had no religion?

Paul teaches that restored spiritual union with God, is to become 'ONE with God", exactly as Adam had this spiritual union".

Nice.

 

[Matthias]

Your position on "one God" contradicts ..."let US make man in OUR image'.

See that? That is not going to go away, as its a fact.

Your opinion contradicts the Messiah’s own belief and practice. That’s the fact that’s not going to go away.

And if you just apply the US and OUR" to John 1, as God the Father, and Christ the WORD, then you have found the "us and our".

I’ve recommended it before, but I’ll recommend it again: see the Geneva Bible on John’s prologue in his Gospel.

God manifested in the Flesh, is not the Father, manifested, its the WORD manifested as the Son. = John 1:14

The incarnation of the Father’s logos, as the Geneva Bible has it.

There is your "us" and "our".

No. That’s your teaching, not mine.