During Christmas season, everyone sings the beautiful hymns such as "Far, Far Away on Judeas Plain", and "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful", which both perpetuate a mistranslation of the King James Translation of the Bible which obscures who is whom.
We read in Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." To say this is a bad translation is to be kind. All modern translations of this verse follow, more or less, the more accurate translation found in the NIV:
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."What gets lost in this is the intent of "in the highest". This, according to most commentators and several translations, has to do with "in the highest heaven" (NLT, God's Word Translation, Weymouth NT, among commentators Barnes, Clark, Gill and others).
The idea is fairly straight forward: Give glory (praise, honor)to the God who is in the highest heaven, and therefore superior to all other heavenly beings, AND on Earth, men blessed by God are given peace.
Since this angelic announcement takes place AFTER the birth of Christ, where does this put "Immanuel" in relation to "God in the Most High Heaven"?
Well, first of all, it essentially proves that God, as acknowledged by Jesus, is Jesus' superior: "The only true God" (John 17:3). It also shows the understanding was that while Jesus is divine, he is viewed as an "intermediate" God (Acts 17:18), where Jesus is described by Paul in such a way that the Greek philosophers characterize him as a "daimonion", a "strange god" who is atoning for man and being resurrected from the dead, which by definition is:
1 the divine power, deity, divinity
2 a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)
The New Testament message of Christ's relationship to God the Father is clear: He is like him, fully a god, yet is a separate god who in essence reports to God: John 1:1-2; Phil 2:6; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:3, 1:9; 2:7-13.
Jesus is the first born of many brethren (and sisters). He was the son of God, which he himself goes to pains to explain means that he is "inferior" to God (John 10:30-38.
The logical dilemma for Trinitarians is we see in the Bible something which is otherwise impossible: If Jesus is God, he keeps appearing next to himself, and even being in two places simultaneously, something logically impossible. Not in the sense of God being omniscient or omnipresent in some manner. We affirm that, even as we recognize we don't know how it is done.
No, it is much more direct: A thing cannot stand next to itself. Acts 7:55-56 is a verse I often site. Jesus is standing, physically, next to God, who is physically visible and present. Jesus sits to the right hand of God in around a dozen verses. Jesus affirms that his oneness with God is identical to that which the saints can similarly experience (John 17:21-24).
The most straightforward explanation is that God and his son are separate and distinct beings. I have gone to great pains to show that from the text of the Bible, there can be no doubt, even in Isaiah, that God was part of a pantheon of divine beings, who could and were rightly called "gods", and that God in Hebrew thought had a wife. It is largely the result of the painful gymnastics of the "unknowable mystery of the Trinity", a doctrine made up by men to try to force an explanation on the data showing multiple divine beings, to force it into their philosophical position that perfection could only be in "one god", and then selectively harvesting the statements in scripture indicating there is only one God, ignoring context, and ignoring clear statements about multiple, real gods found nearly everywhere in the Bible as well ("Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods." Ps 97:7).
Think about this next Christmas. The New Testament knew who they worshiped, the translators just don't like it.
10 comments:
(Jesus) "who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,"(Philipians 2:6)
So, No, God is not Jesus' Superior.
Bob, we were not meant to figure it out, but to believe it. Paul refers to this supposed 'dilemma' as the 'Mystery' of the Godhead.
If we insist on making Jesus (Emanuel) a separate God, then we're doing what I used to do as a Jehovah's Witness. We said that Jesus was 'a' god but not The God (Jehovah) as John 1:1 declares.
And we all know that the Mormon Prophets regard Jehovah's Witnesses as an apostate group. And that would include everything they believe about Jesus too.
Something to consider.
I think you have a "straw man" Trinity doctrine in your head.
I have no logical dilemma about God the Father appearing next to Jesus, or about the Holy Spirit appearing at Jesus' baptism. The doctrine of the trinity teaches that they are 3 persons, 1 God. 1 person can be next to another person. Besides, I am not convinced that "Jesus sitting at the right hand of God" is a literal picture, as I do not believe God the Father to have a body.
And how does giving glory to God the Father prove he is superior to Jesus?
It is interesting that you take John 10 to be a claim of Jesus to be inferior to God, as the people of his day obviously took it to be a claim of divinity (that's why they picked up stones to stone him).
Interesting thoughts here. I had to look up Acts 17:18 to try and get what you were saying about it. Jesus would have been a strange God to the Athens alright.
I think that for as long as we try to have a god who is somewhat understandable by our comprehension, the concept of the trinity will not make sense. If we allow our concept of God to go beyond our imagination, I think we being to understand the Trinity. If you want to understand a deeper concept of the Trinity, one in which one member might pray to the other, I might suggest reading the chapter called "the three-personal God" in C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity.
I doubt that chapter will change your beliefs, but it will help you to understand ours better. The concept of the trinity, and its lack of acceptance by the LDS Church hinge on many intertwined doctrines. If you assume those doctrines to be true, then there is no room for the trinitarian concept.
Over all I'd say that your blog is well written, and interesting, though you make some broad statements which I am not sure you could back up.
Patricia
Jesus never taught the doctrine of the Trinity. Paul never taught it, Peter never taught it, John never taught it, James never taught it. Luke never taught it. Mary never taught it. The list goes on. The Bible tells us in a host of places that there is a divine council populated by real divine beings. That is the context of multiple persons in the Godhead. It was then and it is now. The trinity is a derived doctrine from the fourth century of the common era. It has no precedent before then. Someone show me where anyone learning of Jesus from an Apostle was first given a litmus test question regarding the persons of the Trinity being of one undivided eternally equal and co-eternal substance before being baptized. That would be an interesting thing to see.
'This is life eternal, that they might know THEE, AND Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
Why do so many Christians who claim to "know" the Biblical Christ, then tell us it is blasphemous to think we can comprehend God? Why do Trinitarians crave an unknowable God, when Jesus told us he came to show us the Father? Where does Jesus castigate people for wanting to know and comprehend God? One minute Trinitarians declare that they "know" the God of the Bible and in the next breath they tell me that even wanting to know my Father is a blasphemous pursuit. While I am at it, do they believe God has a body? I can hear them screaming at the thought. GOD IS A Spirit I can hear them saying. Yet, the unanimous witness of all the apostles is that God became incarnate (The Word) died and was resurrected, and ascended into heaven as an embodied being. He told his apostles to handle him and see. It seems to me that modern Trinitarians are willing to trade away the body of Christ for a doctrine invented by theologians, not one taught by Jesus or any apostle or any true prophet. If Jesus is God, and all fullness dwells in him bodily, then God is embodied. So believed the ancient saints, so believe the modern saints.
just wondering about your refrence to God or Jesus having a wife. Could you point me to where this was said besides Talmage.. Thanks much.
That seems reasonable to me Wendell.
Blind faith Lance?
Jesus said that "I and my Father are one." John 10:30, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was God." John 1:1. So Jesus said He was equal with the Father, He said He and the Father were one.
Now here's another testimony to the trinity:John 14:36, But the Helper, the Holy Spirit,Whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you all things,and bring to remembrance all the things I said to you." Matthew 28:19, " Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations baptizing them in the name if the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In contrast,in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."Genesis 1:1Then in chapter one verse 26 we are faced with a connundrum: "Let Us make man in Our own image, according to Our likeness;" and then in the very next verse it says man was created in God's image,not plural. " So God created man in His own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" God is three in one. Just because it would be easier to understand Him if He wasn't does not change the truth.Truth is truth,no matter if it is comfy.Every false religion has gotten the idea of the Trinity
wrong because it is hard to understand. (yes, I said the idea, because the actual word isn't in scripture.)I believe because no man can understand it,man could not have come up with it. I think that is one thing that gives the idea of the Trinity much credence. We can't understand it so we twist it into false ideas of God like that there are many gods, or there is one God, but he is not embodied in three persons. You have to believe the word or not. No other choice. Truth is not subjective, the Bible has been aroung alot longer than the book of mormon has. You believe the Bible or the book of Mormon, Revelation 22:18 "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to these things,God will add him to the plagues which are written in this book.""Truly, Truly I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but enters in another way,that man is a theif and a robber." John 10:1. Joseph Smith entered another way other than the Door to the sheep. Jesus says about himself: " But he who enters by the door of the sheep is the Shepherd of the sheep." and, "So Jesus said again to them, truly,truly I say to you, I am the Door of the sheep." He entered by saying the church was corrupt, and denying Jesus deity. Just something to think about.
@ Anonymous 10/20/2011 11:19 PM
God is three in one. Just because it would be easier to understand Him if He wasn't does not change the truth.Truth is truth,no matter if it is comfy.Every false religion has gotten the idea of the Trinity
wrong because it is hard to understand. (yes, I said the idea, because the actual word isn't in scripture.)I believe because no man can understand it,man could not have come up with it. I think that is one thing that gives the idea of the Trinity much credence. We can't understand it so we twist it into false ideas of God like that there are many gods, or there is one God, but he is not embodied in three persons. You have to believe the word or not. No other choice. Truth is not subjective"
Good grief! Does that statement come with a top hat, a rabbit, and perhaps a puff of white smoke?
Please do explain how is it that, "no man can understand it", yet Trinitarians such as yourself have such a firm grasp on God's character.
Moreover, why are "Christians" fixated on a doctrine developed on heretical views? - Tertullian was a Montanist.
Post a Comment