|
Listen to this post:
|
Battle of the Bible Bloggers. New Testament scholar and Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary Dr. Michael Kruger says that Mark does. But New Testament scholar Dr. James McGrath says Mark does not. Which is it?
Let’s take a quick read through this gospel, trying to adopt the viewpoint, as best we can, of a first century Jew. We can’t cover everything, but let’s review some of the obviously salient episodes. Grab your New Testament and turn to Mark.
Chapter by chapter:
- No, he’s the Son of God. (1) So, not God himself. God endorses him. (11) Tempted. (12) But, you can’t tempt God. Proclaims the good news from God. (14-15) He’s the messenger, not the sender, so, not God. Demon tries to blow his cover (25-6) – he’s “the Holy One of God.” The Messiah – God’s anointed one. Prays (35) – obviously, to God.
- Wow – he forgives sins! (5) Who but God can do that? Oh – one to whom God gives the authority to do that. (10-12)
- Authoritatively interprets Sabbath law. (2:23-3:6) Surely, this one is at least as great as Moses. But God himself? No – “Son of God” – demons again, trying to spill the secret before the right time. (12)
- “Who can this be? Even the wind and the sea obey him.” (41) Answer: the Son of God, and Messiah. (ch. 1-3)
- Man, these demons are helpful. “Jesus, son of the Most High God” (7) So, not the most High God, not YHWH himself, but rather, his Son. “tell them all that the Lord in his mercy has done for you”. (19) “The Lord” here would seem to be God, not Jesus; when Jesus exorcises or heals, it is by God’s power. It is truly God working through this man. “Who touched my clothes.” (30) Hmm… doesn’t seem that Jesus is faking ignorance here. (32) Doesn’t know all, so, not God – though surely, as a Prophet, he has a lot of supernatural knowledge.
- Yes, and as a prophet (of God – so, it would seem, not himself God), he’s rejected in his home town. (1-6) His miracle-working power is limited by their lack of faith. (5) Now this is remarkable – he gives his disciples authority – he can pass it on, it seems. (7) People wonder who he is (14-16) be we’re sure already: Son of God, prophet, Messiah, and obviously, a real man – that’s presupposed throughout. He seems to need a retreat after the murder of John the Baptist. (30-31) And to recharge through prayer. (46)
- The miracles in ch. 6 were as great as Moses’s. And here, Jesus authoritatively interprets the Law again. This is no ordinary prophet. (1-23)
- “Who do you [the disciples] say I am?” Peter: “the Christ,” the Messiah. This is the big secret about Jesus (27-30). This “son of man” has supernatural knowledge of his destiny in God’s plan. (31) He demands discipleship (34), says he’ll return “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” That’ll be when we see “the kingdom of God come with power.” (9:1) “The Father” here is obviously, YHWH, the one true God.
- A miraculous endorsement of this Messiah Jesus by none other than Elijah, Moses, and God, who says this is his Son. (1-8) He calls himself the “son of man” (12, 31), which seems an obvious reference to Daniel 7:13 – to the “one like a son of man” whom God makes a supreme ruler. (Daniel 7:13-14) OK – this couldn’t be more clear: Jesus is God’s messiah, a mega-prophet, and in some unique way God’s Son, though he is also a human being. This Jesus will be killed (31-2). Whoever welcomes a child welcomes Jesus, and in doing that you welcome the one who sent Jesus. (37) Obviously, God.
- “No one is good but God alone.” (18) Is he hinting that really, this man shouldn’t call him “good” because this man doesn’t recognize that Jesus is really God himself? In the context of this book, which has been very forthright about who Jesus is, it would seem not. The high places in his coming Kingdom are not Jesus’s to grant. (40) We are to infer that this is God’s prerogative, not Jesus’s. God does not serve us. But Jesus, this “son of man,” does. (45) And he’ll give his life – that is, die, as a ransom for us – something an essentially immortal being could not do. (45)
- Jesus comes, as Messiah, in the name of “the Lord,” i.e. YHWH. (9) He’s recognized now publicly as the Davidic messiah. (10) He performs prophetic actions of judgment against Israel. (12-19) “Have faith in God” (22) and forgive others when you pray to “your Father in heaven.” (25) His authority and power are from heaven – that is, from God. (27-33) This is obvious, but his enemies can’t admit it.
- The vineyard-owner’s “beloved son.” (6) Vineyard owner represents God, the son is Jesus. Too obvious to need spelling out. (12) Jesus, here as in many places, talks about God in the third person. (13-27) Jesus affirms, without correction or addition, the Jewish shema. (28-34) This scribe is “not far from the Kingdom” – he has yet to follow Jesus – but he’s not presented as having a fundamentally flawed theology. There is only one Lord, one God. But then, how can David, in Psalm 110:1, call the messiah his “Lord” – when that same messiah is David’s “son” (descendant)? It seems no one is brave enough to answer, but we the readers know – because Jesus is also the Son of God, and will be raised from the dead, and will be exalted to a place far above David, and all of us, by God. We’re not supposed to think that Jesus is called “Lord” because he’s God himself. God is the one who sent him, and is, his god, the one Jesus prays to.
- Deceivers will come in Jesus’s name, saying “I am” (6). That is, that “I am he” or “I am the one” – either that Jesus is the Christ, or that they are the Christ. Seemingly the latter (21-2) The day and the hour “nobody knows” – not even God’s angels, or the unique Son of God, but only God. (32) If you’re still wondering whether Jesus is God himself, the answer is no – for God knows at least one thing that Jesus does not.
- The “son of man” enters into his predicted suffering. Jesus says grace at the Passover meal (22) and sings an appropriate hymn to God with his disciples. (26) Not surprisingly, given what he knows is going to happen, Jesus is overcome with “terror and anguish.” (34) He does not want to die, though he wants to obey God. He asks God that he might be spared. (35-41) But evidently, God tells Jesus “No.” (42ff) Arrested, his Jewish enemies will now do their worst to him in court. Their accusation? He say, falsely, that he’s threatened to destroy the Temple, and in three days build another one “not made by human hands.” (58) “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” says Jesus, and you’ll see me coming back in power. (61-2) This, in the high priest’s eyes, is “blasphemy.” (64)
- Pilate wants to know if he’s “King of the Jews.” (2) Jesus doesn’t disagree – though it is false if the charge is that he’s a revolutionary bent on overthrowing Rome. They abuse this one they think is a phony “king.” (16-20) But we know he’s a real one, the Messiah who’ll sit on David’s throne. And so truly to they label him “The King of the Jews” (27) and taunt him as “the Christ, the king of Israel.” (32) On the cross, Jesus cries out to God the words of Psalm 22:1, as he feels profoundly forsaken by God. (34) He dies. Even the pagan soldier realizes that this man is a son of a god, or the Son of God. (39) Insight? Sarcasm? Either way, this Gentile is, ironically, correct. Let us note that God cannot die. But, Jesus died. So, he’s not God. And he wasn’t faking it. (40-47)
- But happily: “he is risen.” (6) After appearing to some people (9-18), Jesus is taken up to heaven, were he takes his new place at the right hand of God, from where, Jesus works through his followers. (20) [Yes, 9-20 are probably not authentic. But they show us the view of Jesus which prevailed in the 2nd or 3rd c. when they were added. In any case, on the present themes, they well fit with the rest of the gospel.]
Feel free to add any important points I left out in the comments here.
Next time: back to McGrath vs. Kruger. Does this gospel teach that Jesus is God?
Related posts:
podcast 213 - Has Bauckham clarified his "divine identity" theory? - Part 1
Jeremy Myers asks: "Did Jesus Learn?"
Debating John 1: Eusebius vs. Marcellus
A clear portrait of the Trinity in action?
podcast 8 – post-debate interview with Mr. Shahir Naga
apologist commits to actual Trinity theory, faceplants - Part 2
podcast 98 - Dr. Michael Heiser on Old Testament binitarianism
Dialogue with the Maverick Philosopher: God is a being, not Being itself - part 2
podcast 51 – Dr. Ravi Zacharias on the Trinity
answering Bowman's questions about identity, being the same F
>>>“tell them all that the Lord in his mercy has done for you”. (19) “The Lord” here would seem to be God, not Jesus; when Jesus exorcises or heals, it is by God’s power. It is truly God working through this man.<<<
If we only had v. 19, then surely 'the Lord' here would seem to be God. However, we also have v. 20, in which the Evangelist seems to take pains to identify this Lord as Jesus by means of an exact verbal parallel:
"Report what great things the Lord has done for you… and he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis what great things Jesus had done for him."
Mark does not add the kind of qualification that Dale thinks is necessary. Of course, for 'the Lord' to be used as a stand-alone designation for Jesus might seem odd in the historical context of his earthly ministry, but would have been perfectly natural with the hindsight that Mark and his readers enjoyed in the mid-60s. Moreover, elsewhere in Mark, the Evangelist identifies Jesus as 'the Lord' both by applying an OT YHWH text to him (Mark 1:2-3 – which the above 'quick read-through' ignores) and by applying an OT text to him which identifies him as the Lord exalted at YHWH's right hand (Mark 12:36-37).
It seems that Mark's rather clear identification of 'the Lord' with Jesus in Mark 5:19-20 is being avoided mainly because it does not fit nicely into the writer's portrait of Markan Christology.
One could comment on other passages which the quick read-through passes over, such as Mark 2:19, where Jesus appropriates for himself the bridegroom image, which is standard OT fare for describing YHWH's relationship with Israel. For more on this text see Sigurd Grindheim's book God's Equal.
Pingback: A blog exchange with Muslims at bloggingtheology.net | Badmanna's Blog
Corey
Is it not evident that Christ has a Father who is also His God.?
(John 20 v 17)
And the same entity is also our Gof and Father
‘God the Son’ is a man made construct and makes no sense at all.
Blessings
John
Is Jesus God or the Son of God? Let’s settle this once for and all… He is God the Son.
Sure, that’s the old catholic answer. But (as perhaps most understand it) it implies that he’s God himself, and so that he’s not the Son of God. No one is his own son. I think the better answer is to stick with the explicit, emphasized teaching of the NT on this: he’s the Son of God, God’s Messiah, God’s anointed one.
I think most of this depends on the kind of “glasses” that one comes to the text with. With a majority of the verses, if one assumes the Trinity then the passages can make coherent sense. And if one assumes Jesus’ role with the Unitarian view of God, the majority of the passages can make sense too. It is when I read things about Jesus pre-existing all things and all things being created through and by Him that I find what appear to be sub-par arguments from the Unitarian position.
Yeah just deny how the same words in the prayer are used elsewhere. Nothing exceptional about that.
You are all welcome. But it’s thanks to great and honest scholarship that we come to those conclusions. Also thanks to freedom no longer impinged upon by oppressive and murderous Catholic and Protestant authorities.
“Your post on the identity of the address in Acts 1.24 was exceptional. You have demonstrated as clear as can be that the addressee is almost certainly God. I wanted to commend you for it. If nothing else, we can thank Marc for driving us to think about Acts 1.24 carefully to discover just what an impossible proof-text the verse is for the trinity doctrine or the doctrine that Jesus is somehow actually God. In fact, I am going to copy your post and save it for future reference.”
I agree. Jaco is to be commended for the thoughtful manner in which he addressed the questions at hand.
~Sean
No need to get unstable Abel
Even those that are not Trinitarians agree that this prayer is to the Lord Jesus.
Although some have contended that the Lord in the above verse is God, it is more logical that it refers to Jesus. He was the one who chose Judas, and he was addressed as “Lord” by all the apostles over and over in the New Testament.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/can-we-pray-to-jesus-christ
In Acts 1:24-26, we read that the apostles prayed to the Lord to guide their choice of the apostle to replace Judas Iscariot. Who was the Lord to whom they prayed? In the New Testament the title Lord (Gk. kurios) is applied to God and to Jesus, depending on the context. Since Jesus chose all the other apostles (John 6:70), we can reasonably assume that he chose the apostle to replace Judas.
http://www.tidings.org/2006/02/comment-speaking-to-jesus-christ/
Marc,
You have been caught out – the game is up!
Any self-respecting person would withdraw now!
Regards
Abel
Yeah it was exception….exceptionally bad.
Jaco,
Your post on the identity of the address in Acts 1.24 was exceptional. You have demonstrated as clear as can be that the addressee is almost certainly God. I wanted to commend you for it. If nothing else, we can thank Marc for driving us to think about Acts 1.24 carefully to discover just what an impossible proof-text the verse is for the trinity doctrine or the doctrine that Jesus is somehow actually God. In fact, I am going to copy your post and save it for future reference.
Michael
It’s not my homework. It’s just another way of you saying that you have zero proof.
Marc Taylor, I am not going to do your homework for you. Scholars who reject the trinity and those gleaned and distorted texts you so desperately hang on to you will simply dismiss as heretics or “liberal.” So there’s no use doing it. It is very sad that you find meaning in trolling and terrorising others’ websites, as if we’d be bothered by the obviously sad and meaningless life your living. You’re not a nice person. You’ve never been, hence the reality that nobody really takes you seriously. I warned the bloggers about you and you have given a spectacular display of precisely what I warned them against. If being mean and disgusting is your aim, then you’ve achieved it. If what you represent turned you into THAT, (apart from its fallaciousness) we’d be the least interested in what you and “Yours” have to offer. We all should ignore you now. Hopefully you’ll take your suicide gear and disrupt somebody else’s blog…
Sean,
It is an important concern. Lexicon after lexicon (not just one or two) continually affirm that the words of the Bible as properly defined do demonstrate that the Lord Jesus is God.
Unitarians can play make believe word games all they want but it won’t change what the words really mean.
Why do are so obsessed with not believing how words are properly defined?
Yes, I have agreed before that Christ has a God in that He was and will always be a man but what Unitarians refuse to believe is that the Scriptures also teach He is God.
“I want to know what scholars are to be appealed to then seeing that all the ones cited thus far are Trinitarian.”
I would say that that’s an unimportant concern. Do you know of any scholars who have argued that a counter argument is not valid because the one who offered it quoted someone who believes in the Trinity?
Marc
Why are you so obsessed with ‘scholars’?
Do the scruptures not speak for themselves?
Does Christ not tell us that he has a God who is also his Father and the same person is also our God and Father.
In a thick forest one needs a compass to get ones bearings.
You have got so lost you don’t even know which way up you are!
My compass is Christs own writings!
Best
Abel
That’s not my argument.
We both have cited scholars. I have cited more. In addition I have cited the evidence from the words used within the text.
Jaco on January 25, 2014 at 6:55 am made the comparison to the Watchtower in terms of the scholars cited writing that they had “doctrinal preferences and devoid of a comprehensive interpretive apparatus” which is really ridiculous. Good thing for all of us Jaco is there to set all the authors that I cited straight.
I want to know what scholars are to be appealed to then seeing that all the ones cited thus far are Trinitarian.
“If they present arguments from non-trinitarians I’d like to see the credentials of those that they are citing….Have they authored any lexicons would be my first question.”
I think you missed the point. When someone ends up resorting to an argument that is equivalent to “Oh, yeah, well Bock believes in the Trinity, so there! Nanny nanny boo boo.”, that person has demonstrated (aside from a lack of maturity) that he/she has no substantive arguments left. What you don’t seem to realize is that the fact that the individuals mentioned believe in the Trinity, and would therefore be more apt to be sympathetic to your view, yet STILL disagree with you, rather tends to lend weight to Jaco, John, and Michael’s side.
Yeah there is no point in arguing against how words are properly defined and how words in association to one another are always used in the Bible.
Abel was completely unable to do that.
Jaco,
There is no point in arguing with M.T.!
Anyone who thinks that he can argue a few ‘arguable’ verses against the vast swathe of Christ’s, Peter’s and Paul’s own words has got to be unhinged!
Responding to such people only serves to ignite this bonfire of delusion!
My very best wishes
Abel.
If they present arguments from non-trinitarians I’d like to see the credentials of those that they are citing.
Have they authored any lexicons would be my first question.
“In fact, I would like for you to cite some scholars who aren’t Trinitarian. I know….somehow all these Trinitarian scholars believe in something that unitarians in their brilliance have figured out to be false. Get real.”
Pretty typical. When non-trinitarians present arguments from non-trinitarians they are charged with self-quoting, and when they present arguments from trinitarians they are told what they’ve offered doesn’t ultimately matter because the person they referenced believes in the Trinity.
It’s been some time since I first observed that the Trinity doctrine is non-falsifiable to trinitarians.
What you did is pretty much say the same thing as last time. Not only have I cited several scholars (I could easily cite more) it is the evidence as well that shows Christ is the recipient of this prayer.
Danker and Bock are ones you quoted and guess what? – They are Trinitarians as well. In fact, I would like for you to cite some scholars who aren’t Trinitarian. I know….somehow all these Trinitarian scholars believe in something that unitarians in their brilliance have figured out to be false. Get real.
I think I’ve addressed your points you repeat yet again above. I have addressed them with an interpetive apparatus too. Scholars vs. scholars (particularly those with doctrinal preferrences and devoid of a compehensive interpretive apparatus) is something anybody can do. (I don’t find JWs, for instance, quoting Watchtower articles as proof of their position very compelling. There’s no difference in what you’re doing, quoting TRINITARIANS as support for your position). Anyway, unless you add something new except the same old horse of 4 years ago, I won’t bother replying.
1. The Lord Jesus is referred to as “Lord” in v. 6 and just before the prayer in verse 21. That’s like saying we aren’t sure who the Lord is in Acts 7:60 when Stephen just applied it to the Lord Jesus in Acts 7:59.
2. Kurie panta su oidas ————>Lord, Thou knowest all things (John 21:17).
Su Kurie kardiognwsta pantwn ——>Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all (Acts 1:24)
After stating that the Lord knew his heart Peter would later affirm that the same Lord knew every heart.
Furthermore, Luke also taught that the Lord Jesus was prayed to elsewhere in Acts (Acts 7:59-60; 9:14, 21; Acts 22:16) which would necessitate Him being the heart-knower of all.
3. Shew is never applied to the Lord in reference to the Father choosing new disciples for the mission field.
deiknuo is not used in Luke 7:3 as you assert but it is sued in Acts 7:3.
4. Again never once does Luke apply eklegomai to the Lord in reference to the Father choosing the apostles. Not once.
5. Within the same book (Acts) Paul says as recorded by Luke that his “ministry” (Acts 1:25) was received from the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:24).
1. Mounce: The fact that people pray to both God (Mt. 6:9) and Jesus (Acts 1:24) is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Pray, page 531).
2. C.K. Barrett: Some take the Lord addressed to be God, but it is much more probable that Jesus is intended (‘nam huius erat apostolum eligere’, Bengel); he is asked to show (anadeixon, cf. Lk. 10.1) which of the two men he has chosen (exelexw; cf. 1:2; Lk. 8.13; also Prov. 16.33). That kardiognwstes appears to be applied in 15.8 to the Father is not against this. The choice is to be Jesus’, not that of the Eleven; hence the use of the lot in v. 25 (The International Critical Commentary: The Acts of the Apostles, Volume 1, page 103)
3. Vine: The Lord did not mean that no prayer must be offered to Him afterwards. They did address Him in prayer, Acts 1:24; 7:59 (John – His Record of Christ, W. E. Vine, page 154).
4. Nigel Turner: Kardiognwstes is a coinage formed from existing words. It probably belongs to an early liturgical vocabulary, forming part of believers’ prayer. At a meeting before the day of Pentecost Christ is addressed as, ‘Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men’ (Acts 1:24), and Peter at the council of Jerusalem testifies concerning ‘God, which knoweth the hearts’ (15:8) (Christian Words, Nigel Turner, kardiognwstes, page 202).
5. F.F. Bruce: The question whether the “Lord” to whom it is addressed is God the Father or the Lord Jesus is that the same verb is used in verse 24 (“thou hast chosen”) as in verse 2 (“the apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen”). The same Lord had chosen the apostles at the beginning of his ministry would choose this replacement for Judas (The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Acts, page 47).
6. Murray Harris: Concerning Christ, “Recipient of prayer (Acts 1:24…)” (Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Murray Harris, page 316).
Begging the question or assuming the answer is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn’t already assumed to be true.
According to Marc Taylor,
1. Chosen is always used in reference to the Lord Jesus by Luke in choosing the apostles (Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2).
2. The same word in choosing the replacement-apostle is used in Ac. 1:24
3. Jesus is the one addressed and doing the choosing in Ac. 1:24
Luke 6:13 “And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose [eklexamenos] twelve, whom also he named apostles”
Acts 1:2 “Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen [exelexato].”
The fallacy lies in the fact that the premises are set up to prove the conclusion. The conclusion would follow if it could be proven that ONLY Jesus COULD BE the one doing the choosing. If such exclusivity could without any doubt be ascribed to Jesus alone, as if no other could have been a candidate to do the choosing, then the conclusion would have followed. A sense of exclusivity is attempted in narrowing the scope of the choosing: not choosing in general, but choosing of the apostles. Ignoring all other factors in determining who the chooser was intended to be in Ac. 1:24, it would still be too bold a statement to conclude from just two examples that only Jesus could possibly be the one who could do the choosing. THE TWELVE is therefore an exclusivity factor introduced by the one pushing for Jesus as the addressee in 1:24.
The picture changes dramatically if a broader scope of word usage is allowed, other word occurrences are observed and the overall approach of Acts is considered:
Usage of eklegomai:
Mark 13:20 “And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s [eklektous] sake, whom he hath chosen [exelexato], he hath shortened the days.” – God is the Elector.
Acts 6:5 “And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose [exelexanto] Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch.” – Human electors
Acts 9:15 “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen [ekloges] vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” – Elector unsure; either Jesus or Yahweh
Acts 13:17 “The God of this people of Israel chose [exelaexato] our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.” – God is the Elector
Acts 15:7 “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice [exelexato] among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” – God is the Elector
Acts 15:22 “Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen [eklexamenous] men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren” – Human electors
Acts 15:25 “It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen [eklexamenous] men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul” – Human electors
In none of the occurrences above is exclusivity reserved for any one as elector. It is implicit that the Christian movement had God’s backing and support, so that election – whoever did it – would be the execution of choice and will of the Heavenly Elector, God Almighty.
In cognitive linguistics, words evoke mental or cognitive schemes shaped by essential and implicit concepts within a culture and community. So in order to determine the identity of the one addressed in Acts 1:24, one needs to consider what cognitive schemes would probably have been evoked based on the understanding we have of ancient monotheistic culture. Some schemes would be specific, for which exceptions would either be disallowed; or if allowed, would require qualification. Others would be fluid, ambiguous or non-specific, which would be clarified by contextual information. Below is a break-down of the text in Acts 1:24, with each cognitive scheme trigger highlighted as having a possible bearing on which identity the ancient hearer of the text would evoke.
• “And they prayed (proseuchomai)” – proseuchomai is never used in the NT or in Luke-Acts as referring to anybody else but the Father. Understanding it to refer to Jesus would require a deviation of the pattern, hence highly unlikely. The Father as recipient is probably evoked by this word.
• “and said, thou, Lord (kurios)” – in Luke-Acts, kurios as a title used throughout the spectrum of lower and higher references. Either Jesus or God Almighty could be the referent here. The immediate context of the text, the surrounding context of the chapter, as well as the overall understanding from the whole book of Acts would therefore direct the cognitive scheme evoked. The identity is kept open for now.
• “which knowest the hearts (kardiognosta) of all” – to the member of the Luke-Acts community, God Almighty is the “heart-knower” (Ac. 15:8). This expression also evokes the Identity from the OT, namely Yahweh, who examines the hearts and the kidneys (Ps. 7:9; Pr. 17:3). To the community of Luke-Acts, Yahweh and Jesus Christ are non-identical, as these identities are consistently kept distinct (cf. 2:22, 3:13, 17:39, etc.). Even though there’s a display of heart-knowing in Ac. 8 by Peter, and that heart-knowing is a function of judgment – a function which God has and will delegate to non-God figures such as Abel (Testament of Abraham13) and Enoch (1 Enoch 45:3-5, 55:4, 61:8, 9, 106:19b) – this reference probably refers to the Original Kardiognostic, the Father.
• “show (anadeixon) which of these two” – the only other place where this anadeixo is used, is with the appointment of the seventy Jesus (“Lord”) sends out in twos (Luk. 10:1). But this word is a derivative of deiknuo, also meaning to show or display or to point out. The scope of persons said to have done deiknuo include more than Jesus alone (Lu. 4:5, 7:3, 22:12, Ac. 10:28). Taken on its own, then, either Jesus or God could have been regarded as responsible for the appointment – in this case – of the substitute apostle.
• “you have chosen (exelexo)” – from the above discussion, either Jesus (situation specific in the election of the apostles) or God (as the Great Elector).
Taken together, then, and from a cognitive linguistics perspective, inherently specific determinants (proseuchomai, kardiognosis) would be much harder to breach than possibly situational determinants (kurios, anadeixon, eklegomai). The specific determinants show overwhelmingly that the Lord God is the Recipient of this prayer, which the situational determinants fully support. It is therefore no surprise that scholars such as Darren Bock (Evangelical Trinitarian), James Dunn (Biblical scholar), Fredrick Danker (Biblical scholar), Crispin Fletcher-Louis (NT scholar) and others have concluded that the Almighty Father is the Addressee in the prayer.
Christ did tell us who He is – God (John 5:23).
Total garbage from you once again John.
Marc
Christ tells us in plain and simple language who he is- and who his Father is.
I don’t need you to give me your ‘gymnastics’ to try and tell me something different.!
Almost all points are arguable – but when you get down to ‘the .bones of it’ there is one God the Father and Christ is his Son. Simple as that!
I hope you find peace!
Goodbye -once and for all
John
After explaining how John 5:23 proves that Christ is God you offered zero evidence to refute that.
This is why on January 23, 2014 at 3:06 pm I wrote:
Well it is pitiful that you didn’t refute anything that I had written.
Then you asked me on January 23, 2014 at 10:17 pm:
Where was Christ ever worshipped in equality with the Father.
I then answered your question on January 24, 2014 at 2:00 am writing:
Christ receives doxologies, proseuchomai, latreuw and to call upon the name of the Lord which always referred to worship in the OT is applied to Him in the NT.
I then asked you if you could cite a passage where the Father receives a kind of worship that is superior to the worship afforded to Christ?
You refused to answer the question choosing instead to blabber on in your heresy.
Let me help you and others out in terms of the answer to the question I asked….
None.
Marc
I simply refute ‘explanations’ you give to try to convince me that John 5 v23 ‘proves’ that Christ is God.!
You simply go round and round in circles.!!
I will not be responding to your confusion any more – but would suggest that you make sure
that you are worshipping the God that Christ served and worshipped!
Good bye
John
See now you are asking another question. You get refuted in one place so you jump somewhere else.
You first asserted that Christ never claimed to be God. I responded by affirming that He did and I cited John 5:23. You were totally unable to refute that so you move on and ask:
Where was Christ ever worshipped in equality with the Father?
It’s really sad what those who deny that Christ is God so often do.
Christ receives doxologies, proseuchomai, latreuw and to call upon the name of the Lord which always referred to worship in the OT is applied to Him in the NT.
Can you cite a passage where the Father receives a kind of worship that is superior to the worship afforded to Christ?
Marc
I did not comment because you wrote load of nonsense!
Where was Christ ever worshipped in equality with the Father.
I grant that there are different ‘types’ of worship and that Christ was afforded a certain type .
As I said. you do not have to be Christ to bring honour and glory to God by your actions.
It’s all so simple and you delve into all of the ‘gobbledygook” !
Allt you gave me was 1700 years of human rationalisation!
I fear that you have just been ‘programmed’ to accept a great error!
Can’t you think for yourself , instead of just ‘parroting ‘off all that nonsense?
John
Pity?
Well it is pitiful that you didn’t refute anything that I had written.
Hidin’ duckin’ and dodgin’
Marc
Why do you fail to see the truth when it is so elegant, so simple?
Do you not believe that by your actions here on earth, can bring glory to The Father?
I am sure that you regard yourself as some sort of Christian warrior , doing your best to glorify God!
The problem is that you are misguided, ham-fisted – and supporting an apostacy!
What a pity!
John
1. Prayer/Worship is due onto God alone in that He is omniscient which assures the believer He always hears all prayers rendered unto Him and omnipotent/Almighty in that He is fully able to act on our prayers:
1. NIDNTT: It is significant that, wherever the NT speaks of requests made to God, it emphasizes that such requests are heard (cf. Matt. 6:8; 7:7-11; 18:19; 21:22; Jn. 14:13f.; 15:7, 16; 16:23f., 26; 1 Jn. 3:22; 5:14f.; Jas. 1:5). It is as if the NT witnesses wished particularly to encourage men to pray, by assuring the suppliant that his requests are heard by God. The NT is aware that this certainty keeps all prayer alive; let such certainty become weakened or diminished through doubt, and prayer dies…In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).
2. NIDOTTE: Prayer is, indeed a serious matter. It is regarded in the Bible as the most fundamental of all expressions of religion. It concerns the deepest feelings and most central motivation of the persons who are offering their prayer to their God, and it concerns the covenant relationship, with its blessings and sanctions, as the inevitable fabric of the living communion between the people and their God. To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God, who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P.A. Verhoef).
2. One of the ways the Lord Jesus honored the Father (John 8:49) was by praying to/worshiping Him (Matthew 11:25). Since God is honored by our prayers/worship of Him so too then the Son is honored by our prayers/worship of Him. Refusal to pray to/worship the Son dishonors the Father.
3. Since only God is to be prayed to/worshiped the fact that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to/worshiped in equality with the Father proves that He is God.
Marc
Where does John 5v 23 show Christ to be God?
John
Great job ignoring what I previously wrote. I knew you couldn’t refute it so you spieled off about other things. This is what those who deny the Deity of Christ so often do. They are refuted in one area so they jump around to other passages.
Nope. It won’t work.
You wrote that the Lord Jesus never claimed to be God. I cited John 5:23 saying He did.
This passage teaches that Christ is to be worshiped EQUALLY with the Father. There is NO kind of worship that the Father receives that Christ shouldn’t – and you people go around claiming that He isn’t God?!
Get real.
None but God could ever say such a thing in truth.
Marc
I am dumbfounded by this gobbledygook.!
The scriptures are rich with verses which show –
(a) Christ as totally dependant on the Father.
Someone elevated and given honours -inclding His title
Someone through whom God worked
(b) God is seen as someone who is doing the ‘elevating’ and the crushing
the one who is ultimately the object of worship.
Trinitarian propoganda reassuringly tells us that whaterver Christ said was only in his ‘human nature’
at which point I really wonder if I am living in a place where a rabbit is running down a hole – and a Mad Hatter is appearing!
Are we to discount every word uttered by Christ on the grounds that it was just in his ‘human mode’
Even in the heavenly kingdom we see references to Christ as a subordinate of God almighty.
(i) The preface to the Revelation of John opens with the words . “Which God gave to Christ’
I wonder how ‘God’ is defined here!?
(ii)In revelation 3 v 12 Christ states “…. I will make a pillar of my God”
(iii)In revelation 15vs 2-4 The Lamb sang a song of praise to the Lord God Almighty
You ‘twist’ Philippians 2 v9 to try to ‘equate Christ to God – yet it was God God just raised him from the dead and exalted him !!
You attemplt to introduce Christ as an intermediary in our prayers but I would ask-
(i) Who did Christ pray to?
(ii) Who did Christ tell us to pray to?
This nonsense is all too much!
What troubles me is that good minds have combed the Bible for 1700 years trying to rationalise the Trinity. Their gymnasitics are exhausting, and excruciating. Even more troubling is that humanity has been sucked into this abyss – which was originally just a ‘marketing tool’ for the Catholic Church!
(i.e unique selling proposition)
Time to stop the ‘tap-dancing’ !!!!
Best Wishes
John
1. Agree. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.
2. Your agency escape won’t work.
Donald A. Carson
23. The reason why the Father has entrusted all judgment to the Son is now disclosed: it is so that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. Whatever functional subordination may be stressed in this section, it guarantees, as we have seen, that the Son does everything that the Father does (cf. notes on vv. 19-20); and now Jesus declares that its purpose is that the Son may be at one with the Father not only in activity but in honour. This goes far beyond making Jesus a mere ambassador who acts in the name of the monarch who sent him, an envoy plenipotentiary whose derived authority is the equivalent of his master’s. That analogue breaks down precisely here, for the honour given to an envoy is never that given to the head of state. The Jews were right in detecting that Jesus was ‘making himself equal with God’ (vv. 17-18). But this does not diminish God. Indeed, the glorification of the Son is precisely what glorifies the Father (cf. notes on 12:28), just as in Philippians 2:9-11, where at the name of Jesus every knew bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, and all this to the glory of God the Father. Because of the unique relation between the Father and the Son, the God who declares ‘I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another’ (Is. 42:8; cf. Is. 48:11) is not compromised or diminished when divine honours crown the head of the Son. Granted that the purpose of the Father is that all should honour the Son, it is but a small step to Jesus’ conclusion: He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him. In a theistic universe, such a statement belongs to one who is himself to be addressed as God (cf. 20:28), or to stark insanity. The one who utters such things is to be dismissed with pity or scorn, or worshiped as Lord. If with much current scholarship we retreat to seeing in such material less the claims of the Son than the beliefs and witness of the Evangelist and his church, the same options confront us. Either John is supremely deluded and must be dismissed as a fool, or his witness is true and Jesus is to ascribed honours due God alone, There is no rational middle ground. (Carson, The Gospel According to John [William Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.], pp. 254-255).
3. Surprise! For when a person goes to God in prayer/worship right now there is no need for an agent/substitute for they are already in God’s presence. But we do know there are passages that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer/worship in the Bible.
Marc,
John 5 v 23 ‘ Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him”
(i) As you will have noted from Dale’s recent blog “Ben Naismith and Monotheism” it is quite clear that The Father and Son have different identities
(ii) Christ is God’s divine agent – and this is evident throughout Johns Gospel.
If you are Mr. Small, and your principal Mr. Big sends you to negotiate with X company and the
latter throw you out and are abusive, the affront to you (Mr. Small) is an affront to the one who
sent you (Mr. Big)
If you focused you energies on seeking truth, instead of insisting on seeing what you want to see
you might get a surprise!
Regards
John
Yes, He did (John 5:23).
Christ never claimd to be God – and he was at pains to show that he was NOT God!
John
I can’t believe you cited John 17:3 again when I already addressed it.
January 22, 2014 at 5:07 pm
And from my previous post (last sentence)
There are some passages that teach Christ is a man who was our example while there are other passages that teach He is God.
Marc
Who does Christ himself say that He was?
Who is Christ’s God?
The Father is the only true God – Christ himself said so!
You might find Dales.response to Ben Naismith instructive! (most current debate)
Regards
John
Well John you can stick with your fairy tale word definitions all you want.
There are some passages that teach Christ is a man who was our example while there are other passages that teach He is God.
Marc
I have never seen such an outpouring of ‘bullshine’ in my life!
This man who was accredited to us by God
This man who was handed over to ‘you’ by God’s set purpose
This man who was raised by God
This man who was raised to God’s right hand
This man who received Gods promised Holy Spirit
This man who God made Christ and Lord
This servant of God
This man who declared on many occasions that he was empowered by, and dependent on God!
And you still say that he was GOD?!?!
Marc, you are proof of the old saying that desperate men are capable of infinite rationalisation
Marc, you are living evidence of the paucity of the Trinitarian argument!
Regards
John
In answer to your first question it “yes”.
Proseuchomai (prayed) is defined as being rendered unto God alone in the New Testament.
Kardiognwstes (heart-knower) is defined as referring to the omniscience of God.
If you have evidence that the prayer is not to the Lord Jesus I’d like to see it.
———————————-
When the Lord Jesus said the only true God in John 17:3 He wasn’t denying that He was God but was saying that the Father is the only true God in relation to false gods. The “true God” is always used in Scripture this way (2 Chronicles 15:3; Jeremiah 10:10, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20, 21). – No exceptions
a. NIDNTT: in Jn. 17:3, monos is linked with alethinos, true, in contrast to the deceptive appearance (pseudos) of all alleged gods and revealers (2:724, One, K.H. Bartels).
b. Thayer: ton theon, the one, true God, in contrast with the polytheism of the Gentiles (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ginwskw, page 117).
c. Trench: But He is ???????? (1 Thess. 1:9; John 17:3; Isai. 65:16; == ‘verus’), very God, as distinguished from idols and all other false gods, the dreams of the diseased fancy of man, with no substantial existence in the world of realities (Richard C. Trench, alethes, alethinos, #8)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=8
d. Vine: John 7:28; 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 6:10; these declare that God fulfils the meaning of His Name, He is “very God,” in distinction from all other gods, false gods (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, True, page 1170).
Concerning the same word “only” (Greek: monos) it also appears in Romans 16:27.
1. to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:27, NASB)
Romans 16:27 teaches that God alone has all wisdom. No created being has ever nor can ever attain God’s omniscience. But we see that the Lord Jesus has this same knowledge (Acts 1:24; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 2:23; 5:12).
Since God alone is all wise and the Lord Jesus possess all wisdom this not only demonstrates that the Lord Jesus is God but it also proves that the use of “only” (monos) in John 17:3 is not as restrictive when it comes to applying that which ONLY belongs to God to the Lord Jesus.
The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: There may be reasons why the deity of Christ might be controverted, but such reasons cannot be drawn from any serious acceptance of Scripture (2:92, deity of Christ, A.H. Leitch).
Marc
Do you really believe that the identity of the person’ doing the choosing’ regarding the election of the apostles is conclusive evidence of the assertion that ‘Christ = God’
Things can change and the person doing the ‘choosing’ at one moment of time need not necessarily be the same person doing it at another time.
If I were you I would be most concerned at you failure to respond to my simple proposition –
You said that ” God does not comprise only the Father’
How do you then interpret John 20 v 17 and a host of other verses.in which Christ states quite plainly that he has a Father who is his God and that being is also our God and Father.?
What about John 17 v 3 ?
Who did Christ pray to, who has HIS God?
I repeat,
If God is the Father, and the Father is not the Son, then it follows that the Son is NOT God..
How do you explain all of this.? You simply rattle on in parrot mode’ !!
Where is your sense of proportion?
Where is your logic?
What University in South Korea would employ such a person as ‘Professor of English”?
Marc – put up or shut up!
Regards
John
From your post on January 9, 2014 at 3:48 am
This is what I (Marc Taylor) previously wrote:
Chosen is always used in reference to the Lord Jesus by Luke in choosing the apostles (Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2).
You (Jaco) responded by saying this:
This is false. Luke, who borrowed 50% of his Gospel from Mark, knew very well that God was the Ultimate Chooser (Mk. 13:20). In Acts, election or choosing is performed by Jesus (Ac. 1:2, 9:15), by God (1:24, 10:41, 13:17, 15:7, 22:14) and by men (Ac. 15:22, 25). Since God did the choosing in the first place, the exalted human Jesus appointed to act as God’s executive, and the apostles on earth God’s and Jesus’ ambassadors, then of course various role-players could be involved in “choosing.” If one’s reading of texts is disconnected and (in your case) doctrinally obsessed, scripture gets abused in the process.
This is why on January 19, 2014 at 8:22 am I (Marc Taylor) wrote this:
What you offered to the evidence I supplied was a joke. You cited passages where eklegomai wasn’t even used.
——————-
I pointed this out before but because you remain willingly blind I’ll do it again hoping that you might see something with your heart that your eyes already see.
Acts 13:17 and 15:8, 22, 25 it is NOT used in reference to initially choosing the apostles. In Acts 1:2 and Luke 6:13 it is – and that to the Lord Jesus.
In Acts 10:41 it is NOT used at all. Welcome to your fantasy world in thinking that it does.
Where is eklegomai used in reference to the Father initially choosing the apostles? Nowhere. Is it ever used elsewhere in reference to the Lord Jesus initially choosing the apostles? Yes, in several places (Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2; etc).
How would you know if you never even bothered to read what I posted? The only joke around here is your repetitive posts, and your stunning inability to engage the evidence and solid refutations of your fantasies. You chose (yet again) the wrong crowd…
What you offered to the evidence I supplied was a joke. You cited passages where eklegomai wasn’t even used.
“Not sure how you can say my arguments failed in anyway when nothing I have written has been countered.”
Taking “selective memory” to a whole new level.
Not sure how you can say my arguments failed in anyway when nothing I have written has been countered.
Where is the evidence that the prayer is to the Father?
I supplied plenty that it is to the Son
Nothing proud or closed-minded about that. For you to even hint that I am just shows how closed-minded and proud you are.
I supply plenty of excellent scholars who say the prayer is to the Lord Jesus. I provide evidence from within the prayer that thus far has not been refuted.
Marc,
Your arguments only show that one can make a case that Jesus is the addressee in the Acts 1.24 prayer. They fail to show that he is certainly, even most likely, the addressee. The fact that BDAG and commentators like Bock believe God is the addressee is evidence enough that at the very least it is not clear who the addressee is. For my own part, I agree with BDAG and commentators like Bock: the evidence suggests that God is the addressee, not Jesus. If you will not concede that the identity of the addressee is at least uncertain in light of the opinion of BDAG and commentators like Bock, then you should consider whether you in fact are the proud, close-minded one.
I cited plenty of other scholars for my position but when it came time to defining kardiognwstes NONE were given that refuted the scholars I had given.
But Marc,
Before you said this to Jaco,
Jaco quotes himself as if he has the final say on these theological matters, apparently forgetting that his own opinion was formulated in disregard to what the words of the Bible actually mean. Danker and many others like him just can’t see what Jaco in his brilliance has figured out. Good thing for the rest of us Jaco came along and has corrected all of them.
Pride.
Now you say Danker and many other like him just can’t see what you have figured out on Acts 1.24.
Is this not hypocritical of you? Aren’t you doing the same thing you condemned–and condemned most strongly and harshly?
Michael,
The BDAG is wrong on Acts 1:24.
I can say this because of two reasons:
1. There are plenty of other excellent scholars who believe that Acts 1:24 applies to the Lord Jesus.
2. The words within the prayer point to the Lord Jesus.
I have been repeating these reasons over and over.
Michael, you can’t teach someone logic. It’s been a display of dishonesty and disingenuousness by Marc Taylor. If he’s cornered, he goes into “parrot mode” and repeats his refuted arguments. Nothing new. He appears to be hard-wired like this…
Excuse me: that is, how is it not hypocritical for you to accuse Jaco of “pride” for the same thing you are doing, namely, disagreeing with what a lexicon says, even the standard Greek lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian literature? This would not mean your position is wrong (that’s the tu quoque fallacy), but it would mean you are being hypocritical.
So again, my questions are
1. Are you saying BDAG is wrong on Acts 1.24?
2. How can you say this and not thereby accuse yourself of pride by your own standards?
Marc,
You did not already address my point, which consists of two questions.
First, are you saying BDAG, the standard Greek lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian literature is wrong on the identity of “Lord” in Acts 1.24, inasmuch as BDAG says it is “God”? You said commentators like Bock are wrong. Are you now saying BDAG is wrong as well? So that’s the first question.
And the second question is this: if you are saying BDAG is wrong, then how do you avoid your own charge of “pride” that you cast at Jaco before? In short, how have you not committed a tu quoque fallacy?
Still hiding, ducking and dodging as to how kardiognwstes is properly defined.
Wrong again. According to Jesus (which I recommend you give attention to), ONLY the Father is God (John 17:3). The same with Paul, Luke, Jude and others.
Delusional is also when a specific frame is so religiously adhered to, that perspectives such as ontology vs. functionality are simply ignored infavor of a reductionistic and dogmatically driven position.
You failed to address all these challenges to your feeble points. Your arguments were weak 4 years ago, and it’s overwhelmingly clear that you’re stuck. Nice try anyway.
John,
You are leaving out the word “only” . God does not comprise “only” the Father.
And speaking about delusions that is what occurs when words like kardiognwstes are redefined.
Michael,
Already addressed your point. I cited several scholars that agree with my position.
AND I cited evidence from the words within the prayer. I wrote this in my previous post:
The words of the prayer clearly point to the Lord Jesus. I noticed you didn’t address them. This was simply a start – I have more but since you didn’t even address what I have written why should I bother to cite the rest?
You ignored it.
Marc,
So now BDAG, the standard Greek lexicon of New Testament and Early Christian literature AND (trinitarian) commentators like Darrrell Bock do not know what they are talking about? They have not considered the evidence as carefully as you? And this stance is different than what you accused Jaco of?
Marc,
You said
” God equals the Father is true, but God does not comprise only the Father”
In John 20 v17 Christ states ‘I am going to MY father and your Father, to MY GOD and
your God”
So The Son says that God iis His Father.
Can you not accept the simple logic
If God is the Father
and The Father is not the Son
then The Son is not God
Marc, you cannot get anything simpler than this.!!!
My psychologist friends tell me that failure to accept facts even when they are presented
‘point blank’ is called DELUSION.
It’s no wonder that someone has a ‘web-site’ called “The Trinity Delusion’
You may see youself as some kind of “Holy Warrior’ – but you do yourself – and Trinitarianism no credit at all!
Time to come to your senses!
Worship the God that Jesus worshipped and served!
Blessings
John
John,
I don’t agree to disagree concerning the word kardiognwstes. If they want to disagree with how it is defined it simply shows what they will do to deny the obvious.
IGod is the Father is true but God does not comprise only the Father.
Hot headed? So was Paul when he dealt with heretics (Acts 13:10).
Michael,
Has Bock written anything about all the evidence I have supplied above showing that the prayer is to the Lord Jesus. He may have touched on one or two points but I haven’t seen anyone that says the Lord Jesus is not being prayed to address what I have written above…at least rationally anyways.
2. I have cited both lexicons and commentaries for my position as I’m sure those who oppose can cite others in their favor but see point #1. The words of the prayer clearly point to the Lord Jesus. I noticed you didn’t address them. This was simply a start – I have more but since you didn’t even address what I have written why should I bother to cite the rest?
3. See #2. See also Mounce, Vine, Furneaux, David Peterson, Barrett, Murray Harris, F. F. Bruce, Rengstorf (TDNT), etc.
Marc,
Regarding Acts 1.24, I asked you,
So you are saying it is completely obvious Jesus is addressed and not God? And that scholars like Darrell Bock and others who say it is unclear and probably refers to God don’t know what they are talking about?
And you replied,
I don’t believe that they have looked at the evidence more carefully.
Then I asked you,
But how is this different than what you accused Jaco of earlier:
Jaco quotes himself as if he has the final say on these theological matters, apparently forgetting that his own opinion was formulated in disregard to what the words of the Bible actually mean. Danker and many others like him just can’t see what Jaco in his brilliance has figured out. Good thing for the rest of us Jaco came along and has corrected all of them.
Pride.
And you replied,
Bock has never written or co-authored a lexicon so he is not as qualified in defining the words of the New Testament as Danker, Mounce, Vine, etc.
Okay, I would make three further points:
1. I still don’t see how you escape your condemnation of “pride” on your own principles.
2. We should not automatically privilige what the writers of lexicons say on the identity of “Lord” in Acts 1.24 over what commentators say. It is not a matter of the meaning of the word; it’s a matter of its application.
3. Nevertheless, the third edition of BDAG, which is the standard Greek lexicon of New Testament and Early Christian literature takes the position that “God” is the kardiognostes in Acts 1.24 and 15.8.
Michael
I really enjoyed this exchange. If anything new comes up, be assured that I’ll respond to it.
Marc,
I’ve looking at a few other web-sites and find that you have been quite active on the topic of ‘kardiognwstes’.
These debates generally end up ‘in the swamp’!
Some say that ‘you have agreed to disagree’ but I doubt this is true!
However, I notice that you consistently ignore- or refuse to answer the following
If God is the Father
And the Father is NOT the Son
Then The Son is not God
To date you have come over as a rather ‘hot-headed’ fellow.
Could you please discuss the above ‘equation’ in order to demonstrate how rational you really are?
Many Thanks
Blessings
John
Marc
Many thanks !
Blessings
John
Jaco,
That is a joke. Still zero passages from the Bible.
Yeah I abuse Danker, the TDNT and NIDNTT simply by citing what they wrote concerning kardiognwstes. Incredible.
No Jaco, the abuse that is taking place is what you see with your eyes and what your your heretical heart says to the contrary.
Hello John,
No, I am not a Pastor there – or anywhere else.
Marc
John,
You are correct. But even with the atonement theory of Jesus’ death, many texts can be used to show that equivalence to God is never made as the basis of atonement. Romans 5 is perhaps one of the clearest and most devastating proofs against the Anselmian “only God can atone for sins.” I have found this line of “proof” among the weakest from the trinitarian camp, and among the easiest to refute.
Hi Marc,
Are you the Pastor of the Dunseverick Baptist Church near Bushmills ?
Best Wishes
John
Jaco & Lisa
After I sent my previous post, the thought suddenly hit me that a ‘connection’ exists between Trinity theory and Atonement theory.
As much of the literature attests , the Moral Improvement view of atonement was taught by the Church Fathers in the second and third centuries..
Later , the ‘ranson’ and ‘Christus Victor’ views became popular.
Much later on we have theories based on Sacrificial atonement.
Regardless of the erroneous view of Evangelical apologists that Trinitarian theories appeared shortly after Christs death -the ‘full blown’ theory only took shape in the fourth century.
Without being too long winded , is it not clear that early (non-trinitarian) Christianity existed side by side with the Moral Improvement view of atonement?
It seems to me, that as Christianinty became removed in time and space from its origins, that error thinking crept in . We have the emergence of the Doctrine of the Trinity – and Atonement theories which are more ‘accommodating’ to t the Trinitarian view emerged.
Just a thought!
Blessings
John
I have provided evidence in several posts above. You just ignored them and posted some more of your desperate “proofs” which are simply “proofs” in your imagination. The posts containing OVERWHELMING proof of the inadequacy of your position you refuse to read.
So. I’ll stick with the words of the inspired prophets and sages during the time of the Bible while you can choose otherwise. You have abused Danker, TDNT and NIDNTT to support your Evangelical doctrine. Apart from that you spew hate and snide and gall, because you are a hurt and sad man victimized by your Evangelical tradition.
So all your refusals above to 1.) accept my challenges, 2) answer my questions, 3) provide Targumic support for your position and 4) give an assessment of the syllogism I provided, show why Evangelical Christianity loses appeal and does not measure up to scrutiny. It requires a detextualised reading of lexicons and dictionaries, an incompetence/ignorance of the ancient languages, culture and theology, a refusal to read refutations and challenges and a painful inability to address these refutations and challenges, if indeed these are secretly read. Cultish mindset by every other definition.
The only hide-and-seek player is the man in the mirror, Marc Taylor: yes, the sad man you see in the mirror every morning who looks forward to insulting those who disagree with him, just to feel better about himself. But rest assured. We DO feel for you. There are many Marc Taylors out there who find life unbearable due to a crippling religious tradition.
What an idiotic long-winded post by Jaco.
Zero texts from the Bible were cited by him that demonstrates anyone other than God knew the totality of the hearts of all people.
None
I’ll stick with the words of the inspired words of the Bible while you can choose otherwise.
Jaco’s grandiose claims of knowing more than Danker, the TDNT and the NIDNTT concerning this Greek word just goes to prove the depths of arrogance one will go to cling to their heresy.
Indeed, not only is this true concerning kardiognwstes but as I have pointed out earlier the same is true concerning proseuchomai. To God alone in the NT is it used. The Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of it thus the Lord Jesus is God.
I have already shown how the Lord Jesus is the recipient of this prayer here:
January 12, 2014 at 11:46 am
The evidence has not been refuted.
Furthermore, I have also pointed out that 1 Corinthians 4:5 and Revelation 2:23 teach the same thing but Jaco tightly closes his eyes and says that he can’t see. Jaco can play his hide and seek games all he wants but the passages are there.
Great post, John.
Lisa,
You, like many evangelical Christians, assume that ‘substitutionary atonement’ , is the only means of salvation.
There are many views on atonement the most common ones being-
-The Ranson theory
-The moral influence theory
-The satisfaction theory
-The penal substitution theory
You will recall that the majority of Paul’s audience were Jews and they were very familiar with the concept of ‘bood sacrifice’ as a means of atonement.
This aspect is little understood by Christians – most of whom keep referring one to the “Paschal Lamb’.
The Paschal Lamb was a celebratory sacrifice .
The Yom Kippur Lamb was slaughtered to atone for a limited range of sin – but it is important that no atonement was possible for sins to be committed in the future!
The Jewish Law was very strict on several points –
– No human sacrifice
– The lamb to be slaughtered was to be without blemish at the moment of slaughter.
The apostles were trying to say to their primarily Jewish audience ” well, you know how the
history of atonement, We now have a Messiah who is analogous to the ‘Lamb without blemish’
so you are already familiar with this concept.
I think most people will not argue that IT IS BY GOD’S GRACE that salvation is achieved.
Christ’s role is viewed differently by different believers.
The Christadelphians believe that Christ acts like our ‘ advocate’ in God’s court – and without being a Christadelphian, I hold a similar view.
I do not subscribe to FUTURE sins being atoned for.
The evangelical literature will ‘swamp’ one – arguing for example that Paul taught against ‘works of the law’ -but Pauls utterances were not an attack on ‘good works’ performed as an outflowing of love and repentance.
In the end it is GODS GRACE with Christ as mediator/ advocate.
But I am not an expert – I am simply someone who, after being a Trinitarian for sixty years, was not satisfied with certain things and decided to look at these matters for myself.
It was with a ‘trembling heart’ that I did so – but I must say that nothing I have seen subsequently has caused me to reconsider the Unitarian position. I now find that there is NOT A SINGLE TRINITARIAN PROOF VERSE.
Now, over to the people who know a great deal more than me!
Blessings
John
Lisa, what if your appreciation of “man” were not tainted by Calvinism, i.e., that man was a glorious creation, selected to be the one reflecting God most fully, endowed with abilities to bear God’s glory? Try and imagine man not “totally depraved.” What picture emerges? Would you agree that describing such a person as “just” a man, or “merely” man would be a gross depreciation of his glorious status?
Thanks,
Dale,
I look forward to your answers to my 7 questions posed Jan 10. I would like to learn how an interpretation of Jesus as just a man affects the gospel in your view. Do you believe your sinful nature separates you from a Holy God? Do you believe that all men are born in sinfulness (Psa. 51:5, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 3:23, Ecc. 7:20, Mrk. 10:18, Rom. 3:10, Jam. 2:10)? Can substitutionary atonement for sin therefore be made by a man? If Jesus was only man, would it not follow that there is no such thing as salvation?
Ok…let’s see…
Aaah, exactly! Ok, so guess which assertion you make do I refute with Gen. 14:4 and Gen. 15:14 from the Aramaic Targum Onkelos. I’m sure you can see it.
And? Not only are we suspicious over your ability to read and understand Hebrew and Aramaic, we suspect that you’re unable to handle simple syllogisms. Here is your fallacious syllogism:
Premise 1: If an OT text is quoted in the NT, both referents referred to in the texts are identical.
Premise 2: Joel 2:32 is quoted in Ro. 10:13.
Conclusion: Yahweh (in Joel 2:32) and Jesus (in Ro. 10:13) are identical.
You’re ignoring the ambiguity in “omniscient.” If you weren’t as lazy to read the host of Jewish monotheistic texts I quote above, you’d see that another human apart from your hybrid Jesus of Chalcedon were also ostensibly omniscient, but functionally so, not ontologically. But even granting you this, Ac. 1:24 refers to God the Father (Ac. 15:8), not Jesus, sorry. You lack imagination and sophistication…
Yikes, it must be hard to deal with such cancerous hatred. Most Evangelicals from your ilk have been abused and victimised and now need a victim to project their hatred on. I really feel for you…
Michael,
Bock has never written or co-authored a lexicon so he is not as qualified in defining the words of the New Testament as Danker, Mounce, Vine, etc.
First, I don’t see anywhere that Luke associates Lord with anadeiknumi (show) in relation to the Father concerning the choice of the apostles. Do you? I see the same author (Luke) use the same word in relation to the “Lord” in reference to the Lord Jesus appointing 70 others for the mission field in Luke 10:1.
Second, I never see Luke associate ekelgomai (chosen) to the Father in relation to His choosing the apostles but I do see that he does so concerning the Lord Jesus in Luke 6:13 and Acts 1:2.
Third, I see Luke recording Peter referring to the Lord Jesus in verse 21 just before the prayer. Like Acts 7:60 the identity of the “Lord” is previously given.
Fourth, concerning the word “ministry” I see the same author record Paul in that he received it from the “Lord Jesus” (cf. Acts 20:24).
Fifth, concerning the word apostleship although this precise word is not used again in Acts when it is used again in association with “Lord” it always refers to the Lord Jesus (Romans 1:4-5; 1 Corinthians 9:1-2).
Much more can be said for each of the above but I will stop here.
No Jaco! Those who assert must prove.
Concerning Rom. 10:13 the Lord refers to Jesus.
Oh and by the way kardiognwstes means being omniscient. I have several dictionaries that back me up on this but you think you know better than people like Frederick Danker when it comes to defining the words of the New Testament.
Pathetic
Marc,
Regarding Acts 1.24, I asked you,
So you are saying it is completely obvious Jesus is addressed and not God? And that scholars like Darrell Bock and others who say it is unclear and probably refers to God don’t know what they are talking about?
And you replied,
I don’t believe that they have looked at the evidence more carefully.
But how is this different than what you accused Jaco of earlier:
Jaco quotes himself as if he has the final say on these theological matters, apparently forgetting that his own opinion was formulated in disregard to what the words of the Bible actually mean. Danker and many others like him just can’t see what Jaco in his brilliance has figured out. Good thing for the rest of us Jaco came along and has corrected all of them.
Pride.
Err…no. YOU are the one appealing to your specific understanding of a certain word somehow supporting your argument. I get the impression you cannot read the Aramaic of the two texts, hence your passing the buck…hmmm…
On your second evasion, YOUR argument goes that Joel is quoted in Romans, applying 2:32 to Jesus in Ro. 10:13. So, according to your specific reading in support of your trinity fabrication, you claim that the One referred to in Joel 2:32 is identical to the one referred to in Ro. 10:13 and, voila! Jesus is Yahweh! YOUR interpretive apparatus demands this:
Premise 1: If an OT text is quoted in the NT, both referents referred to in the texts are identical.
Premise 2: Joel 2:32 is quoted in Ro. 10:13.
Conclusion: Yahweh (in Joel 2:32) and Jesus (in Ro. 10:13) are identical.
You are welcome to correct my syllogism if I misrepresent you.
You appealed to the two texts from Genesis so you quote them.
In terms of the second question be specific in terms of what text you want to discuss.
Marc Taylor,
If you thought that my posts were primarily left for your sake, you might want to think again. I provide the evidence you ASKED for the sake of showing OTHERS on what baseless fabrications your faith is built.
It’s not you or your late tradition that can judge what deserves the status of inspiration and what not. And if you want to be taken seriously at all, you need to demonstrate a better understanding of language and language use than the attempts you’ve shown thusfar. Language functions in culture and religion. The two Genesis texts in the Targum Onkelos were read and discussed in the Jewish synagogue. So, instead of evading the question, I ask again, quote the two Genesis texts from this first-century Targum, and then we can discuss.
Secondly, Does a quotation from the OT render the referent applied to in the NT ontologically identical to the one originally applied to in the OT?
Let’s wait and see…
Michael,
I don’t believe that they have looked at the evidence more carefully.
————–
Jaco,
Your posts are so long-winded I don’t even bother to read most of them.
Both passages you mention are inspired in the Hebrew not the Aramaic.
Pingback: Does Mark teach that Jesus is God? « Blogging theology
Lisa,
I was born and raised a trinitarian Christian. I completed a MDiv at a conservative, trinitarian seminary. But some years ago, with fear and trembling, I began to search out the identity of God and Jesus for myself, out of love for my God and the Lord Jesus. The conclusion of my research? The Scriptures, when rightly understood, clearly teach that God is strictly one and Jesus is a man and a man only but yet the most extraordinary man—yea, even the greatest being in the universe besides God.
I would urge you to take a look at a couple pieces I have written on my webiste, mindingthetruth.com:
Am I a Unitarian? http://mindingthetruth.com/2013/11/07/am-i-a-unitarian/
40 Theses on the Trinity Doctrine http://mindingthetruth.com/2014/01/03/40-theses-on-the-trinity-doctrine/
The first post relates a bit of my own journey to a unitarian Christian position (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism as I explain in the post). And the second post summarizes as concisely as I possibly could the evidence against the trinity doctrine and for the unitarian Christian position.
If nothing else, I hope that from interacting with Dale and other unitarian Christians here and reading what we write, you will see that we hold our convictions because we love God and Jesus and believe this is the truth about them.
Blessings to you,
Michael
Marc Taylor,
Could you please quote for us Gen. 14:4 and Gen. 15:14 from the Aramaic Targum Onkelos.
I’m also awaiting your answer to my question on quoting the OT in the NT.
Marc,
So you are saying it is completely obvious Jesus is addressed and not God? And that scholars like Darrell Bock and others who say it is unclear and probably refers to God don’t know what they are talking about?
Michael,
I don’t see any clear evidence that would show the Father is being prayed to in Acts 1:24.
The evidence does show it refers to the Son.
When you compare how Luke or others use the term “Lord” in association with many of the words within the prayer those who say it that the Father is the recipient of this prayer or that it is unclear simply are not can’t back up their assertions.
So the Lord Jesus is the heartknower of all which as properly defined means the same thing as being omniscient (God).
Marc,
You are still not understanding my point. When trinitarian scholars cannot agree on who the addressee is in Acts 1.24, there can be no doubt that one can make a good argument for either possibility. If it were only unitarian scholars arguing the addressee is God and only trinitarian scholars arguing it is Jesus, then we might suspect bias from either one or both sides. But, again, since even trinitarian scholars are divided on the question, clearly the identity of the addressee is truly unclear.
So the point is not whether you can cite evidence that Jesus is the addressee. That is acknowledged. The point is not whether I can cite evidence that God is the addressee. The point is not whether we can cite scholars on either side. There are scholars—trinitarian scholars—on both sides of the question. The point is that because the identity of the addressee is genuinely unclear, the verse must be thrown out of the debate over the identity of God and Jesus.
The reference to the Testament of Abraham is from chapter 13.
Marc Taylor,
These texts, again taken in context confirm what I and others have argued for. Firstly, Jesus should be able to judge the hearts, since he is the appointed anthropos whom God installed to judge the living and the dead. How would Jesus be enabled to do so? Through the promised holy spirit which Luke was overwhelmingly aware of (Ac. 2:33). The position that still needs to be refuted in order for any Trinitarian version to prevail is this: Jesus could execute God’s authority – not out of himself, but – since he was enabled by God to do so.
In Acts, God Almighty is the Source of kardiognosis while Jesus and other agents act on His behalf.
1 Cor 4:5 agrees well with Paul’s Romans 2:16: “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by (dia) Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Jesus’ agency is confirmed here.
The same argument applies to Rev. 2:23. Jesus was the appointed judge. So how Yahweh would judge, Jesus would do now. Assuming ontological identity is simply just that: an assumption. None of the humans God appointed in apocalyptic literature (Enoch/Metratron, Abel, etc.) threatened or tortured Jewish monotheism, or contorted it into the fabrication called the Trinity:
1 Enoch 14:18-21: And I looked, and I saw in it, a high throne, and its appearance was like ice, and its surrounds like the shining Sun and the sound of cherubim. And from underneath the high throne there flowed out rivers of fire so that it was impossible to look at it. And He who is Great in Glory sat upon it, and his raiment was brighter than the Sun, and whiter than any snow. And no Angel could enter, and at the appearance of the face of Him who is Honoured and Praised, no creature of flesh could look.
And yet, this is said of the human Enoch:
1 Enoch 45:3-5: 45.3 “On that day the Chosen One will sit on the Throne of Glory and will choose their works. And their resting places will be without number and their spirits within them will grow strong when they see My Chosen One and those who appeal to My Holy and Glorious Name. And on that day I will cause My Chosen One to dwell among them and I will transform Heaven and make it an Eternal Blessing and Light. And I will transform the dry ground and make it a blessing, and I will cause My Chosen Ones to dwell upon it; but those who commit sin and evil will not tread upon it.”
1 Enoch 51:3 “And in those days, the Chosen One will sit on his throne, and all the Secrets of Wisdom will flow out from the council of his mouth, for the Lord of Spirits has appointed him and glorified him.”
1 Enoch 55:4 “‘You powerful kings who dwell upon the dry ground will be obliged to watch my Chosen One sit down on the throne of My Glory, and judge, in the Name of the Lord of Spirits, Azazel [Satan] and all his associates and all his hosts.’”
1 Enoch 61:8, 9 “And the Lord of Spirits set the Chosen One on the throne of his glory, and he will judge all the works of the Holy ones in Heaven above, and in the Balance he will weigh their deeds. And when he lifts his face to judge their secret ways according to the word of the name of the Lord of Spirits, and their path according to the way of the Righteous Judgment of the Lord Most High, they will all speak with one voice and bless, and praise, and exalt, and glorify, the Name of the Lord of Spirits.”
1 Enoch 62:5 “And one half of them will look at the other, and they will be terrified, and will cast down their faces, and pain will take hold of them when they see that son of a woman sitting on the throne of His Glory.”
1 Enoch 69:27 “And he sat on the Throne of His Glory and the whole judgment was given to the Son of Man and he will cause the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from the face of the Earth.”
How could Enoch, the human born of a woman, judge the secrets of people’s hearts?
1 Enoch 106:19b “For I know the mysteries of the Holy Ones, for the Lord showed them to me and made them known to me, and I read them in the Tablets of Heaven.”
Re. the judgment by the human Abel:
Testament of AbrahamAnd Abraham said, My Lord chief-captain, who is this most wondrous judge? and who are the angels that write down? and who is the angel like the sun, holding the balance? and who is the fiery angel holding the fire? The chief-captain said, “Seest thou, most holy Abraham, the terrible man sitting upon the throne? This is the son of the first created Adam, who is called Abel, whom the wicked Cain killed, and he sits thus to judge all creation, and examines righteous men and sinners. For God has said, I shall not judge you, but every man born of man shall be judged. Therefore he has given to him judgment, to judge the world until his great and glorious coming, and then, O righteous Abraham, is the perfect judgment and recompense, eternal and unchangeable, which no one can alter.
Clearly, things that can only be said about God has been said and believed about exalted humans without rendering them ontologically God. Hence the short-sightedness of all Evangelical attempts to turn Jesus of Nazareth into God.
I have a question to Marc: Does a quotation from the OT render the referent applied to in the NT ontologically identical to the one originally applied to in the OT?
Correct, and those he appoints to judge, he also endows with this ability to know (cp. My references above). Jesus could do that, because he has received it from his Father, Almighty (cp. Rev. 2:27).
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is certainly not for me to judge your salvation, and for that I apologize. I guess the reason I assumed you had not received salvation is that I do not see (in this post, anyway), the joy of salvation. I don’t see humility in the face of such astounding grace. I don’t see a consuming love for the Savior. Your tone seemed to me inconsistent with the brokenness of the soul in need of salvation, the awe of a soul that recognizes His gift, the sweetness of fellowship with Him. The fruit of the Spirit (i.e., the outward changes and evidence that the Holy Spirit has inhabited a human heart) are love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Not to say that your life does not exhibit this fruit, but I just didn’t see it in your post. It’s just an observation and I may be totally wrong, so I withdraw my assessment that you don’t walk with the Lord. And if I am wrong, let me gently offer to my brother in Christ that taking a sarcastic and flip tone about our Savior may tarnish your testimony.
May I ask you a few questions that would help clarify for me your starting point on this issue? I’ll number them so you can respond efficiently, and I am truly and respectfully interested in your answers.
1. Why would you want to isolate the book of Mark from all other Scripture? The Bible is a narrative from “in the beginning” to “forever and ever,” the story of God’s love for mankind. Nearly every book references the Bible’s other books. It is integrated and complementary. What is the purpose of isolating one book?
2. There is a debating tactic called “setting up the premises in your favor,” by which you win an argument before it starts by saying, “If you can’t show me the exact proof that I specify, then I win.” Given that the Bible does not contain the phrase, “Jesus is God,” are you saying that there is no other indicator that will convince you that He is?
3. Are you really curious about whether Jesus is God, or have you made up your mind already?
4. Have you prayed about this? Peter asked Jesus directly. You can, too.
5. Whom do you say Jesus is? If He is not God, but rather a man to whom God gave special power and authority, does that change the Gospel or the fulfillment of Messianic prophesies for you? Do you think the prophesies said that God would come as a man? Would a not-God man — even a super-man — be able to atone for my sin? If so, does that mean He lived a sinless life? If so, what is the difference then between Him and God, since all men are sinful?
6. I know that there abound theories that since the Gospel of Mark was the first book written in the New Testament (chronologically), the idea that Jesus was God did not arise until later books were written, in which this is more clearly stated. In other words, that the apostles and authors of those books made it up later. Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God? If so, why then not use passages from these other books to answer your question about whether Jesus is God?
7. Do you believe that the nature, scope and ways of God may be in some ways incomprehensible to us? Or do you only believe in things that you can grasp for yourself?
8. Why did you write this post? And I mean that sincerely. What was your purpose? Did you achieve it?
Thank you for your patience and candor.
In Christ,
Lisa
I cited evidence within the prayer that has not been refuted that demonstrates the Lord Jesus is the recipient of this prayer. You can cite Bock all day. I have cited at least one author scholar that agrees with my position. I can gladly cite others.
Marc,
You wrote,
I have not used Acts 1:24 as my sole basis for asserting that the Lord Jesus is God.
This is what philosophers call a red herring, which is something that misleads or distracts from the issue at hand. The issue is not whether Acts you have used Acts 1.24 as your sole basis for asserting Jesus is God. The issue is whether Acts 1.24 can be used as even a piece of evidence that Jesus is actually God–as even a part of your basis for believing and teaching this.
You continued,
. . . and yes “Lord” refers to Jesus. Many other scholars (such as F.F. Bruce) also point to the Lord Jesus as to the recipient of the prayer. What i have done is cited evidence as well.
This is another red herring. The issue is not whether some scholars believe the addressee of the prayer in Acts 1.24 is Jesus. That is agreed, as I explained in my post. The issue is whether Jesus is clearly the addressee of the prayer. He is not. It may well be God the Father, as I believe and as many trinitarian scholars, like Darrell Bock, believe. And since this is the case, you simply cannot appeal to Acts 1.24 as evidence for the trinity doctrine. The verse must be thrown out. Again, we simply cannot say for certain one way or another who is being addressed in the prayer. I believe it is God the Father. You believe it is Jesus. Darrell Bock believes it is God the Father. FF Bruce believes it is Jesus. Think of it as a piece of evidence in a court case that is too unclear to be of any avail in proving either side of the case. That’s Acts 1.24. It proves nothing because we cannot say who the addressee is. Period.
Everything else you wrote regarding Acts 1.24 in the remainder of your comment is not relevant given that we cannot say clearly one way or the other who the addressee of the prayer is–except this piece of aspersion:
Again mythical definition time.
No, “again,” in casting such aspersions at me and other Christians here, you are being unchristian in the only sense that matters. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13.34-35). For your own sake, for God’s sake, for Jesus’ sake, and for the sake of the Christian community, I would rather you realize this than persuade you that Jesus is not actually God. I’m serious. Has not Jesus (and God) made it clear that this is most important?!
Marc
I ask again, who made the Lord Jesus ‘Lord’?
Best Wishes
John
Concerning your thread it ignores the fact that kardiognwstes means the same thing as being omniscient. Again mythical definition time.
You take the road where you think the prayer refers to the Father but then if you are proved wrong you fall back on the “hey it doesn’t mean that Jesus is God even if He is the recipient of this prayer.” Thus you not only deny how kardiognwstes is defined but proseuchomai as well.
I have not used Acts 1:24 as my sole basis for asserting that the Lord Jesus is God – and yes “Lord” refers to Jesus. Many other scholars (such as F.F. Bruce) also point to the Lord Jesus as to the recipient of the prayer. What i have done is cited evidence as well.
My first post in this thread has not been refuted concerning the fact that mark did believe the Lord Jesus is God. On December 31, 2013 at 6:39 pm I wrote:
Yes, Mark teaches that the Lord Jesus is God. In Mark 14:62 the Lord Jesus is the Son of Man that is referred to in Daniel chapter 7. In Daniel 7:14 He receives “pelach” (Aramaic) which is due unto God alone.
I even cited a lexicon that backed me up on this. What I did receive is someone posting a response citing passages where pelach wasn’t even found.
Marc,
I created an entire post (http://mindingthetruth.com/2014/01/06/a-note-on-acts-1-24/) for you, demonstrating that Acts 1.24 does not teach that Jesus is God. I demonstrated that the argument it does so is built upon two false assumptions or non sequitur‘s. Moreover, to demonstrate that the first false assumption is indeed false I cited for your a trinitarian scholar (Darrell Bock) of a staunchly trinitarian seminary (Dallas Theological Seminary) saying exactly that: “Who is the Lord referred to here? . . . The answer is less than clear. . . The Father is probably the actor here.”
So for you to continue citing Acts 1.24 as evidence Jesus is God is dishonest. But worse, for you to continue casting aspersion at us (me, Jaco, John, et. al.) and calling us names because we do not accept Acts 1.24 as evidence Jesus is God is uncharitable; and in that way it is unchristian in the only sense that matters. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13.34-35).
Since the non-Trinitarianism of Mark according to James McGrath is what started this thread, I thought I’d point out that McGrath has also argued that biblical reference to the heart as the seat of motivations was a popular misconception in the ancient world. If McGrath is right, then to argue over who really is the ultimate heart-knower is to argue over who really is the knower of an organ with mistaken attributes;-)
~Sean
In Jewish monotheism (based on the Bible) God alone is said to be the heart knower of all (1 Kings 8:39).
Keil and Delitzsch on Psalm 7:9: The reins are the seat of the emotions, just as the heart is the seat of the thoughts and feelings. Reins and heart lie naked before God – a description of the only kardiognwstees, which is repeated in Jer. 11.20, 20.12, Apoc. 2.23 (Commentary on the Old Testament, Psalms, Volume 5, C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, page 144).
Not only does Acts 1:24 teach that the Lord Jesus is the heart knower of all so does 1 Corinthians 4:5 and Revelation 2:23.
It doesn’t apply to Peter because nowhere does it teach that he knows the totality of the hearts of all people.
Cite the passages from the Bible concerning Enoch/Metatron.
Marc Taylor,
Great to see that there are times when you approximate being nice.
On your kardiognosis position:
1. There is no definitive way in which you or anyone can argue that Jesus is the one thought of as possessing kardiognosis in Ac. 1:24 for several reasons discussed above. Not Jesus, but God (Ac. 15:8) is the one who possesses kardiognosis. Kardiognosis, TO WHATEVER EXTENT, is therefore an ability of divine origin. Peter displayed this remarkable ability (Ac. 8:22), thanks to the spirit of revelation which rested upon him.
2. Even if the point of kariognosis were to be granted in the case of Jesus (not based on Ac. 1:24, but intuitively, since he would be the man appointed to judge – Ac. 17:39), then it would pose not threat to biblical monotheism either, since God bestowed upon this remarkable human the ability to do many divine things; God appointed him as king and judge of the coming kingdom to act as executor of God’s power and will (Ps. 2, Matt. 28:18). The idea of a created being acting in God’s stead – even to the same extent as would be required to do so perfectly – is not a foreign idea in ancient Jewish monotheism. Both Enoch/Metatron and Abel were said to be sitting on God’s throne of judgment, requiring full kardiognosis in order to execute DIVINE JUDGMENT without any notion of torturing monotheism as fabricated Trinitarianism has done. So no, since there is no limit to Jesus’ access of God’s divine spirit (cf. John 3:34), his bearing God’s glory would enable him to know hearts fully.
Calling Jesus “omnicient” reduces this fuller picture of what’s truly going on to a two-dimensional pencil drawing.
Thanks,
John,
Christ was properly worshiped therefore He is God.
Some may say that I “quote doctrinally biased scholars” but that is simply a ruse to continue clinging to their heresy.
Jaco,
I didn’t even bother to read the rest of your post because once I saw what you wrote concerning kardiognwstes there was no need to.
Prophets and others could know some of what was in the heart of others.
But…
1. They did not know the totality of what was in a person’s heart
and
2. They did not know the totality of what was in everyone’s heart
The Lord Jesus being the heart knower of all (omniscient) knows the totality of what is in everyone’s heart.
That is the difference but for some reason you still refuse to see it.
Marc
Don’t you understand that the game is up?
Your ‘trolling’ has got you nowwhere and you are on the verge of discrediting both yourslf and trinitarianism!
In your shennanegans you fail to see the ‘big picture’
The truth is self-evident and greater than your ‘hamfisted’ discourse on ‘latereuw’
The truth is staring you right in the eyes and you ignore it -psychologists describe this as ‘delusion’
Consider
Corinthians 8 vs 4-6
There is no God but ONE
There is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER
John 17 v3
FATHER the ONLY TRUE GOD
John 20 v 17
I am going to MY FATHER and your Father
To MY GOD and your GOD
Ephesians 1 v 17
THE GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ
Who did Christ pray to THE FATHER
Who did Christ ask us to pray to OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN
WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD THAN THE ONE CHRIST SERVED AND WORSHIPPED
Good- bye
John
Marc
Can you not see that ‘the game is up’.?
You do no credit to yourself or Trinitarianism by your confused babble.
You have to prove that your trivia overrises clear scripture/.
Corinthians 8 vs 4-6
There is no God but ONE
There is but ONE GOD THE FATHER
John 17 v 3
FATHER the ONLY TRUE GOD
John 20 v 17
I am going to MY FATHER and your Father
To MY GOD and your God
Ephesians
The GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
Who did Christ pray to? His FATHER
Who did Christ ask us to pray to ? OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN
Marc if you read these words and still can’t see the foolishness of your own position there is no hope at all for you!
There is but one God but The Father – and Christ is his SON – as Christ himself affirms!
Is that not simple enough!
Stop dredging!
WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD THAN THE ONE CHRIST SERVED AND WORSHIPPED.
Good-bye
John
1. “‘Lord’ had a very wide range, running from the equivalent of the English ‘sir’ up to the designation of God. It was occasionally used at the bottom end of its range to address the historical Jesus.” – Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God
“The Messiah’s Electing Prayers
This is the most emphatic prayer notice yet in Luke. Prayer itself is mentioned twice… It is generally agreed that tou theou stand as a rare use of the objective genitive, which indicates that Jesus’ prayer was directed towards God. Luke wants to make it clear that the choice of the Twelve Apostles was God’s election (cf. Acts 1:24), effected through the prayers of his Son.”
In the Book of Acts, God is the one who is the Origin of kardiognosis (15:8).
2. First your issue is with kardiognosis, NOW it is with the extent of it. Anyway, if kardiognosis renders someone identical to God, you have a problem, since Peter displayed that ability. Then, since the kardiognosis, which is per definition something originating from God which he also bestows upon his faithful worshippers, it is fully understandable that the one who received all executive power would also receive kardiognosis to the comparable extent. If it’s pathetic to you, then I’m really sorry to hear about your acid-reflux.
3. Eklegomai
Choosing or electing occurred in the among the followership of Jesus. God did the choosing, and his choice was enacted on earth by Jesus and the apostles. In Luke-Acts this pattern is followed: prayer and election. Election on earth reflected election by the One prayed to. LIKEWISE, in Luke 6 the man Jesus prays to God Almighty and elects the apostles whom God had elected. In Ac. 6:4, 5 the apostles prayed and afterwards they elected whom God had elected. Similarly, convinced that the holy spirit was behind the decisions (15:28), men were chosen and sent out (15:22). The pattern is therefore followed: God is consulted and his appointed servants enact His choosing. You still have no case.
4. Anadeixo is a derived word from deiknuo, also meaning to show or display or to point out. It is NOT a word ascribed to Jesus only (Luke 4:5, 7:3, 22:12, Ac. 10:28). Fact remains that Jesus chose his apostles AFTER praying and availing himself to the One who truly does the choosing, namely God Almighty.
In an oral community over-arching concepts dictate meaning of words. Hair-splitters and above all else, decontextualizers like you think that the first Christians’ brains worked like computer parsers. Not! A general word (anadeixo) used for official appointment could be ascribed to anybody doing the appointment, whether it be Jesus, God, or the apostles. But nice try anyway.
5. Ooh, logical fallacy: Latreuo involves prayer, BUT prayer does not necessarily involve latreuo. (Gold glitters, but not all that glitters is gold…). So this is a non-point.
On your Joel 2:32 attempt (and quoting obviously doctrinally biased scholars), I have a question: does application of the OT imply exact same identity of the referents involved?
6. No, you’re a bitter and sad hater. But you were cultivated in a religion that is by design dissatisfied with life, “totally depraved,” hence bitter and sad. You’re speaking as a hater, hence your hate-speech. And hence, again, my putting you on display here as someone who finds meaning in trolling blogs.
1. You skipped how Kyrios is applied to Jesus in Acts 1:21.
2. In Acts 8 it doesn’t teach Peter knew the TOTALITY of ALL hearts. Thus your argument doesn’t hold. How you can seriously appeal to this event and think this negates the fact that Christ is omniscient is pathetic.
3. Eklegomai
Acts 10:41 the Greek word is not the same as in Luke 6:13 and Acts 1:24.
Acts 13:17 does not have to do with choosing the apostles.
Acts 15:7 refers not to the initial choosing of Peter but of his call to preach to the Gentiles.
Acts 22:14 – see Acts 10:41
Thus none of these passages help your case at all.
4. The specific word anadeiknumi is only used one other time and that to the Lord Jesus in Acts 10:1. Too bad you can’t change this fact. You made a mess of eklegomai so try not to do it with this word as well.
5. Also one of the ways of offering latreuw was by prayer (Luke 2:37) and according to 1 Corinthians 1:2 (as well as 2 Timothy 2:22) Christians are those that pray to the Lord Jesus. Thus the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus was and is to be worshiped.
a. NIDNTT: categorizes 1 Corinthians 1:2 epikaluew (call upon) under (#10) “General prayer” (NIDNTT 2:874, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C. Brown).
b. Robertson and Plummer: This goes back to Joel 2.32, and involves the thought of faith, the common bond of all. See Rom. 10.12, 13. Here, as there, St. Paul significantly brings in the worship of Christ under the O.T. formula for worship addressed to the LORD God of Israel. To be a believer is to worship Christ (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, page 3).
c. Vincent: Call upon the name (epikaloumenoiv to onoma). Compare Romans x. 12; Acts ii. 21. The formula is from the Septuagint. See Zech. xiii. 9; Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 4; Psalm cxv. 17. It is used of worship, and here implies prayer to Christ. The first christian prayer recorded as heard by Saul of Tarsus, was Stephen’s prayer to Christ, Acts vii. 59.
http://www.godrules.net/library/vinc…ncent1cor1.htm
d. Easton: To cry for help, hence to pray (Genesis 4:26 ). Thus men are said to “call upon the name of the Lord” (Acts 2:21; 7:59; 9:14; Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 1:2). (Easton Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Call)
http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?n=694
6. Calling you a heretic is not hate speech. It’s the truth. You have been shown time and again the Lord Jesus is God but your mythical word definitions trump all.
Ok, let’s see…
“‘Lord’ had a very wide range, running from the equivalent of the English ‘sir’ up to the designation of God. It was occasionally used at the bottom end of its range to address the historical Jesus.” – Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God
Verse 6: this is an address to Jesus before his ascension. In the following verses the narrative and the narrating scope change. As Jesus addressed God Almighty to show him who to choose as his 12 apostles, the apostles addressed God Almighty to show them who to replace Judas Iscariot. And several scholars agree.
Two points: 1) Knowing the hearts (argumentum ad nauseam) was the ability granted human worshippers thanks to God Almighty bestowing holy spirit upon them. I demonstrated it in Acts 8, which you conveniently ignore.
2) Neither you nor any from among your ilk ever address this fact: It is not the act of worship (ambiguous term) which determines the status of the one address. It is instead the understanding of the status of the one addressed which shapes and dictates the extent of worship. Since Jesus is still alive in the lives of Christians and by God’s holy spirit he is also present, it is only fair that he could be addressed as the exalted man (1 Tim. 2:5) and elder brother (Ro. 8:29).
This is false. Luke, who borrowed 50% of his Gospel from Mark, knew very well that God was the Ultimate Chooser (Mk. 13:20). In Acts, election or choosing is performed by Jesus (Ac. 1:2, 9:15), by God (1:24, 10:41, 13:17, 15:7, 22:14) and by men (Ac. 15:22, 25). Since God did the choosing in the first place, the exalted human Jesus appointed to act as God’s executive, and the apostles on earth God’s and Jesus’ ambassadors, then of course various role-players could be involved in “choosing.” If one’s reading of texts is disconnected and (in your case) doctrinally obsessed, scripture gets abused in the process.
O please! Anadeixo is a derived word from deiknuo, also meaning to show or display or to point out. It is NOT a word ascribed to Jesus only (Luke 4:5, 7:3, 22:12, Ac. 10:28). Fact remains that Jesus chose his apostles AFTER praying and availing himself to the One who truly does the choosing, namely God Almighty.
Nonsense. Latreuo is given to God (consistently). Since Jesus is in the presence of God’s glory, and if indeed the kurios in 2:22 refers to Jesus, then rendering latreuo before Almighty would require a pure heart before the lord Messiah. But nice try anyway.
If you think I’m fazed by the insults of an indoctrinated no-body…think again. Take your Evangelical hate-speech somewhere else.
LInda
The ‘gremlins’ seemed to have got into my keyboard – hence the strange end to my last post!
So sorry!
Just a couple more verses
Matthew 28 v 20 “Behold I am with you always” -often words used by a person departing this life.
Obviously it is ‘in spirit’
John 10 v 30
“I and the Father are one”
The Greek word used to signify ‘one’ is ‘hen’
This word means ‘in agreement’ or having a common purpose; 1 Corinthians 3v8 Philippians 2 v2
If John wanted to signify a numerical ‘one’ he would have used the word ‘ eic’
Philippians Chapter 2
“Did not seek equality with God as something to be grasped’
This is in contrast with the First Adam who did (Genesis 3 v5)
Note that with verses 6 -8 it is Christ who is the subject -while God is the subject in verse 9 .
1 John 3 v16
‘ love of God because He laid down his life for us”
The word “God’ appears in NO Greek text – and this is rectified in scholarly Bibles.
As the RSV notes ” by this we know love , that He laid down his life for us”
Linda, there is NOT A SINGLE TRINITARIAN PROOF TEXT and in the end one has to
choose between Catholic tradition and the scriptures.
NO Bible verses come anywhere close to ‘over-riding’ John 17v3 John 20 v 17 Ephesians 1 v 17 1 Corinthians 8 v 6 and many more.!
I wish you well on your journey!
Every Blessing
John
Linda Woody,
Ironically LInda, you are criticising others for doing precisely what you have just done
– and from what I can judge, you are doing it from the most superficial of information bases!
It will take me a while to deal with the verses you cite – but for now I will deal with the first 5.
In Genesis Chapter 1 we have the ‘E’ author using the word ‘elohim’ to describe God.
“Elohim’ is a plural word” as your programmers will have told you .. and is used to denote the
importance of the person being addressed. Some people speak of ‘plurals of intensity’
Please refer to Strongs Hebrew Concordance Ref. 430 – where you will see the usage of ‘elohim’
in the scriptures. It is used to mean –
-God
-gods
-Judges
-Rulers
-false Gods
Thus we have ‘elohim’ being used in Judges 16 v 23 to refer to ‘our god Dagon’
John 1 v 1
This is the Trinitarians delight – but just consider for one moment the grammatical
problems.
Consider the third part of John 1 v1 –
” and the word became flesh ‘
” kai theos en ho logos’
You will note
– the lack of the definite article (ho) in connction with ‘theos’
– the syntax whereby ‘logos’ is the subject of the verse
The NAB Bible suggests that this means that ;logos’ is in a sense ‘qualitative’ .. i.e. a quality
of God. Note that the Moffatt and Barclay Bibles use the word ‘divine’
This is a complex issue but again the NAB Bible directs our attentoin to the concept
of “Word Wisdom’ as the agency of creation.
One can argue that WW is in fact God’s Holy Spirit.
Genesis 1 v14
“and the Word became flesh…”
Does ‘logos’ (which is frequently disingenuously capitalised) not mean ‘Holy Spirit’
and tie in with Luke 1 v35 (addressing Mary)”… the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high willovershadow you.
Isaiah 7 v 14
” and his name shall be called Immanue” (God with us)
Just two quick points here
(i) The scripture does not say He is God with us. t’s his NAME
(ii) Christ was never called Immanuel except in the verse which repeats the
‘prophesy’ in the NT.MATTHEW 28:20
“Behold I am with you always” – is open to wide interpretation. recently by someone
TDNT: Calling on the Lord ek katharas kardias (2 Tm. 2:22) is the same as worship en kathara suneideesei (2 Tm. 1:3). In the formal speech of the
Pastorals the pure conscience is the total standing of the Christian. This is particularly plain when the difference between the life of the Christian and that of the heretic is formulated in compendious confessions (7:918, sunoida,
Maurer).
Two points worth noting:
1. Calling on the Lord Jesus from a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22) is the same as worshiping God with a clear conscience (2 Timothy 1:3). The
Greek word for “serve” in 2 Timothy 1:3 is latreuw. There is no difference then between the worship (latreuw) that is to be given to God and the worship (latreuw) afforded to the Son.
2. The Christian is one who worships the Lord Jesus as God while the heretic is one who denies such actions to Him as God.
Same old Jaco with his mythical dictionary to boot.
Acts 1:24-25 – Lord is used in reference to the Lord Jesus in v.6 and just before the prayer in v. 21.
Knowing the hearts applies elsewhere to the Lord Jesus in Acts in that He is also prayed to in other passages (7:59-60; 9:14, 21; 22:16). Furthermore, Peter (who most likely led this prayer) applies the same knowledge to Christ in John 21:17.
Chosen is always used in reference to the Lord Jesus by Luke in choosing the apostles (Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2).
Show is used only one other time in the NT and that by the same author in reference to the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1.
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for your comment.
“you do not start from a position of believing that Jesus was who He said He was”
To the contrary! I have been trying follow Jesus since I was born again in 1978. My goal is precisely to believe Jesus, and his apostles, including Paul, who I believe really understood his message. My views are based on how I understand all the texts you cite, and more. Unfortunately for me, this sometimes puts me at odds with other traditions.
Though you seem to write me off, I will address a few quickly:
““By this we have known the love of God, because that One laid down His life for us.” I John 3:16. Jesus is referred to here as God, that One.”
No, God can’t die. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+1:16-18&version=NRSV) The one who laid down his life there is Jesus. That’s the consistent NT message – God sent Jesus, and Jesus did the dying. The idea that God himself died for us, honestly, is a confusion. Look, for example, at the start of all of Paul’s letters – he distinguishes between God and Jesus every time, which seems to reflect that he considered them two, not one and the same.
“When Jesus ask in Mark 30, “Who touched my robe?” why do you assume He asked this because He didn’t know?”
Because that’s what we all normally infer from that sort of statement. I’ll grant you that what he says is logically consistent with his merely pretending not to know, to draw people out. But the default reading is on my side. Besides, we know from the other texts that Jesus is not omniscient; he says there as plainly as can be said that he doesn’t know something.
“You say, “His miracle-working power is limited by their lack of faith.” The Bible does not say this. God does not need the faith of humans to work miracles. He is all powerful, almighty, and does what He will.”
Of course, God needs nothing, and can do things directly. But how do you read: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:4-5&version=NRSV
I’ve given, it seems, the only obvious reading. If you have another, please share. I suggest that this passage should cause you to reconsider your assumption that Jesus did miracles because, as divine, he had omnipotence. The NT says that he was empowered by God’s spirit, and that it was the Father working through him, who did the miracles.
“Jesus allowed his physical form to be killed for me and for you. But He was not extinguished.”
I do not assume, and do not believe, that dying is being annihilated. So I agree that since Jesus died, it doesn’t follow that he then ceased (temporarily) to exist. But again, the scriptures are clear: God is immortal. This means, he can’t die. So anyone who died – like our Lord Jesus – is not God himself.
“We cannot fathom God’s ways, His nature or His redeeming grace.”
Amen to that. This won’t help, though, with contradictions in our theology. Look up the word “mystery” in the NT. You’ll see that not once is any author there using it to paper over theory-generated contradictions. It basically means, something which formerly was unknown, but now by God’s further revelation, is known. (And so, apparently, is neither unintelligible, nor apparently contradictory – because it is *known*, by us.) This habit of relying on mystery-appeals is central to catholic tradition, but not to NT Christianity.
“It’s easy to see what the underlying belief system is by the way we “interpret” God’s word. And there’s where we’re prideful.”
True! It’s clear that you’re looking at Mark through the filter of “Jesus is God” – something taught by (I presume, evangelical) tradition. You’ve just been given some clear and strong reasons to think that the author of Mark *doesn’t* think Jesus is God, but rather God’s Messiah. Are you too proud to reconsider?
Your parting shot proof-text is interesting:
“Mark 9:37 (NRSV) Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.”
Note that this presupposes that Jesus is someone other than God. It presupposes that God sent him, and Jesus’s point is that if you welcome the weak and vulnerable, he considers as if you’ve welcomed him (Jesus). And when you welcome, receive the one sent (Jesus) you as it were receive or welcome the one who sent him, namely God. Yes, in the whole book we see that Jesus is God’s Anointed One, the one uniquely sent by God. Mark is really emphatic about that – it’s all through the book.
Lisa, I appreciate the humble spirit and passionate concern of your comment. May God bless you as you continue to read and consider his word. May I suggest that this could be helpful: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4054
God bless,
Dale
Re: Acts 1.24
If it’s a “source” one wants rather than “opinion”:
“Who is the Lord referred to here? Is the Father meant or the Lord Jesus? Barrett (1994: 103) and Marshall (1980: 66) believe the latter, pointing to verse 2, where Jesus is the selector of the apostles, as well as to Luke 6:13; John 6:77; 13:18; 15:16, 19. Jesus is also addressed as Lord in Acts 1:21. The answer is less than clear. Usually, however, the Father performs the action, and Jesus mediates in Acts. In addition, the Father knows hearts in Acts 15, so the Father is probably the actor here (Conzelmann 1987: 12; parabolically, Luke 16:15; Rom. 8.27; 1 Thess. 2:4; Weiser 1981:71).”
Trinitarian Darrell Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary, 2007, p. 89.
Same old Marc Taylor…
Opinion opinion opinion.
No sources cited.
Total garbage.
Marc Taylor,
I am delighted to see that we’re actually getting something like an argument here. If God allowed Jesus to know the totality of all the hearts, then God would be the Source of such activity and Jesus the means of it. My position holds true to the ancient biblical usage and understanding, namely:
1) God is self-sufficient and needn’t be granted anything
2) God empowers and enables creatures to display remarkable divine abilities
3) These displays of divine magnificence remains functional, as God is still the Source of those
4) Such obedient beings who do receive those abilities do so precisely since they are not-God
I don’t have to. The pronoun “him” in both passages is ambiguous and therefore needs interpretation. Defaulting to “this refers to Jesus Christ” is simply dogma-driven interpretation.
All the authorities I cited (Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian alike) provide an interpretive apparatus and argument for their position; other than what you’re doing.
Again, no. Your latching onto obscure and ambiguous texts to push for a fabricated doctrine prevents you from allowing the context to clarify it. You only allow functionality as far as it suits your doctrine. You might want to keep a rabbinical slogan in mind: “Scripture in the dark cannot interpret scripture in the light.”
So. As the primary executive of God’s will, obedient man Jesus of Nazareth received all intended authority in heaven and earth, thanks to his Almighty God, Yahweh (Matt. 28:18, cp. Ps. 8:6, 1 Cor. 11:3).
I am not commenting to take down the writer of this post or to play “gotcha.” I am not commenting to prove I’m right. The Bible is clear that Jesus is fully God and fully man. Many of your comments on the book of Mark show that you do not start from a position of believing that Jesus was who He said He was. Therefore, no amount of Scripture quoting can convince you.
I am not a scholar, just a new Christian. So for what it’s worth, here’s what I see.
At creation (Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7) God refers to Himself in plural form. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1. John repeatedly refers to Jesus as the Word (“the Word became flesh”), and Jesus Himself does.
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (God with us).” Isaiah 7:14. Pretty clear.
“Behold, I am with you always.” Matthew 28:20. A man can only be in one place at one time. God is in all places and times.
Jesus’ many references to “My Father” show His submission to the Father. God is the author of relationship, of love, of order, of authority. The Holy Trinity is the picture of perfect relationship and perfect submission. The Son submits to the Father. The Spirit submits to the Son: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” John 15:26
As Jesus said to Philip: “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” The text does not say, “He who has seen me has seen a creation or emissary of the Father.” And in John 10:30, Jesus says plainly, “I and my Father are one.”
Jesus “did not count EQUALITY WITH GOD a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Phil. 2:6-8. HE humbled HIMSELF. (Pardon the all-caps; I don’t know how to italicize in comments.). If you are equal to God, how is that different from being God?
All men are sinful. “Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.” John 8:21. The Gospel is that men are sinful and cannot have perfect relationship with a holy God. Substitutionary atonement cannot be made for me by any other sinful human, because those people are accountable for their own sin. If I commit a crime with another person, the other guy can’t serve my sentence, because he also is guilty. Redemption demands a holy and blameless sacrifice. Since no man has led a sinless life, Jesus did it for us. Only God is sinless and holy.
“By this we have known the love of God, because that One laid down His life for us.” I John 3:16. Jesus is referred to here as God, that One.
When Jesus ask in Mark 30, “Who touched my robe?” why do you assume He asked this because He didn’t know? In the Garden of Eden, God said to Adam, “Where are you? Did you eat from the tree? What have you done?” It wasn’t because He did not know these things. He often calls us, teaches us, leads us with questions. In Exodus 4, God asks Moses, “What is that in your hand?” and Moses answers, “A staff.” God knew what Moses had in his hand. When Jesus asked who touched His robe, it was so that He could bless her and others by His exchange with her. She realized she had been discovered, and she came to Him. That’s always what Jesus wants.
You say, “His miracle-working power is limited by their lack of faith.” The Bible does not say this. God does not need the faith of humans to work miracles. He is all powerful, almighty, and does what He will.
“No one is good but God alone.” Mark 10:18. You ask, “Is he hinting that really, this man shouldn’t call him ‘good’ because this man doesn’t recognize that Jesus is really God himself?” No, Jesus is saying that the man is correct. Only God is good. Jesus is God.
In Mark 15, you say that God cannot die, but Jesus died, therefore He cannot be God. God cannot be vanquished or extinguished, but this is not what happened. Jesus allowed his physical form to be killed for me and for you. But He was not extinguished. Indeed, He said to the thief on the cross next to His, “This day, you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43. Killing the body did not end Jesus. On the contrary, it was the method by which Jesus conquered death. That’s the whole point. Only God has power over death.
We cannot fathom God’s ways, His nature or His redeeming grace. Yet we try to put God Almighty, the great I Am into a box that we can understand. We reject any part of Him that we cannot figure out. We judge God as though He were human. He isn’t. His thoughts are profound, and His power is unimaginable. We are like ants listening to Mozart. It is God who reveals Himself to us, not the other way around. This is why the illiterate can often understand God and the over-educated often cannot.
We all worship. We worship either ourselves or God. Those whom God has spoken to believe that He is who He says He is; those whom God has not, don’t. It is through this filter that every one of us reads Scripture. I suppose we could go back and forth, quoting this verse or that passage in support of our argument. It’s easy to see what the underlying belief system is by the way we “interpret” God’s word. And there’s where we’re prideful. God does not need US to interpret — or even understand — His Word for it to be truth.
Pride is the original sin, the one that gives birth to every other sin. Beloved friend, be very careful about proclaiming Jesus to be ignorant and demons to be helpful. Jesus said He will judge false teachers more harshly than others (Mark 9:42). Right after He said that He is God. (Mark 9:37).
Jaco,
If God allowed Jesus to know the totality of all the heart’s then that would mean the Omniscient God created another Omniscient God. Your position doesn’t accord with how the words are properly defined in the Bible.
You offered no other passage that accords with John’s writing style. None.
I can also cite a host of scholars that say the Lamb is receiving latreuw in Revelation 22:3 but unlike your position I can cited evidence from within the context that supports this – you can’t.
Even if I do demonstrate that the Lord Jesus is the recipient of prayer in Acts 1:24-25 you will still deny that proseuchomai is rendered unto God alone…just like how you deny the meaning of kardiognwstes. Prove you wrong in one area then you will hide in another.
Matthew 28:18: The Lord Jesus has all-power. That’s what Almighty means.
John,
I just added to the site the other day an “email questions/comments” box at the end of the “about page” for just this reason. Since I don’t have commenting available on the site, I want anyone who wants to ask me something or share a comment to be able to do so some way. And this is the best way I can think of. So feel free to shoot me your thoughts that way.
By the way, re: Hebrews, I agree with everything you wrote up to “and so on,” but I’m not understanding what you wrote after that regarding the material used in Hebrews 1.
Also, I’m really glad to have you as a follower on the site. I always know who it is when I see someone from Zimbabwe has viewed a post! I also enjoy reading your contributions here on trinities.
Michael
Michael,
I really enjoyed your post on “Jesus higher than the angels”
Is there any way I can send some thoughts to you without cluttering the
Trinities site?
Trinitarians offer amazing ‘gymnastics’ to explain the subject you have addressed
but surely the truth is simple-
(i) The Hebrews believed that angels were ‘higher’ than humans
(ii) The risen Christ is second only to the Father in the Heavenly Realm
(iii) Therefore the unknown author of Hebrews reasoned that the risen
Christ is now ‘higher than the angels.
Trinitarians face impossible difficulties in trying to explain the introductory verses
to Hebrews 1
(a) Who did God speak through before these last days ?(1v1)
(b) Who did Christ inherit his most excellent name from ?(1v4)
(c) Who elevated Christ to Gods right side
And so on .
However Trinitarians must DENY that
(i) All the material in Hebrews 1 was available ‘in the public domain’ at
the time the unknown author penned the chapter
(ii)Much of the material used in Hebrews 1 was ‘cut and pasted’ from OT
scriptures – and some of Pauls writings.
Based on the above I conclude that Hebrews 1 is PURE TYPOLOGY.
If you are interested in more thoughts please let me know.
I am a ‘follower’ of your site.
Every Blessing
John
Ok, as you did 4 years ago, if you can’t answer a challenge, you simply repeat what my response challenged. Well done, argumentum ad nauseam.
Same as above. There’s a difference between redefining and contextualizing. Your filters…
Syntax?!?!? ROFL! Are you serious? So SYNTAX determines CONTENT?!?!?! You Trinitarians have a way to evoke such laughter from among Unitarians and Progressive Christians, goodness.
Anyway, here are some insightful references:
“[T]he verb latreuein occurs only twice [in Revelation]: once in 7:15, where it has God as its object, and once in 22:3, where even though there is a reference immediately preceding to the throne of God and of the Lamb, it is nevertheless specified that his servants worship or serve him, which in the context can only be a reference to God.” – James McGrath, Only True God, p. 72
“It is noticeable that in each case the object of the verb [latreuein], the one who is to be served/worshipped, is God. Apart from one or two references to false worship, the reference is always to the cultic service/worship of God. In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship (latreuein) to Jessus .” – (bold mine) James Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, p. 13.
Even Trinitarian Christopher Mark Tuckett admits in his Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers:
“The situation is not entirely clear, since the language could be taken as referring to God alone on each occasion; and in any case John’s Greek is notoriously imprecise and idiosyncratic in its use of grammar, so that we cannot necessarily put too much weight on such details.” – p. 183
In Trinitarian Robert H Gundry’s Commentary on Revelation, he says:
“Jesus called his disciples his friends rather than his slaves (John 15:15). Hence ‘his slaves’ means God’s slaves rather than the lamb’s slaves, so that the face they’ll see is God’s. No longer will it be said: ‘No one has seen God at any time’ (John 1:18). They’ll ‘serve him’ means that his slaves will do priestly service of worship in the temple, which God and the lamb are…”
Even Trinitarian Robert H. Mounce says in his commentary, p. 398:
“The curse has been removed (cf. 22:3 with Gen 3:14-24), and God’s people are again privileged to ‘see his face’ (cf. 22:4 with Gen 3:8) and serve him.”
.
You still have to prove that Jesus is the recipient of it…
So, between Sam Shamoun and Bible scholars, guess whose arguments I’ll take more seriously…
In terms of Acts 1:24 the Greek word proseuchomai is always used in the New Testament in reference to prayer to God.
1. Louw/Nida: to speak to or to make requests of God – ‘to pray, to speak to God, to ask God for, prayer’ (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:
Based on Semantic Domains, 33.178, Pray – euchomai; proseuchomai; euchee, proseuche, page 409).
2.Vine: concerning proseuxomai writes that it “is always used of prayer to God” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Pray, page 871).
Praying to the Omniscient God is what took place in Acts 1:24-25.
Jaco denies how kardiognwstes is properly defined. His mythical word definitions are too difficult for him to let go of.
Christ is omnipotent but not Almighty? Jaco loves redefining the meaning of words.
Is there another passage in Revelation that will demonstrate by its syntax that the Lamb is being referred to when it reads “Him” in Revelation 22:3? Revelation 20:6 reads: …priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. According to verse 4 the “Him” of Revelation 20:6
refers to the Lamb. Revelation 20:6 then lets us know that the Lamb is included as the recipient of latreuo in Revelation 22:3.
Challenge for Jaco: Can Jaco provide a passage in Revelation where the same grammatical construction is used where it demonstrates his assertion?
Let me help him out….he can’t.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/latreuo.htm
——————
John,
The word used in Revelation 19:10 is proskynew which doesn’t always refer to the worship of God so your assertion doesn’t hold.
Latruew is due unto God alone. To deny this is to deny the obvious.
Marc
Regardless of possible bias, Strongs (ref 3000) lists all uses of ‘latreou’ – and in one one case is the word used to describe ‘worship’ -in all other cases it denotes service.
In Chapter 19 when John is told to ‘worship God’ the word used is NOT ‘latreou’.
I agree with Jaco that in many cases it is difficult to determine precisely who is being addressed.
Marc, have you not noticed that the verses you select are obscure and arguable at the very least.
In any case does the import of Christs own straightforward words not over-ride the vague verses.
Blessings
John
A great article: http://www.postost.net/2013/04/jesus-lord-mark
Marc Taylor has missed the point again. His doctrinal filters prevent him from accurately seeing that Michael demonstrated (thanks to HONEST scholarship) that the text is ambiguous and most likely refers to God Almighty as the recipient of prayer and the bearer of kardiognosis in this case. BUT EVEN IF the benefit of the doubt is given to desperate Trinitarians, it still proves nothing, since it is only fair that Jesus, after RECEIVING HOLY SPIRIT from God Almighty, would now be able to know people’s hearts.
Marc Taylor fails to understand that RECEIVING power renders the recipient by definition not-God. Secondly, as God’s agent and vice-regent, one would expect Jesus to have full executive power, as anything less than that would reflect God having less-than-full confidence in his human anointed one. “Being omnipotent” is an ontological judgment Marc Taylor simply defaults to thanks to successful indoctrination. Functionality is consistently ignored.
Wrong again. In the biblical canon, Jesus NOWHERE receives latreuo. Not even in Revelation 22:3 (another ambiguous text).
See also this:
http://www.armchair-theology.net/bible-study/how-not-to-use-strongs-concordance/
John,
Strong’s gives the general meaning of the word but it does not deal with specifics for each passage as to how the word is to be specifically understood.
Since Strong’s Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong’s numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong’s numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance
Marc
Thanks.
Now how do you tie your comment in with the ‘occurrance’ of ‘latreuw’ as described by
Strongs Concordance Ref 3000e
That is
-offer (1)
-serve (15)
-served (1)
-service (1)
-worship (1)
-worshipper (1)
-worships (1)
I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Blessings
John
a. Concerning Acts 1:24 Michael takes both positions in that even if one did prove that that the Lord Jesus is the recipient of prayer this doesn’t prove He is God.
So if Michael is proved wrong in one area he can easily cling to to the other.
Once again we see how the meaning of kardiognwstes is denied. It is the same thing as being Omniscient (God).
b. The Bible teaches that right now the Lord Jesus has all-power (Matthew 28:18). This is the same thing as being omnipotent/Almighty (God). I have cited several sources that teach this power is “absolute” – even more can be cited.
c. John, concerning latreuw the bond-servants are those that are affording to the Lord Jesus this worship which is due unto God alone.
Marc
In your post of 5th January 2014 at 3,31p.m. you note that “in the NT the word
‘latreou’ denotes actions that are always evaluated positively when God is the
grammatical object and negatively with reference to any other object”
I would be grateful if you could explain this -and relate this to the analysis contained in Strongs
Concordance ref 3000e
You mentioned laterou specifically in connection with Revelation 22 v 3 but the
various texts relate this to service performed by bond-servants.
I’d be interested to receive your thoughts on this aspect.
Blessings
John
Michael,
Congratulations on a most excellent paper!
Every Blessing
John
I just posted on my site (mindingthetruth.com) a terse analysis showing why Acts 1.24 fails as a proof text for the trinity doctrine. Here’s the link:
http://mindingthetruth.com/2014/01/06/a-note-on-acts-1-24/
For trinitarians to have a case AT ALL they need to show (among so many other things) that Jesus’ great works were not due to God’s acting in and through the man but that he was inherently different so as to perform these from within himself.
Yes! And the Scriptures could not be any clearer on that point:
“The son can do nothing of himself.” (John 5.19)
“The words that I say to you, I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me performs his works.” (John 14.10)
“Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God . . . by miracles, wonders, and signs that God did through him.” (Acts 2.22)
“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” (Acts 10.38)
Etc.
Etc.
Yep, same old Marc Taylor. So I bet if my position agrees with eminent scholars’ such as Edward Schillebeeckx, James Dunn, James McGrath, JAT Robinson, John Hick, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Hendrikus Berkhof, Maurice Casey and others…theirs is also mere opinion. No wonder no-one takes you seriously.
Anyway, (and here again it just shows that you can’t teach someone logic) the trinitarian has to read the bible through trinitarian filters and cultish blinkers by insisting that all Jesus’ great works and abilities meant that he was ontologically God by default. They have to ignore Jesus’ own admission of his receiving the ability, initiative and wisdom to do and say the things he did. They have to ignore John 3:34 stating clearly that the utterly human Jesus had full access to the Almighty’s spirit, as well as Acts 2:22 where it explicitly states that God performed great works THROUGH the man Jesus. Fearing the ancient First Century Jewish Sitz im Leben like the plague, trinitarians like the one above have to ignore the custom of shelichut or agency as the precise understanding for Jesus’ receiving all executive power. Their partial reading of the texts prevent them from realising that someone RECEIVING authority by definition cannot God who is self-sufficient. James McGrath makes it clear in his “Only True God” that Jesus could receive all authority and act in God’s stead precisely since he was subordinate to God and therefore ontologically not-God. (But, of course his is a mere opinion…). For trinitarians to have a case AT ALL they need to show (among so many other things) that Jesus’ great works were not due to God’s acting in and through the man but that he was inherently different so as to perform these from within himself. Judging by the attempts by Marc Taylor above, we can’t expect any proposal anytime soon.
By the sound of it, is off to troll somewhere else…
All
Just a couple of observations.
1 Corinthians vs 4 -6 is highly instructive
The ‘one Lord’ is easy to identify because the ‘one God’ made him so.
The ‘one God’ is easy to identify because Christ himself identifies him as
‘the ONE GOD and FATHER.
Marc makes a fundamental error in that he ignores the aspect of ‘domain’ in his submissions.
It is evident that in many cases the ‘domain’ is ‘all of creation except the Lord God Almighty”
Revelation 19 v 12 is an example of this.
Marc, I’m sure you are a closed-minded time waster but you certainly do provide some good ‘target-practice’ for some of us!
Blessings
John
Just pointing out the obvious here, but ?? ????? ???????????? (“you Lord, who know hearts”) in Acts 1.24, which Marc keeps pounding, does not certainly refer to Jesus. It may well refer to God (the Father). This is the position, for example, of trinitarian commentator Darrell Bock (of staunchly trinitarian Dallas Theological Seminary—they will not admit nontrinitarian students), who cites other scholars who agree. He writes,
Who is the Lord referred to here? Is the Father meant or the Lord Jesus? Barrett (1994: 103) and Marshall (1980: 66) believe the latter, pointing to verse 2, where Jesus is the selector of the apostles, as well as to Luke 6:13; John 6:77; 13:18; 15:16, 19. Jesus is also addressed as Lord in Acts 1:21. The answer is less than clear. Usually, however, the Father performs the action, and Jesus mediates in Acts. In addition, the Father knows hearts in Acts 15, so the Father is probably the actor here (Conzelmann 1987: 12; parabolically, Luke 16:15; Rom. 8.27; 1 Thess. 2:4; Weiser 1981:71). (Bock, Acts,Baker Exegetical Commentary (2007), p. 89.)
So much for Marc’s appeal to “authorities” on this verse. They’re not agreed! Not even the trinitarian “authorities”!
But, even if the addressee is Jesus in Acts 1.24, that does not mean the speaker regards Jesus as actually God. It would be either a) an example of an agent of God being described as God himself—a phenomenon pervasive in the Scriptures and the Jewish literature generally of the Second Temple period—or b) evidence that among the powers God gave to Jesus, knowing or searching hearts was one of them.
It’s no wonder one hardly finds Acts 1.24 being pressed by (sophisticated) trinitarians as a proof text for their doctrine.
Michael
Signing off for better things. To keep on what those who refuse to believe how Almighty, omnipotence, omniscience etc. are properly defined would be most unprofitable.
You want to play make believe and employ fairy tale meanings have it at.
Thanks Michael for ignoring how Almighty is defined.
Pathetic that you play the game of make believe.
More on kardiognwstes:
The Lord is addressed as “the one who knows the heart” (kardiognwsta). This is an expression used only twice in the New Testament (here and in Acts 15:8), but that points to a concept almost proverbial in biblical literature – that is, that God is omniscient, who knows the innermost being of humans and foreordains human destiny. In this prayer, there is the consciousness that the Lord is all-knowing and has already chosen Judas’s replacement. This understanding is closely bound up thematically with the prior choosing of the apostles by Jesus (cf. Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:2) and the prescience of God involving these events, as presented in the interpretation of the Old Testament Psalms in Acts 1:16, 20 (Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament, Persevering Together in Prayer: The Significance of Prayer in the Acts of the Apostles, page 190).
So much for Jaco’s opinion.
Jaco,
Good post! And good to know about Marc.
Another way to think about the authority, power, etc. of Jesus is to ask,
If it is possible for God to give such authority, power, etc. to a human being (who is not God)—and nothing from the Scriptures nor reason shows it is impossible—then how could God tell us he has done so if not in the manner the Scriptures tell us Jesus has received his authority, power, etc. from God?
According to the Gospel of John (5.19ff), when accused by his Jewish contemporaries of making himself equal to God by calling God his Father, Jesus denied the accusation, defending himself by declaring, in an extended discourse and in no uncertain terms, his complete dependence upon God (5.19ff). “The son can do nothing of himself,” he said (5.19; compare John 8.28).
Likewise, according to the Acts of the Apostles (2.22), the Apostle Peter, the man upon whom Jesus, in the Gospel of Matthew (16.18), said he would build his church as upon a rock, described Jesus as “a man attested by God . . . by miracles, wonders, and signs that God did through him.” And this is the very first properly “Christian” sermon preached, according to Acts.
Trinitarians can resort to all sorts of kenotic theories about God the Son emptying himself and then being “refilled” and so on, but for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, surely it is obvious that all this is just so much “gymnastics” and “scratching around,” to use John’s colorful words!
Michael
John,
Christ has all power in all places – that is omnipotence which is the same thing as being Almighty. God would never allow a mere person to possess what He alone is.
And concerning latreuw (w is the long o in Greek) you are in error. It is how it is used in the New Testament.
1.The ministry denoted by latreuein is always offered to God (or to heathen gods…R. 1:25…Ac. 7:42) (TDNT 4:62, latreuw, Strathmann).
2. in Biblical Greek always refers to the service of the true God or of heathen deities (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, copyright 1982, page 371).
3. As used in the New Testament, the word latreuo denotes actions that are always evaluated positively when God is the grammatical object and negatively with reference to any other object (Karen H. Jobes in Moises
Silva’s “Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics, copyright 1994 revised and expanded edition from 1983, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, page 203).
—————
Jaco,
Jaco quotes himself as if he has the final say on these theological matters, apparently forgetting that his own opinion was formulated in disregard to what the words of the Bible actually mean. Danker and many others like him just can’t see what Jaco in his brilliance has figured out. Good thing for the rest of us Jaco came along and has corrected all of them.
Pride.
Jaco still ignores how kardiognwstes is defined. He’s figured out what others just can’t understand. Once again good thing Jaco is here to set us all straight.
From a brief perusal of the exchanges above, I have noted the following:
Marc Taylor quotes dictionaries as if these have the final say on theological matters, apparently forgetting that these dictionaries were compiled by authors who also came to their own conclusions regarding these matters. No dictionary has the final say. If that were the case, then we would not have had celebrated scholars who have written on these matters and have come to opposite conclusions that those by the authors of dictionaries.
Then, it is false that pelach’ means cultic worship. It does may include it, but does not mean that by default. The standardised LXX by Theodotion has pelach translated douleusosin, NOT latreusosin.
As he did 4 years ago, Marc Taylor still beats the dead horse on kardiognostis, “all authority” etc., while still forgetting Jesus’ functionality in all of this, not ontology in any of it. In other words, even though something like raising the dead can only be performed by God, Jesus’ doing so does not exclude his receiving the power to do so. While Jesus explicitly stated (particularly in John chapters 5 to 8) that he received these powers, and functions in God’s stead, Marc Taylor insists that Jesus had these ontologically and only functionally subjected himself to God. Circularity in argumentation has never been this clear.
Finally, James Dunn in his latest book, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? he shows how inadequate these attempts by trinitarians are who pounce on “worship,” “doxologies,” etc. to “prove” that Jesus is God. Nothing of the sort. Not even close.
So no, Marc Taylor still has zippo to offer.
Just a friendly warning. Marc Taylor is a troll who was banned from another Trinity-discussion blog. He sabotages conversations and when his nicely stream-lined theology gets refuted, resort to personal attacks. Dale, please don’t let this happen here.
Marc
Just been looking at your earlier post (January 3 January at 4,56p.m.)
You mention that He (Christ) receives ‘latreuw’)
I presume that you mean ‘ latreou’ ? (Strongs Concordance Ref 3000(e))
-this is derived from the scripture which states –
” kai hoi douloi auto latreusoin auto ”
” and his servants will serve him”
As Strongs Greek Interlinar indicates the word is used as follows
-offer (i)
-serve (15)
-served (i)
-service (1)
-worship (1)
-worshipper (i)
– worships (1)
In the context referred to above the word is used to refer to persons employed to perform a task
I find very little textual variation in this verse -although Textus Receptus uses the word ‘slaves’ (bond servants)
Best Wishes and blessings
John
Marc
The Almighty can choose as many people posessing ‘all power’ as he wishes.
Notice that Christ says ‘He has been given all power”
Trinitarians mis-use Philippians 2 to assert that GOD emptied himself of something.
However note that in Philippians 2 verses 5, 6 and 7 CHRIST is the subject of every verb – and in verses 8 and 9 it is GOD who is the subject..
Unitarians assert that unlike the first Adam, Christ did not seek equality with God (Gen 3 v 5) but emptied himself of his will (ego) and was obedient even unto death on the cross.
By the way – if Christ is the ‘firstborn of creation’ how come he is also the creator?
In what sense in what sense is Christ the Creator?
Fifty texts tell us that GOD is creator. SO the scriptures tell us that there is a NEW creation in which WE as believers are among many brothers and sisters.
Marc, it’s all so simple and logical.
Extricate yourself fron this confusion!
Every Blessing
John
Clearly we are talking about the ‘new creation’
When?
He always had it as God then during the incarnation He chose not to always employ it but after His resurrection “The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (TDNT 5:895, pas, Reicke).
If the Lord Jesus is not God (as you and others insist) but yet He has all power in heaven and earth did the Almighty create another Almighty?
Marc
Who was it that gave Christ his authority?
Blessings
John
Thanks for pointing out what Trinitarians already believe – that Christ is a Man.
But the Bible also teaches that Christ has all power in all places – that is the same thing as being omnipotent/Almighty.
On Matthew 28:18:
1. Danker: the right to control or command, authority, absolute power, warrant
Of Jesus’ total authority Mt 28:18 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, exousia, page 353).
2. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: Christ possesses the attributes of God: omnipotence (Matt. 28:18) (2:92, deity of Christ, A.H. Leitch).
3. TDNT: His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as kurios (Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth (1:679, earth, Sasse).
Many more can be added but yeah I know those who deny the Lord Jesus is God know so much more than those written above (as well as many others) that somehow they figured out what the likes of Danker etc just couldn’t see.
Ridiculous
Marc
“You are confusing functional subjection with ontological inferiority’
Marc, that is a great example of the half-baked gymnastics which Trinitarins revert to when confronted with
1 Corinthians 15 ! (I’ve seen this one many times before!)
The problem for Trinitarians is that their response is without any scriptural support!
On the contrary, the scriptures are quite explicit about who Christ is-
-In all cases Christ is appointed, sent and glorified by GOD
-He is God’s servant and mediator
-He only does what God commands.
You ‘scratch around’ ignoring fundamental aspects such as context, domain , time frame -and just plain logic..
Worse , you scorn people like Dale and MIchael who are CLEARLY more capable than you.
I suggest that you take a break and reflect more carefully on these matters!
God Bless
John
Almighty: having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Almighty?s=t
How much power does Matthew 28:18 tell us the Lord Jesus has?
All
All-Power = Almighty
There is no need to feel sorry because you can’t see the simplicity of this truth.
Marc,
You’re right: I’m a liar. And, you’re right: by not agreeing with your authorities’ interpretation of the Scriptures, I have thereby somehow accused them of lying about their knowledge of the original languages. There’s no non sequitur there at all.
At this point, it is clear to me that you are not open to examining whether you might be wrong about the trinity doctrine. And I am sorry for your sake for that. Since you have continued to frame the debate in terms of the meaning of words in the Scriptures, I will leave you with an a propos quote from Michael Servetus, the free thinking non-trinitarian brutally murdered by the trinitarian John Calvin,
“To me not only the syllables [of the words of the Scriptures] but all the letters and the mouths of babes and sucklings, even the very stones themselves, cry out there is one God the Father and his Christ, the Lord Jesus…Not one word is found in the whole Bible about the trinity nor about its persons, nor about the essence nor the unity of substance nor of the one nature of the several beings nor about any of the rest of their ravings and logic chopping.”
Michael,
I’m not going to take your word for it when you don’t take theirs. It’s unreasonable to believe that scholars such as Danker and others along with him all just somehow missed how words are properly defined.
TDNT: Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility, Mt. 11:29; 12:18-21; 2 C. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8 -> kenow 3, 661, 13-28, cf. the temptation of Jesus, Mt. 4:8 f. par. Lk. 4:5 f. Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.
A new situation is brought into being with the crucifixion and resurrection. The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (5:895, pas, Reicke).
I can account for the fact that the Lord Jesus was given all power but those who deny that He is God can not adequately justify their doctrine in that He has all power – which is the same thing as being “Almighty”.
Marc,
List the books and/or papers that you have published that demonstrate your knowledge of the original languages.
I’m disappointed you won’t take my word for it. At any rate, I’m not going to prove anything to you with some list, etc. Again, you are welcome to read my writing on my website (mindingthetruth.com), which I trust shows evidence enough of my facility with the Scriptures in their original languages.
Blessings to you.
Marc,
“All authority in heaven and on earth HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME . . .”
Michael, list
List the books and/or papers that you have published that demonstrate your knowledge of the original languages.
John,
You are confusing functional subjection with ontological inferiority in 1 Corinthians 15:28. Furthermore, just because Christ is subject to the Father does not mean that Christ’s power is limited. Indeed, He has all power (Matthew 28:18).
Marc,
In response to my urging you to stop trusting authorities on the trinity doctrine and make your own, open-minded search, you wrote,
Thank you Michael but are you an expert in biblical languages? Most likely not.
I don’t know what you consider an “expert” in the biblical languages, but I believe I can fairly call myself one. At any rate, I read the Scriptures in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), and in view of the extensive confusion regarding the teaching of the Scriptures I would urge every person who wants to know the truth about God and Jesus to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek–although it is certainly not necessary to do so in order to ascertain the truth. It just makes ascertaining the truth easier and enables one to be more certain they have ascertained the truth.
You continued,
You have to stop trusting your own “authority” (opinion) and go by what the words actually mean.
This is a confused statement. Every belief we hold is a kind of “opinion” on a given matter. What is incumbent upon the truth-seeker is to do their best to ensure their beliefs, or opinions, are true. On matters of relative little importance–how an airplane is able to fly, for example–there is no urgency to study the matter in depth ourselves. We may trust in the experts, or authorities on the matter. But in matters of great importance, like the identity of God and Jesus, it is incumbent upon us to carefully study the matter ourselves, eliminating as much as possible trust in authorities. That is what I am urging you to do.
I completed two graduate degrees in biblical studies and theology before realizing that I needed to stop trusting authorities, and I have been studying the Scriptures, theology, and philosophy this way for some five years now (i.e., since completing my graduate studies). What I have found through my careful and extensive study is that most of what I took for granted as the authentic teaching of the Scriptures about God and Jesus, and most of what others, Christians and non-Christians alike, also take for granted as the authentic teaching of the Scriptures about God and Jesus, is, sadly, not in fact the authentic teaching of the Scriptures, nor the testimony of good reason.
The false doctrines include the trinity, original sin, a conscious intermediate state after death, the eternal conscious torment of the wicked, a penal substitution theory of the atonement, imputation of the righteousness of Jesus to Christians, the doctrine that God has foreknown from eternity all that comes to pass, and the doctrines of Calvinism–though, thankfully, these doctrines (Calvinism) are not believed by as many.
I recently started the mindingthetruth.com website in order to share with others what I have learned. I would encourage you to check it out. I just last night uploaded a new post I’ve been working on a few weeks now on “40 Theses on the Trinity Doctrine.” But whether you check it out or not, the main thing is I would urge you to make your own, open-minded careful study of everything you believe about God and Jesus, including the trinity doctrine–even learning to read the Scriptures in their original languages.
Blessings to you,
Michael
Marc
Sorry about the ‘typo’ in my previous post!
I caught sight of my worker heading to switch off my generator and realised I had about 30 seconds to hit the ‘send’ key!!
Matthew 28v18 refers to the risen Christ.
I Corinthians 15 v 28 states
” When everything is subjected unto him, the the Son himself will (also) be subjected
to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all”
So even if you are right Christ’s dominion is only for a season.
And you still say he is GOD ?
You may care to look at a 13 minute video-
http://youtu.be/WaTEIAd43h4
Marc, you may take comfort from the fact that there are millions of people like you who are still victims of Catholic tradition but light cannot be hidden ‘under a bushel’ forever. Surely there is something within your spirit that tells you that Dale and Michael might just be right.?
One of the ways God is “defined” is by the worship afforded to Him that He alone deserves because He is omniscient and omnipotent. But we see that there is no difference between the worship God receives and the worship Christ receives.
Jesus Christ right now has ALL POWER in all places (Matthew 28:18). And since He is “all powerful” then by definition He is Almighty (God). Unfortunately, you ignore what this passage teaches.
Marc
You are the one that rambles on in an uncoordinated way!
You simply do not .connect the dots’
If you want to see one of the best depictionsof the Heavenly Kingdom you need go no farther than Revelation Chapters 4 and 5.
Can there be any doubt that the awesome being who sits upon the throne is the Lord God Almighty.
Can you doubt that the Lamb which was standing in the assembled throne -the one who was deemed ‘worthy’ is Christ.
It was God who recognised Christ as being worthy.
It was God who subsequently elevated Christ to his right hand side
(Note this vision is highly anthromorphic)
Later in Revelation we find
The Song of Moses – sung by Moses to God
The Song of the Lamb – sung as praise by Christ to God.
I ask you again – HOW IS GOD DEFINED IN THESE SCRIPTURES. !
I challenge you to do this
Is he
(i) The alleged Triune God or
(ii) The Father of Adam, Abraham and Isaac and our Lord Jestsa Christ?
Blessings
John
This is what I wrote to Dale here:
https://trinities.org/blog/archives/3529/comment-page-1#comment-108927
December 31, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Furthermore, the Greek word kardiognwstes (literally “heart-knower”) is used to refer to the omniscience of God
a. NIDNTT: kardiognwstes is unknown to secular Gk. and to the LXX, and occurs in the NT only in Acts 1:24 and 15:8 and later in patristic writings. It describes God
as the knower of hearts. The fact that God sees, tests and searches the hidden depths of the human heart is commonly stated in both the OT and the NT (1 Sam. 16:7; Jer. 11:20; 17:9f.; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 2:23, cf. above OT, 3). This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognwstees (2:183, Heart, T. Sorg).
b. TDNT: The designation of God as ho kardiognwstes, “the One who knows the heart,” expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Bas. 16:7; 3 Bas. 8:39; 1 Par. 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Ier. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18ff.), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstees, Behm).
c. Danker: knower of hearts, one who knows the hearts, of God Ac 1:24; 15:8 (on these pass. s. JBauer, BZ 32, 88, 114-117); Hm 4, 3, 4. – M-M. DELG s.v. gignwskw. TW (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, kardiognwstes, page 509).
—> TW stands for the TDNT – Theologisches Worterbuch zum NT, ed. GKittel (d. 1948),
—————————-
Earlier above (in this thread now) January 3, 2014 at 8:53 am
Dale writes this:
“He is omniscient (Revelation 2:23)”
“Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”
Arggh. I’m done.
Marc, I’m looking at all the evidence. You’re simply not listening, so I’ll have to move on. Sorry.
—————————–
Sorry? It is sorry that you refuse to believe that kardiognwstes refers to the Omniscience of God. Notice that both in the NIDNTT and the TDNT Revelation 2:23 is cited in the definition – and yes Revelation 2:23 refers to the Lord Jesus being Omniscient (God).
Since “Arggh” is your excuse for an answer I certainly pity the students that you may happen to teach.
John,
I have already cited plenty but since shut your eyes and claim that you can’t see them it makes it all the more absurd.
Marc
There ios not a single verse in the scriptures which ‘proves’ that Jesus is God!
We have vain gymnastics to try and ‘spin’ this conclusion from obscure verses.
I challenge you outright to show that your obscure and debatable verses can over-ride the import of the following –
-Corinthians 8vs 4-6 There is no God but ONE God
There is but ONE GOD THE FATHER
-John 20 v 17 I go to MY FATHER and your Father
to MY GOD and your God
–John 17 v 3 FATHER the ONLY TRUE GOD
-Ephesians 1 v 17 The GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ
– Who did Christ pray to ? HIS FATHER
-Who did Christ tell up to pray to ? – HIS FATHER
WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD THAN THE ONE CHRIST SERVED AND WORSHIPPED.
IN THE END IT IS EITHER CATHOLIC TRADITION – OR THE BIBLE.
Who are you believing?
Which God are you serving?
Consider these things!
Blessings
John
So much for having to move on Dale.
Thanks for posting a picture of your best friend – birds of a feather flock together. Say hello to Dr. Dumpty – your colleague in fairy tale word meanings.
In Genesis 29:18 the word for serve is not pelach but the Hebrew word abad.
Gesenius’s Lexicon lists Daniel 7:14 and it reads, “to worship God”.
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/014/0/1/Humpty_Dumpty_by_Erka_Kuragari.jpg
Here is the source of most in the info from my last comment, the aramaic shows up in this link.
http://lhim.org/blog/2011/08/03/the-use-of-%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%97-to-serve-in-daniel/
The statement that Pelach can only be rendered to Deity is False,
Gen. 29:18
???????? ????????, ??? ?????; ???????, ????????????? ?????? ???????, ???????? ??????????, ??????????.
And Jacob loved Rachel and said “I will serve you 7 years for Rachel your younger daughter.”
Gen. 30:26
??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????, ??????????? ?????? ???????–?????????: ????? ????? ?????????, ??? ?????????? ??????????????.
“Give to me my wives and children for which I served, for you know the service with which I served you.
Gen. 14:4
????????? ??????? ???????, ???????? ??? ??????????????; ??????? ??????? ???????, ???????.
For 12 years they served Kedarla‘omer and in the 13th year they rebelled.
From these examples in Aramaic, we can see that Pelach is not exclusively rendered to Deity.
Marc Taylor, do you think there are 2 Ancient of Days? The Son of Man is clearly distinct from the Ancient of Days.
Dale,
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” (“Through the Looking Glass” by Lewis Carroll).
I have cited plenty of sources for my assertions but you choose to believe in fairy tale definitions.
————-
John,
See above.
I cite sources for my assertions while you cite your opinion. One is based on fact and the other is based on fantasy.
————–
Michael,
Thank you Michael but are you an expert in biblical languages? Most likely not. You have to stop trusting your own “authority” (opinion) and go by what the words actually mean.
—————-
Marc,
As I explain here (http://mindingthetruth.com/2013/11/07/am-i-a-unitarian/), I was a trinitarian for many years, but I changed my mind after studying the issue in depth. You have to stop trusting the “authorities” like those you cite and make your own, open-minded personal study of the issue. Perhaps what would help you make that study more than anything is the realization that people like me, Dale, John, and many, many others reject the doctrine of the trinity not because we don’t care for the glory and honor of God and Jesus but precisely because we do care. We care very much. Likewise, we do not reject the doctrine because we don’t care what the Scriptures say. On the contrary, we believe the Scriptures, read within their own linguistic and historical contexts, plainly teach that God is strictly one, and Jesus is the greatest being in the universe besides God, even if he is not actually God himself. Again, you might check out what I have written in summary of my own position and the journey to that position at the link above. I also have a few other posts on the mindingthetruth.com website on this topic that you may find helpful. In particular, I would recommend,
this (http://mindingthetruth.com/2013/12/04/joseph-priestley-to-the-point/),
this (http://mindingthetruth.com/2013/12/11/jesus-the-son-of-god/),
and this (http://mindingthetruth.com/2013/12/13/israels-kings-as-messiahs-or-christs/).
All the best to you, brother in Christ.
Michael
Marc
You epitomise the Trinitarian mind precisely !
You see what you are programmed to see!
You only see what you want to see!
In other words – your are a time-waster!
I am not going to delve into your confusion – suffice to say that the PROLOGUE to the Book of Revelation says it all-
‘The Revelation of Christ, which GOD gave to him”
How do you think “God ‘ is defined here?
Don’t answer that – I don’t want to know!
Best Wishes
John
“it is not a contradiction because an omniscient and omnipotent being can not be fully known by you”
Non sequitur. That is, yet another invalid argument.
“The verses I cited (Luke 10:22 and John 2:24-25) do prove that the Lord Jesus is all knowing.”
Marc, we can all read them. They simply do not say, and do not obviously imply what you want them to. That you cite reference sources where the writer reads his theology into the passage – sorry, those do not help your case. The downfall of texts is that they can’t argue back. Their glory is that, basically, they don’t change. This is inconvenient for your theology.
“He is omniscient (Revelation 2:23)”
“Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”
Arggh. I’m done.
Marc, I’m looking at all the evidence. You’re simply not listening, so I’ll have to move on. Sorry.
Christ still has a God because He is and will always be a man. The Trinitarian has no problem with this because Christ is also God. In relation to 1 Corinthians 15 don’t confuse functional subjection with ontological inferiority.
Furthermore, you cited a passage in Revelation for support for your assertion while also from the very same book we have passages that teach the Lord Jesus is God. He is the recipient of a doxology (Revelation 1:6), He is omniscient (Revelation 2:23), He is omniscient and omnipotent (Revelation 5:6), He receives latreuw (Revelation 22:3).
Look at ALL the evidence not just bits and pieces.
All,
Commentators frequently make ‘veiled’ comments about Christ’s post-resurrection status.
It is quite clear that even while he ‘sits on the right hand of God’ , that he still has a God!
In Revelation Chapter 3 v 12 we have Christ say ” The victor I will make a pillar of MY God.”
In 1 Corinthians 15 vs. 27&28 we are told that ‘the Son will be subjected to to one who subjected everything to him – so that GOD may be all in alll”
What God is the scripture referring to?
The alleged ‘triune’ God or
The God who is the Father of Adam, Moses, Abraham & Isaac and our Lord Jesus Christ?
This ‘Trinity’ is just a ‘sea of confusion’
Every Blessing
John
It is not a contradiction because an omniscient and omnipotent being can not be fully known by you for if He was that would make you God – but you aren’t.
The verses I cited (Luke 10:22 and John 2:24-25) do prove that the Lord Jesus is all knowing.
a. Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament: Wisdom of Christ
In virtue of His Divine wisdom, Christ is omniscient, i.e. He knows all actual and possible things, present, past and future, including the future contingent actions of beings possessed of free-will. The nature of this last kind of knowledge (sometimes called scientia media ) is altogether inscrutable to us; but it is expressly ascribed to God in many passages of both Testaments (1 Samuel 23:1-13, Isaiah 41:22-23, Jeremiah 38:15 ff., Hebrews 4:13 etc.), and is
frequently claimed by Jesus (Matthew 11:20-23; Matthew 26:21, John 6:70 etc.), who is represented as able to read the heart of man (John 1:47-51; John 2:24-25 etc.).
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hdn/view.cgi?n=2923
b. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: Christ possesses the attributes of God: omnipotence (Matt. 28:18; Rev. 1:8); omnipresence (Matt. 28:20; Eph. 1:23); omniscience (Matt. 9:4; Jn. 2:24-25; Acts 1:24; 1 Cor. 4:5) (2:94, deity of Christ, A.H. Leitch).
c. Whedon: (Matthew 11:27): No man knoweth the Son… neither… the Father — These are hid (Matthew 11:25) as mysteries from all save Omniscience.
http://www.studylight.org/com/whe/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=11
d. Vincent: (Matthew 11:27): The compound indicating full knowledge. Others behold only in part, “through a glass, darkly.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/vnt/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=11
It is one thing for you to assert that these passages do not refer to Omniscience but the evidence speaks otherwise.
Concerning worship, I have already supplied definitions for prayer in this thread that have not been adequately addressed.
https://trinities.org/blog/archives/3529/comment-page-1#comment-108927
December 31, 2013 9:05pm
“never be fully understood. Whereas He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:51) it is also taught that He is omniscient (Luke 10:22; John 2:24, 25)”
Indeed, it will never be understood as true that a being knows all, and dosen’t. That’s a contradiction, so is understood to be false.
But we needn’t hit that wall. While Luke 2:51 seems clear enough – we know what it is to learn, note that your cited verses simply do not say that Jesus was, during his mininstry, all-knowing:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:22;%20John%202:24,%2025&version=NRSV
““Does Mark teach that Jesus is God”. Of course, one must look at all Scripture to adequately answer this question”
:-/ No, one must look at Mark.
About worship of Jesus, I invite you to consider the arguments and the passages discussed here: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4037
TDNT: Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility, Mt. 11:29; 12:18-21; 2 C. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8. Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.
A new situation is brought into being with the crucifixion and resurrection. The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (5:895, pas, Reicke).
Precisely what took place concerning the knowledge and power of the Lord Jesus will never be fully understood. Whereas He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:51) it is also taught that He is omniscient (Luke 10:22; John 2:24, 25). A good book on this theme is ‘The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: It’s Unity and Disunity”. by Paul Anderson.
It should also be noted that Christ has “all-power” (Matthew 28:18) and an all powerful being is by definition the Almighty (God).
The Bible though from Christ’s exaltation make it very clear concerning His omniscience and omnipotence.
Since “only God has infinite powers of knowledge” (NIDNTT 1:222, Blood, F. Laubach) and there are many passages that teach the omniscience (as well as the omnipotence) of the Lord Jesus it follows that the Lord Jesus is God.
This article is entitled “Does Mark teach that Jesus is God”. Of course, one must look at all Scripture to adequately answer this question but since Mark does point to the fact that the Lord Jesus receives the worship that is only due unto God one must be very cautious in denying His Deity without taking this into full account.
Finally, if the omnipotent and omniscient God created someone or something that was omnipotent and omniscient then that would mean that God created another God. However, the Bible teaches there is only one God.
Hi Marc,
Let us suppose (as I think at best unclear) that Revelation asserts Jesus to be omniscient and omnipotent.
You’ll agree, I hope that these attributes are ones which God has essentially, and so which he could never lack.
But as I show in this post above, in Mark (and equally elsewhere) Jesus is portrayed as lacking in knowledge, so not omniscient, and as unable to do some things (so, not omnipotent).
It is possible to hold, then, that Jesus received omniscience and omnipotence at his exaltation, post-resurrection. But if that’s so, then he doesn’t have those as essential attributes, and so is neither God himself, nor divine in the way in which God is divine, for his divinity – or these attributes at any rate – would be freely bestowed on him by God. (God himself did not get them in that way.)
About Jesus’ ignorance, please see items 5 and 13 in the post above. Do you agree that the reader should infer there are some things Jesus doesn’t know (at that time)?
It is not a mere assertion:
G. R. Lewis: Because others are creatures of God, they are due respect, but not the highest respect that only God deserves. Our ultimate affection is focused on God himself (4:950, The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Prayer).
There is no difference between the worship that God the Father should only receive and the worship the Lord Jesus receives.
This worship of the Lord Jesus in Revelation 5 also proves that He is God.
a. TDNT: In 5:12f. the angelic choirs extol the omnipotence of the Lamb in a seven-membered doxology (8:178, honor, J. Schneider).
b. NIDNTT: In Revelation sophia is praised in two hymnic texts as an attribute of God (Rev. 7:12; cf. also Rom. 16:27); it is also to be attributed to the slain Lamb at his exaltation (Rev. 5:12). The exalted Christ has the same power and wisdom as God (3:1032, Wisdom, J. Goetzmann).
c. Mounce: In a remarkable attestation to the deity of Jesus Christ, the apostle John records two doxologies in which what is ascribed to God (the Father) is also ascribed to the Lamb, who is Jesus the Son (Rev. 5:12, “Worthy is the Lamb to receive…strength”; 7:12,”Praise and …strength be to our God forever”)
(Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Strength, page 688).
In fact, Revelation 5:6 demonstrates both the omnipotence and omniscience of the Lord Jesus.
And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. (NASB)
a. Robert Mounce: While it is true that a slaughtered lamb obviously connoted sacrifice, the lamb in John’s vision is now standing upright, having “seven horns and seven eyes” – symbols of perfect power and wisdom (The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Revelation, page 132, Robert H. Mounce).
b. TDNT: But the Lamb overcame death (5:5-6) and is omnipotent and omniscient (5:6) (1:341, Lamb, J. Jeremias).
These attributes form the basis of worshiping Him in the remainder of the chapter – as well as in every other passage in the Bible where He is prayed to/worshiped.
You’re saying that it’s impossible, presumably contradictory, that anyone who is not God should be worthy of worship. Sorry, but that’s a mere assertion. In my view, the Bible implies otherwise, perhaps most clearly in Revelation 4-5.
If God the Father gave the Lord Jesus the right to receive “pelach” (LXX: latreuw) without the Lord Jesus being God then God the Father created another God for pelach (as well as latreuw) are due unto God alone.
That is how these words are properly defined.
Yes, Mark teaches that the Lord Jesus is God. In Mark 14:62 the Lord Jesus is the Son of Man that is referred to in Daniel chapter 7. In Daniel 7:14 He receives “pelach” (Aramaic) which is due unto God alone.
…given to him by God!
The Ancient One is God, I’m sure you’ll agree. And this one like human being, appears to be not God, but someone else, yes?
Wow. I am so out of my element here, and so ignore this if you want. I was raised as an on-again off-again JW and as I’ve gotten older I’ve become very interested in religion. I really do want to find one to practice, but I don’t know that JWs are right for me. I’m confused about religion, but feel a deep draw to it. But, I’ve always had this sticking point, that I don’t believe in the trinity, which keeps me from finding religious conviction elsewhere. This is the first time I have ever seen anything non-JW that suggests a lack of trinity. I’m honestly not sure what I’m asking here. Maybe nothing? I’m just slightly dumb-founded and inspired.
Welcome, Mikki.
There are many theological, ethical, and practical problems with the JWs, as testified to be an endless stream of thoughtful, God-fearing people leaving that group, often at great cost. Our friend Jaco, who often comments here, is such a person, as is Ray Faircloth. (https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4674) If you google around, you’ll find them talking about leaving. I do encourage you to leave the Watchtower behind. They are just one of many cultish groups who gain credibility by pointing out that the Trinity, and other things common in various catholic groups, are not taught in the Bible. They are, though, correct that following the Lord Jesus doesn’t require swearing on to the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon. It can be difficult, unless you are in a big city, to find non-trinitarian Christians to fellowship with. Let me recommend a few sites that can potentially be helpful:
http://www.21stcr.org/
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/
http://www.abc-coggc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=2
http://livingfaithri.org/
http://www.scatteredbrethren.org/
https://www.facebook.com/CPointeCollinsville
Perhaps other commenters can provide helpful links too. Most of the people in the above groups, like me, have never been connected with the JWs. There may be some fellowships composed of ex-JW believers – I don’t know. Certainly many such are lovely Christian people.
Beware of various legalists, like those who try to go quasi-Jewish, and insist on “Yeshua”, Sabbath-keeping, and such.
God bless,
Dale
Mike,
“As the resurrection of Christ proved Him to be more than a man, so the return of Christ proved Him to be more than an angel or other heavenly being – He was God Himself.”
All the Gospels (save Mark) were written after 70 C.E. I do not see the doctrinal spurt in those writings presenting Jesus as God; nor in Acts which many scholars have also dated very late. Not only that, if your position were true, then none of the writings by Paul should be used by proponents of your position as proof of Christ’s divinity, since these were recorded before his return. Your proposal fails under robust logical and hermeneutic scrutiny. I cannot help but notice the similarities between your epistemology and that of Mormons and JWs: After the major event (70C.E. in your case), somehow what you claim deserves legitimacy. Anybody can do that and claim whatever they want to claim.
“the resurrection of Christ proved Him to be more than a man”
Same for Lazarus?
Hi David,
Thanks for the comment. So, do you think that Mark really, in a sense, failed to deliver the most important truths about Jesus, and how he relates to the one God? Is it your view that his gospel, for this reason, really *needed* supplementing?
“What “more than a teacher” means isn’t answered in the text”
Sorry, but I think it is. He’s the Son of God, that is, the Messiah. That is much more than a Rabbi. And that he’s now raised to God’s right hand – that implies that he’s presently in charge, and worthy of worship alongside God, as we see in Revelation 5. Much, much more than a teacher. But for all Mark says – a human, not a God-man, or a being with a divine and a human nature, mysteriously united so as to form one self. No hint of all that in Mark, right?
Merry Christmas!
Mark is clearly a pedagogical (androgogical) and catechetical text. It’s function is to teach–and teaching is more than the provision of propositional content.
Look at the calming of the sea narrative. The “disciples” (“they” in the Greek, I believe) are rebuked (presumably for being poor disciples) when they show lack of faith by fearing the storm, panicking and being confused over Jesus’ apparent authority over the storm. Even the wind and the waves obey him. Clearly, the intention of mark is to point out that Jesus the Teacher is far more than a teacher and that you are a bad student if you don’t get that yet. What “more than a teacher” means isn’t answered in the text but in the conversation following the reading of the text — in Matthew, in Luke and in the lived teaching and experience of the church. Mark is the beginning not the end of the conversation.
Pingback: Tuggy, Christ, and the Gospel of Mark | Eclectic Orthodoxy
Sorry I am just now responding. (It seems this blog site does not have a comment notification function; if it does, I can’t find the trigger.)
Dale, thanks for your integrity (I’m speaking specifically of your acknowledgement of the point.)
Jaco, regards. My belief that the Messiah is God flows as a consequence of believing that the promises of the Second Coming of Christ (i.e. the coming of the kingdom of God, the coming of the day of the Lord) strewn from one end of th New Testament to the other were fulfilled after 70 AD but before the extinction of Jesus’ generation (Matt 10:23; 16:28; 24:34) – that is, according to the time frame promised by Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles. As the resurrection of Christ proved Him to be more than a man, so the return of Christ proved Him to be more than an angel or other heavenly being – He was God Himself.
John, Messiah was an identity (a secret identity, if you will) that God created, through which He would redeem His creation. It never occurred to Satan – or to anyone else – that God Himself would come to redeem His fallen creation. As Jesus was not to be proclaimed as Messiah until His resurrection, so He was not to be proclaimed as God until the Second Coming. Because the New Testament documents were written before the Second Coming, we do not see them proclaiming Messiah as God. However, because the apostle John lived until the Second Coming (John 21) his writings come the closest to making this announcement (i.e. GJohn; 1, 2, 3 John; and Revelation). Paul may be hinting in 2 Cor 12:4, but that was well before the event and the reference is quite cryptic in any case. In John we see the idea in full pregnancy, just before birth.
Mile
I think you are confusing ‘nature’ and ‘identity’
While God has a ‘divine nature’ by ‘being God’
And Christ has a ‘divine nature’ by inheritance
And believers may partake of the ‘divine nature’
.. …. we all have separate and unique identities.
Best Wishes
John
Hello again, Mike
Your statement in ambiguous: either the Messiah was God as in “divine,” or the Messiah was “God” as in identical to the One who is God. I still fail to adequately understand your Christology, since you deny both Trinitarianism and Modalism. Anyway, his being proclaimed as God should also be clarified: not only whether that proclamation was actually made, but also in what sense the Messiah was “g/God.” A third option, which has received some popularity in later years is the metaphorical or semiotic understanding of Jesus as “God.” Jesus is a depiction of God. Seeing Jesus means seeing Someone else, namely God. This last option is primarily the understanding derived by GJohn.
Dale,
Are you going to deal with Kruger’s actual argument? I think he’d agree, to a point, with some of your analysis. But his argument for thinking that there is at least 1 reference to Jesus is God isn’t dealt with in your post, unless I need to get my eyes checked (which is possible).
Hi John,
Absolutely – next post in this series. I just wanted to establish the context of the book.
Hi Mike and JJ,
It is correct that this is a logical fallacy:
1. Mark doesn’t say that Jesus is God.
2. Therefore, Jesus isn’t God.
For purposes of this post, I’m content to just agree with that – that is a fallacy. 2 doesn’t follow from 1.
Does Mark deny it? In my view, he doesn’t need to. The claim that Jesus is God himself isn’t so much as brought up. Is Jesus divine in some *other* sense, where this doesn’t entail that Jesus is God himself? Mark doesn’t have that problem either. He shows no interest in the later catholic speculations about “two natures.” When Jesus, e.g. does a miracle – yes, that’s God working through him, sometimes in response to human faith – but Mark gives no hint that we’re to suppose this is the operation of a divine nature which is united with a human one so as to make a single person. (Nor that we’re to go back, as it were, to the human nature when he’s tired, unknowing, etc.)
You could say in another sense that he denies it though. He assumes, throughout, that the one God is none other than (that is, is numerically identical to) the one Jesus calls Father. And he does assert differences between Jesus and his Father. He thereby implies that Jesus is not God. If A and B even could differ, they ain’t one and the same – that’s self evident. But it’s nowhere the author’s aim to deny that Jesus is God. His clear and repeated, emphasized claim is that Jesus is the Messiah, which implies his not being the one God himself – he’s God’s anointed future ruler.
Mike
Where on earth was the Messiah proclaimed to be God?
God sent the Messiah!
Regards
John
Scott,
I think that most people understand that the emergence of fully fledged trinitarian thinking as well as the ‘victory’ of the anti- Arians was driven more by political considerations than truth.
Few people living today would put themselves in a ‘box’ labelled “Arian”‘ – but many people are searching for truth in the ‘sea’ in which such ideas existed.
Our human nature seeks ‘security’ and the church has kindly offered this in a deluded place called ‘tradition’.
Of course it’s all a delusion!!!
In the end ‘tradition’ is the real enemy of truth !
Regards
John
Dale,
I hope you don’t mind me pressing you further on this, but do you think Mark is denying that Jesus is divine? Even though Mark never asserts that Jesus is divine (certainly not clearly or unambiguously), do you think he disallows it as well?
The reason I wonder your take on this is because the early church didn’t seem to think so when they included Mark into the NT canon. Sure, they preferred Matthew more, but they didn’t exclude Mark either, even though they neglected Mark.
Even if the Gospel of Mark does not proclaim Jesus to be God, it does not follow that Jesus cannot therefore be God. For just as Jesus was the Messiah before the time when He was proclaimed to be Messiah, so the Messiah was God before He was proclaimed to be God.
Great post Prof,
In regards to Mark 2:7, I think there is a couple things that need to be said.
(i) If trinitarians demand a sharp demarcation between functional and ontic christologies, then so be it, but the trinitarian must be consistent with this concept, since it says “authority” in Mark 2:7, trinitarians should not be using this as an argument of ontology.
(ii) Why take the interpretation from the enemies of Jesus? The Righteous Jews that Jesus helped knew plainly what was going on because they Praised God[not Jesus] for these miracles, they saw Jesus as a man invested with authority from God.
(iii) Within the Gospel of Mark, the eleventh chapter versus 27-33, Jesus has his authority challenged, though implicit, Jesus mirrors himself with John the Baptist getting his Authority from Heaven.
What is also interesting to note is how Jesus speaks of someone else when referring to God of the OT, for example Mark 12:24-27 –> Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[a]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
and “because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now–and never to be equaled again.”(Mark 13:19)
Many of the arguments you make here parallel those made by Arians arguing for the subordinate nature of the Son. It would be worth looking at the textual evidence for Arianism to see how these ideas persisted fairly late in Christianity.
Pingback: Earliest Christology
I recently responded to a gentleman here in South Africa who used Michael Kruger’s argument (veeeery old argument to be sure) to show that Jesus was Yahweh according to Mk. 1:2/Mal. 3:1/Isa. 40:3. To which I responded:
“We are not to suppose that the apostles identified Christ with Jehovah; there were passages which made this impossible, for instance Psalm 110:1, Malachi 3:1? (Charles Bigg, D.D., Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on Peter and Jude, T&T Clark, 1910, p. 99).
Why does the celebrated professor come to the exact opposite conclusion as that of Michael Kruger? Here’s why:
In Malachi’s prophecy there are 3 characters: Yahweh the one speaking, the messenger, and the adohn’ or Lord who would visit his temple. This Lord is also the “messenger of the Covenant,” and Yahweh refers to him in the third person, hence a distinct identity from Yahweh to begin with.
In Mark Yahweh is the one speaking again, apparently to this Lord, the messenger of the covenant, and Yahweh says that his messenger will prepare the way before this greater messenger. It is hopelessly desperate to assume that this can only mean that the third person must be Yahweh himself. If it is Yahweh himself, why does he address the one coming as distinct from him? Such nonsensical use of language and logic only comes from indoctrinated minds.
Re. Isa. 40:3, he said:
The fact that Mark is putting Jesus in the place of Yahweh is confirmed when we consider the second OT citation from Is 40:3. Mark 1:3 (citing Is 40:3): “the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’”
My response:
Michael Kruger does another bad job here. He ignores a priori the reality of representation which was precisely the way the prophecy was initially fulfilled: the way was prepared for Yahweh [and fulfilled] when CYRUS brought the Jews back to their homeland.
Comments are closed.