3 Syllogistic Arguments For Jesus’ Deity

By Evan Minton

The Bible teaches in a variety of ways that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. In some places, The Bible couldn’t possibly be more explicit, and it boggles the mind how anyone who takes scripture as the inspired word of God could avoid any conclusion other than that Jesus is divine. In other places, it’s more subtle, and you need to be paying close attention to catch Jesus’ claim to divinity or one the epistles claims to divinity. In other words, there are explicit claims (on both Jesus’ and the epistle writers’ part) that Jesus is God, and there are implicit claims that Jesus is God.

Jesus' Deity

When it comes to the more subtle and implicit claims, sometimes the conclusion of Christ’s divinity comes from piecing together biblical teachings about God and Jesus, which wouldn’t seem to say anything about Christ’s divinity when taken in isolation. These scriptural assertions can be used to form syllogistic arguments which result in the conclusion that Jesus is God. In my study of The Bible, I’ve come up with 3 such syllogisms. Let’s look at them below:

SYLLOGISM ONE

1: Yahweh is the only Savior of mankind.

2: Jesus is the Savior of humankind

3: Therefore, either The Bible contradicts itself or Jesus is God.

4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.

5: Therefore, Jesus is God.

This is a logically valid syllogism. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusions follow. So, are the premises true or are they false? Let’s look at them.

The first premise states that Yahweh is the only Savior of mankind. This premise is backed up by Isaiah 43:11, which says; “I, even I, am The Lord, and apart from me there is no Savior.” This is Yahweh speaking through the prophet Isaiah. He says that He is The Lord and that apart from Him, there is no Savior. If Yahweh didn’t act to initiate our salvation, our souls would be doomed to Hell. No one can save us but God.

What about the second premise? It’s indisputable that Jesus is called our Savior. Titus 2:13 says “while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” This verse clearly calls Jesus “Our great God and Savior.” That alone should end any debate that Jesus is God. Yet, cultists try to avoid the seemingly obvious conclusion by saying that Paul is referring to two different entities “Our Great God” on the one hand, and “our Savior, Jesus Christ” on the other.[1] Very well. For this argument to work, it doesn’t matter whether “Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” is referring to God and a merely human or angelic Jesus, or whether both “God” and “Savior” are both being applied to Jesus. Even the cultists will admit that Titus 2:13 undoubtedly calls Jesus our Savior.

1 John 4:14 says “We have seen as testify that The Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.” 
In his letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul is contemplating his impending martyrdom. In Philippians 3, the apostle Paul tells his readers that a relationship with Jesus is far superior to anything else he has obtained in this Earthly life, even to the point of calling all of the goods he’s received “garbage” (verses 1-8). In verses 20-21, Paul says “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” (emphasis mine)

In Acts 13:23, Paul also calls Jesus by the title “Savior.”

In fact, not much biblical defense for this premise even needs to be given. Even a casual reading of The New Testament will show even the lousiest exegete that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead, and this act atoned for our sins. This is what Jesus did to save us. No sect will deny that Jesus is the “Savior” any more than they’ll deny that The Father of Jesus is God.

This brings us to premise 3: Obviously, we’ve got a dichotomy here. If only God is the Savior if there is no savior besides God, and yet Jesus is our Savior, then what are our options? Either The Bible erroneously calls God the savior, or it erroneously calls Jesus the Savior. In other words, maybe The Bible is just plain wrong. On the other hand, perhaps The Bible isn’t wrong. Perhaps Jesus is God. I don’t see a third alternative.

Defense of Premise 4: The Bible cannot contradict itself. 

The Bible cannot contradict itself. It is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5). The Holy Spirit cannot inspire false teachings. To the person who doesn’t take The Bible as divinely inspired (atheists, agnostics,), this won’t be a problem. But for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, who do take The Bible as divinely inspired, this is not an option. But in that case, there’s only one possible alternative: Jesus is God.

SYLLOGISM TWO

1: Only God created the universe.

2: Jesus created the universe.

3: Therefore, either The Bible contradicts itself, or Jesus is God.

4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.

5: Therefore, Jesus is God.

This syllogism takes the same logical form as the previous one, so the validity of the syllogism’s logic shouldn’t be in question. Rather, we need to ask whether or not the premises are true. They are.
The first premise is backed up by The Old Testament. In Isaiah 44:24, God says “This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,” (emphasis mine). In this verse, God says that He spread out the Earth by himself. Other translations render it “I alone spread out the Earth.” In Job 9:8, Job says of God He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” Both of these verses (Isaiah 44:24 and Job 9:8) state that God alone is responsible for the stretching out of the heavens. This is an act of creation, whether you agree with Hugh Ross in that this is referring to the expansion of the fabric of space from The Big Bang point of origin, or whether you interpret this in its ancient near eastern context which would see this as God spreading out a solid dome over the flat Earth. Whether you take the concordist approach (that this is referring to the expansion of space from the big bang) or the non-concordist approach (that this is referring to God setting the solid dome over the Earth), the “stretching out of the heavens” is a creative act, and The Bible says that God is the sole entity responsible for it.

What about the second premise? John 1:1-3 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made”. This prologue to John’s gospel echoes Genesis 1 (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” – 1:1). In the beginning, prior to the creation of the physical space-time realm, The Word alone existed. He was with God and was God Himself. The text goes on to say that The Word created all things and that nothing came into being except through The Word. John says essentially “If it exists, Jesus made it.” John asserts in so uncertain terms that Jesus is the Creator of everything that exists, everything!

In Colossians 1, the apostle Paul says the same thing: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together.” 

Premise 2 is pretty well established. The Old Testament says that God created the universe alone! He had no helpers in the act of divine creation! And yet, The New Testament says clearly that Jesus created the universe.

This leads us to premise 3: “Either The Bible Contradicts Itself Or Jesus Is God.” Again, I don’t see a third option. If Jesus isn’t the same being as Yahweh, then either The New Testament is false in saying that Jesus created the universe, or the Old Testament got it wrong when it said Yahweh had no helpers in creation. Of course, there is a second option: Jesus and Yahweh are one in the same (cf. John 10:30).

Premise 4: If you really believe God breathed both testaments, then the former option is not acceptable. God cannot err. The Bible is God’s word. Therefore, The Bible cannot err.

Since the 4 premises are true, then so is the conclusion: 5: Therefore, Jesus is God.[2]

SYLLOGISM THREE

1: Anyone who accepts worship other than Yahweh is a blasphemer.

2: Jesus accepted worship.

3: Therefore, Jesus was either a blasphemer or He was Yahweh.

4: Jesus was not a blasphemer.

5: Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.

Defense of Premise 1: 

Revelation 4:11 says, “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.” This verse states that God is deserving of worship. In part, it is because we owe our very existence to Him. If God never decided to create us, we wouldn’t exist. We should praise and thank Him for allowing us to come into being and to enjoy a fulfilling relationship in eternity with Him, and even for goods in this lifetime (cf. James 1:17).

That God, and God alone, is worthy of worship is spelled out in the first of The Ten Commandments; “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). This isn’t an arbitrary command of God. It isn’t, as skeptics of The Bible have said, that God is insecure and needs validation and assurance of His goodness. God is deserving and worthy of worship because of two things: we owe our existence to Him and ergo our praise (see Revelation 4:11), and also because God is what St. Anselm called “The Greatest Conceivable Being.” God is a being of which no greater can be conceived. God is great in every way one can be great, and He is great in those ways to the maximal extent. This is generally stated in Bible passages like 1 Chronicles 16:25 which says “For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; He also is to be feared above all gods.” and Jeremiah 10:6 which says “There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might.” and Isaiah 43:10 which says “‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.'” and Psalm 77:13 which says “Your way, O God, is holy; What god is great like our God?”

More specifically, it is an entailment from The Bible passages asserting God’s omnipotence (e.g Job 42:2, Jeremiah 32:17, Matthew 19:26), omniscience (Job 21:22, Psalm 139:1-4, Proverbs 15:3, Isaiah 40:13-1, Hebrews 4:13), omnipresence (Jeremiah 23:24, 1 Kings 8:27, Psalm 139:7-10, Acts 17:27), omnibenevolence (e.g John 3:16) which logically flows from his moral perfection (Deuteronomy 32:4).

So, the reason worship is a moral obligation is that we owe it to God. Why? Because He is literally the greatest thing in the universe! To direct our utmost adoration to anything else would be evil. God, being morally perfect, wills for us to direct our utmost devotion to the summum bonum (the highest good). It just so happens to be Him. If something else were the summum bonum, He would will we worship that, but He is the Greatest Conceivable Being. On top of that, we owe our very existence to Him. That we can enjoy anything is thanks to the creative act of God. Therefore, it is the hight of blasphemy for anyone other than the Greatest Conceivable Being who is our Creator to acclaim worship for Himself. As preachers frequently say: “Everyone worships something,” and that’s true. Everyone has something in their number-1-adoration-spot. The Greatest Being deserves that spot. It’s immoral for anything else to occupy that pedestal. This is why Paul and Peter freaked out when people tried to pay them homage (e.g. Acts 10:25-26).

Defense Of Premise 2:

Jesus definitely received worship, and unlike Paul and Peter, he never rebuked anyone for it. Even when Jesus was a baby, he received worshiped. As soon as the Magi laid eyes on the infant Christ, “they bowed down and worshiped Him” (Matthew 2:11). Of course, one may object that Jesus, being a baby, had no ability to rebuke the Magi for worshipping him. Therefore, this instance proves nothing. I agree, so let’s fast forward to Jesus’ adulthood. In the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus received worship: “So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!’” (Matthew 21:9; John 12:13). The gospels of Matthew and John do not record a single word of rebuke out of Jesus’ mouth for this. Hosanna is a plea for salvation and an expression of adoration. This is definitely a form of worship.

But perhaps the most startling example is found in John 20, where St. Thomas falls to his knees and cries out “My Lord and my God!”. Jesus never says “Don’t call me God, you fool! I’m merely a man just like you!” instead he says “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen”. No rebuke, no warning. Jesus acts as if being called God and being bowed to is totally normal.

Defense Of Premise 3

Once again, we reach a dichotomy. Since only God is worthy of worship and Jesus received worship happily, it follows that either Jesus was blaspheming or He was simply accepting what was rightfully His. Which one is it? This leads us to premise 4:

Defense of Four: Jesus was not a blasphemer.

How do we know whether or not Jesus was blaspheming? If God raised Jesus from the dead, then He put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. He agreed with Jesus’ teachings and conduct. God would not have raised a liar or a lunatic. For the cultists who believe The Bible is God’s Word, one need only point out that The Bible teaches that Jesus rose from the dead.
This blog post isn’t intended to convince skeptics of The Bible, but believers of The Bible who deny the deity of Christ. When trying to convince atheists, agnostics, Muslims, or other non-Christians that Jesus is God, I take a different tactic. First, I apply the criteria of authenticity to sayings of Jesus in the gospels that entail that Jesus believed that He was divine. I do this, for example, in my blog post “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Divine Self-Understanding.” Then, I argue that if Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, then that means that Jesus was telling the truth. After all, the God of Israel would never resurrect a heretic and a blasphemer. So if Jesus rose from the dead, then God put His stamp of approval on Jesus’ teachings, including his teachings that He is divine. Obviously, the resurrection would be a miracle (i.e. an act of God). Atheists are right in claiming that science has proven resurrections don’t happen naturally. The more scientific knowledge we gain, the more we can be sure that a dead corpse isn’t just going to spontaneously regenerate. That only helps the Christian’s cause, as it keeps anyone from saying that if Jesus truly came back to life, there was some natural explanation behind it. If a corpse returns to life (especially one in as bad a shape as Jesus’), you can be sure that a miracle has taken place. Of course, that only raises another question: how do we know Jesus rose from the dead, apart from presupposing The Bible’s inspiration. Here is where I apply “The Minimal Facts Approach” which utilize the aforementioned “criteria of authenticity” mentioned above in examining both the New Testament documents as well as extra-biblical documents. I give a brief presentation of The Minimal Facts argument in my blog post “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection,” but I go into more depth in “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1” and “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection, PART 2”. This Easter, I’ll have an entire 10 part blog post series giving an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

However, since this is aimed, not at people who disbelieve The Bible, but people who believe The Bible (Christadelphians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.), then merely pointing out that The Bible teaches that God resurrected Jesus will be sufficient. You can simply quote the latter parts of the gospel and leave it at that.

Five: Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh

Given the truth of the premises, the conclusion follows.

CONCLUSION

For an argument to be successful, it must meet three criteria. It must have valid logic (i.e., it must follow the rules of inference such as modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, etc.), it must have true premises, and it must have evidence to demonstrate the truth of the premises. If an argument meets these three criteria, then one is justified in believing the conclusion.

In order to refute an argument, one must either show that the argument’s conclusion doesn’t follow even if all the premises were true (i.e. the logic is invalid), or that at least one of the premises is false. There is no other way to refute an argument. For cultists to deny the deity of Jesus, I ask this question: which premise(s) of each of these arguments do you reject, and why do you reject it?

Notes

[1] For an explanation of why this maneuver doesn’t work, see James White’s book The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering The Heart Of Christian Belief.

[2] Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists use this exact same argument but come to a slightly different conclusion. They are correct in inferring from these two sets of scripture passages that Jesus is God, but that doesn’t at all entail that Jesus and The Father are the same person. The doctrine of The Trinity does not insert that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different Gods who all worked together in creating the universe. Rather, the Trinity states that there is only one God but that this God consists of 3 persons (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit). This argument supports the conclusion that Jesus is God and is of the same divine essence as His father, but it doesn’t prove that there is no distinction in their personhood. To make that conclusion is to beg the question in favor of modalism. Trinitarians and modalists both agree that Jesus and His Father are God (the same God). We just disagree on whether God consists of a plurality of persons or not. So, modalists should certainly use this argument to defend Christ’s deity, but they need to stop using it against Trinitarians.

 


Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2orQ7Ox

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
58 replies
  1. Andy Ryan says:

    As I understand it, this is aimed only at people who a) accept that the Bible is inerrant but b) deny the divinity of Jesus. If so, we can sum up the whole article as: ‘It makes no sense to accept the Bible is true but reject that Jesus is divine since the Bible claims Jesus is divine’
    Have you asked any of these people how they reconcile the two positions?

    Reply
    • INFINITE LOGOS says:

      “Have you asked any of these people how they reconcile the two positions?”
      .
      .
      Ohhhh, the lost art of reading comprehension. The last line of the article does exactly that.
      .
      “For cultists to deny the deity of Jesus, I ask this question: which premise(s) of each of these arguments do you reject, and why do you reject it?”

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        Your sarcasm is misplaced, the advisory to read more carefully even more so.
        .
        I’m asking if he put this point directly to the relevant people to see if they have a decent response, prior to him setting it out here as a piece of apologetics.
        .
        I find opponents of a particular religious viewpoint often think they have a slam dunk refutation against it. But you really should present the refutation to the target first. I’ve heard Muslims saying they can disprove Christianity in two lines – I ask them the same thing: how do Christians respond to your ‘slam dunk’. Because it’s unlikely they’ve not heard it before, and so they probably have a good reason why it’s not in fact a slam dunk at all.
        .
        Leaping to a snarky response doesn’t help discussion, and it doesn’t reflect well on you, especially when you missed my point anyway in your rush to lord it over me.

        Reply
  2. INFINITE LOGOS says:

    “Ohhhh, the lost art of reading comprehension. The last line of the article does exactly that.”
    .
    My point stands as correct as proven by the entry after the Notes. Copied here so that you may read it again and understand.
    .
    Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2orQ7Ox
    .
    “Leaping to a snarky response doesn’t help discussion, and it doesn’t reflect well on you, especially when you missed my point anyway in your rush to lord it over me.”
    .
    Touche’ turtle it is you who are confused.

    Reply
  3. Andy Ryan says:

    Again, your sarcasm doesn’t advance your argument. So help my confusion – which specific person did he ask? What was their name? What was their response? You neglect to supply this info in favour of further snark.

    Reply
    • INFINITE LOGOS says:

      “Have you asked any of these people how they reconcile the two positions?”
      .
      “For cultists to deny the deity of Jesus, I ask this question: which premise(s) of each of these arguments do you reject, and why do you reject it?”
      .
      .
      Excuse me for thinking that the author was asking every cultist who has or ever will read the article the exact question that you say he has not asked but which he clearly does.
      .
      .
      So help my confusion – which specific person did he ask? What was their name? What was their response?
      .
      .
      I fail to see how those three questions would be any of your concern. That would be between the author and anyone who responded to his question.
      .
      .
      I used to think Osmium or Iridium was the densest material known to man. Now I know better.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        So after all your handwaving, you don’t know if he’s actually put the question to any, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses to see if there’s a standard answer to the question. I’ve asked several times and each time you’ve answered that he asks the question in the blog. Well sure, but that’s not what I’m asking. BEFORE presenting his ‘slam dunk’ argument, did he attempt to ask the people its targets?
        .
        I already explained what i was asking, and indeed why I wanted to know, but you still believe quoting where he asks in the BLOG is a ‘gotcha’.
        .
        Then you finish by saying it’s none of my business if he asked anyone and what they may have answered, and then throw in more irrelevant insults.

        Reply
        • Susan says:

          You don’t pose a question to the Jehovah Witnesses on Jesus’ deity. It is a well known fact they are false prophets if you investigate it.

          They changed certain words in their retranslated version of the Bible to make the Bible match their religious founder’s interpretation.

          The Jehovah Witnesses have also made some very specific predictions that the world would end yet it didn’t. That also identifies them as false prophets. When a prophecy fails that is the sign of a false prophet.

          So why would you check the truth of a matter with a false prophet? You wouldn’t not after running a background check and knowing they are in error.

          Reply
      • INFINITE LOGOS says:

        “if there’s a standard answer to the question:
        .
        What question ? You shrunk wrapped the whole blog to a single question so it is your question not the author’s.
        .
        .
        Excuse me the dense atheist blog police are out in full force this morning. Just tell me who do you exactly think you are and why your opinion counts as so much more than anybody else’s ?
        .
        .
        If you think the author did such a poor job of writing the article then go right it yourself and post it on your own blog site.
        .
        .
        “Then you finish by saying it’s none of my business if he asked anyone and what they may have answered”
        .
        Well is it ?

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          “Just tell me who do you exactly think you are”
          …Asks the guy posting anonymously. See the bottom of the page: “Want to join the discussion? Feel free to contribute!”. I’m contributing, you’re just trolling, slinging insults, misunderstanding other’s points and questioning their right to respond.
          Find another target for your rudeness and obtuseness, you’ve wasted enough of my time.

          Reply
    • INFINITE LOGOS says:

      The real question TOBY is why do you want it to be untrue ?
      .
      .
      If the Bible taught that God was the only supernatural being then OK; however this is clearly NOT the case.
      The Bible clearly teaches of a powerful fallen angel ( Lucifer or Satan ) who is seeking to destroy man as the only way he has to hurt God.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        The real question TOBY is why do you want it to be untrue ?
        When did you stop beating your wife?
        .
        The Bible clearly teaches of a powerful fallen angel ( Lucifer or Satan ) who is seeking to destroy man as the only way he has to hurt God.
        If a god is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect, then nothing that you or I or a supposed disgruntled underling could do would never do anything to add or subtract from that being. So, basically, your prayers do nothing for him, your sin does nothing to him, your worship does nothing to increase him.

        Reply
        • INFINITE LOGOS says:

          “So . . . the bible is true because it says it’s true therefore it’s true! Completely sound logic.”
          .
          “The real question TOBY is why do you want it to be untrue ?”
          “When did you stop beating your wife?”
          .
          I am assuming of course that your first statement is an attempt at sarcasm. If this is incorrect then my apologies. If I am correct however; then my question is valid.
          .
          Your question of course makes a couple of ignorant assumptions that you have no basis to make.

          Reply
          • toby says:

            I am assuming of course that your first statement is an attempt at sarcasm. If this is incorrect then my apologies. If I am correct however; then my question is valid?
            The first question was an emulation of your question. It’s poisoning the well and an ad hominem in one.
            .
            Your question of course makes a couple of ignorant assumptions that you have no basis to make.
            Can’t read your mind, man. Spit it out or let it go.

          • INFINITE LOGOS says:

            I suggest an English class as your ramblings are becoming incoherent. You can not even differentiate between the words “statement” and “question”.

      • bob says:

        “The Bible clearly teaches…”
        That is rich. Pure “Christian-speak”. The bible does not “teach”, and clearly it does not “clearly teach”. The bible is a compilation of ancient books written by largely unknown authors (and translated and edited by an even larger group) with primitive superstitious views.
        .
        All one has to do is look at how Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century to see that the bible does not “clearly teach”. Heck, just look at where Christianity was in the 19th century. Better yet, just look at how Christian beliefs have evolved over the past 2,000 years. And even better still, just drive down any road IN YOUR CITY OR TOWN and look at all the church buildings that on any Sunday are half full of people who read the bible – YET – they disagree with the Christianity of the people in the church across the street.
        .
        Christianity is a perfect example of what we can reasonably expect if Christians follow the dictates in a bible that DOES NOT CLEARLY TEACH.
        .
        Your claim is false, based on a simple reading of the bible it’s self, by studying the history of Christianity, and by observing present day Christianity. Three strikes against your empty assertion.
        .
        r.u.reasonable@gmail.com

        Reply
        • INFINITE LOGOS says:

          “That is rich.”
          .
          Would that be anything like purposely shortening someone else’s statement in order to make a blatantly wrong point about it ?
          .
          .
          “Better yet, just look at how Christian beliefs have evolved over the past 2,000 years.”
          .
          .
          Jesus Christ second person of the Trinity.
          Jesus Christ born of a Virgin.
          Lived a sinless life.
          Suffered and died a brutal death as an atonement for sin for all mankind.
          Resurrected from the dead after 3 days.
          Ascended to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God the Father.
          Coming again to Judge all mankind.
          .
          Looks pretty much the same across the centuries to me.
          .
          .
          “Your claim is false,”
          .
          My claim was this : “The Bible clearly teaches of a powerful fallen angel ( Lucifer or Satan ) who is seeking to destroy man as the only way he has to hurt God.” The rest of that junk is just your ignorant ramblings.
          .
          .
          The Fall
          .
          Genesis 3:1-5 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ” 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” NIV version
          .
          1 Peter 5:8 Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

          Reply
          • bob says:

            “Jesus Christ second person of the Trinity…Looks pretty much the same across the centuries to me.”
            Perhaps you have not done any extra-biblical research into the history of this “trinity” you speak of – of course not.
            .
            “Coming again to Judge all mankind.”
            That one makes me laugh right out loud. We have been waiting 2,000 years….guess we can wait another 2,000 years.
            .
            r.u.reasonable@gmail.com

          • INFINITE LOGOS says:

            1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. 17 After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.
            .
            .
            The Return of the Son of Man
            .
            Mark 13:24-27 24 However, after the tribulation of those days,‘The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 the stars will fall from the sky,
            and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.’ 26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And He will send out the angels to gather His elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
            .
            .
            Mark 13:32 But as for that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
            .
            .
            Luke 17:26-35 26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man: 27 People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
            28 It was the same in the days of Lot: People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But on the day Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just like that on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, let no one on the housetop come down to retrieve his possessions. Likewise, let no one in the field return for anything he has left behind. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed: One will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together: One will be taken and the other left.”

          • Mark Heavlin says:

            @BOB
            INFINITE LOGOS: “Coming again to Judge all mankind.”
            BOB: “That one makes me laugh right out loud. We have been waiting 2,000 years….guess we can wait another 2,000 years.”
            .
            .
            2 Peter 3:3-7 3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 “Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world of that time perished in the flood. 7 And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

          • Mark Heavlin says:

            Mark 13:31-33 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 32 But as for that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on your guard and stay alert! For you do not know when the appointed time will come.

        • INFINITE LOGOS says:

          From the article above as well:
          .
          Defense of Premise 4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.
          The Bible cannot contradict itself. It is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5). The Holy Spirit cannot inspire false teachings.
          .
          So where exactly would all of the contradictions come from ?
          .
          John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
          .
          Seems pretty clear here that Jesus is talking of Lucifer/Satan.

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            “So where exactly would all of the contradictions come from ?”
            .
            From the Bible. One passage says the Field of Blood got its name because it was bought with blood money. Another passage said it was named because Judas’ blood was spilled there. That’s a contradiction. The manner of Judas’ death is another. He either fell over and burst open or he hung himself. I’m aware of attempts to reconcile the two accounts, but they’re post hoc and unconvincing to anyone who isn’t starting with the conviction that contradictions are simply impossible regardless of evidence to the contrary.
            .
            NB replies indulging in irrelevant insults will be ignored, except to note the rudeness.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            As I said, if you start with the conviction that NO CONTRADICTION IS POSSIBLE then you can tie yourself in knots to resolve virtually any contradiction. Those links are perfect examples of that. It’s no less contrived that the Bible hermeneutics performed by people who reject that Jesus is God. If you start with the notion that Jesus is NOT God, then it’s not hard to interpret Bible passages to support that view.

          • Mark Heavlin says:

            “From the Bible. One passage says the Field of Blood got its name because it was bought with blood money. Another passage said it was named because Judas’ blood was spilled there. That’s a contradiction. The manner of Judas’ death is another. He either fell over and burst open or he hung himself. I’m aware of attempts to reconcile the two accounts, but they’re post hoc and unconvincing to anyone who isn’t starting with the conviction that contradictions are simply impossible regardless of evidence to the contrary.”
            .
            AND
            .
            “As I said, if you start with the conviction that NO CONTRADICTION IS POSSIBLE then you can tie yourself in knots to resolve virtually any contradiction. Those links are perfect examples of that. It’s no less contrived that the Bible hermeneutics performed by people who reject that Jesus is God. If you start with the notion that Jesus is NOT God, then it’s not hard to interpret Bible passages to support that view.”
            .
            .
            But you start with the conviction that both statements are contradictions and that is called a double standard. Also, it is certainly not a contradiction if both statements are true in both cases. And since you are making the claim that both are contradictions where is your evidence that the statements are in fact contradictory? Now if you could show me your credentials as a first century Jewish history scholar then your opinion might carry some weight otherwise not so much.
            .
            .
            I found the tektonics possibility straightforward and not as you say twisting into knots.
            .
            http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.php
            .
            .
            As for the last part really ? Only if you completely ignore huge pieces.
            .
            Luke 3:21-22 21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as He was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”
            .
            John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

  4. Andy Ryan says:

    “It boggles the mind how anyone who takes scripture as the inspired word of God could avoid any conclusion other than that Jesus is divine.”
    I’ve been to a Jehovah’s Witness website to see what they say on the matter. Here’s their answer:
    • Jesus never claimed to be on the same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28.
    • Jesus’ early followers did not view him as being equal to Almighty God. For example, the apostle Paul wrote that after Jesus was resurrected, God “exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position.” Obviously, Paul did not believe that Jesus was Almighty God. Otherwise, how could God exalt Jesus to a superior position? —Philippians 2:9.
    .
    So the answer to Evan’s argument, which quotes Bible verses showing that Jesus was God, and wonders how anyone could miss this, is that Jehovah’s Witnesses point to different Bible verses that they say suggest otherwise. Once again, the Bible is a giant book of multiple choice, with different followers picking different verse that they say make a crystal argument that supports their own position.
    .
    “the Trinity states that there is only one God but that this God consists of 3 persons”
    Three persons but collectively they are one God – how does that work?
    .
    Someone above questioned who am I to have the temerity to suggest that the blog’s author tried to find out if there were common objections to his argument from the people he was targeting, and thus perhaps head off objections. The problem here, is that the point of these blogs is to arm would-be apologists with decent arguments. So they might read the above blog, think they’ve got a ‘check mate’ against Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but then find that his opponents in fact have very well practiced replies to the argument. Leaving him looking a bit of a fool.
    .
    Imagine a creationist reading a blog that says “Evolution is obviously false, because if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”. The creationist doesn’t consider that evolutionary science is unlikely to have survived this long if such a simple refutation exists, but takes it as read that this is a good slam dunk against Richard Dawkins. So a few days later he finds himself talking to a biology student and pitches him the line about monkeys. The student then gives him several good reasons why the argument doesn’t work, to which the creationist has no answers at all and leaves, feeling betrayed by the original blog.
    .
    Again, if you’ve got a very simple argument that claims to show a religion followed by tens of millions of people simply cannot be true, it’s unlikely it’s an argument that has passed by all those followers. Their answer is unlikely to convert you, but it is an answer you need to be prepared for.

    Reply
  5. Lowel O'Mard says:

    The mixture of terms and ideas that the writer employs is the very cause of the misunderstandings that exist in Christian understanding, and the author is perpetuating them. The word “Divine” can mean, “God” or it can mean “From God”. Let us try to avoid such confusion. Let us call the Father by His given name, “YHVH” (Exodus 3:15) and the messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) (Matthew 1:21). These names are fundamental.
    We will start not with the syllogisms but with the author’s assertion in the introduction that Yeshua (Jesus) explicitly claimed to be YHVH. Any true Bible reader will know that this statement is not correct, and yet this is what the author writes when he says, “ …you need to be paying close attention to catch Jesus’ claim to divinity…” and “In other words, there are explicit claims …[on Jesus’ part] that Jesus is God…” Here the author is mixing the concept of being “From God” and being “God”.
    Syllogism one is not valid as the first two premises are not mutually exclusive. Just because YHVH is the only saviour of mankind, does not mean that Yeshua (Jesus) cannot also be the saviour of mankind: acting as YHVH’s agent. As an example, had Pharaoh not appointed Joseph, then Joseph would not have saved Egypt from famine. Who was the saviour here? Ultimately it was the actions of Joseph that saved Egypt, but Pharaoh made them possible.
    In the second syllogism the first premise is misleading and the second premise is not established by scripture. The first premise should read, “Only YHVH created the universe”. YHVH stated that He was the one who made the heavens and the earth (Exodus 20:11; Isaiah 42:5) with His own hands (Isaiah 48:13; Jeremiah 27:4-5; Job 38:4-11,12; Job 39:19,26) and alone (Isaiah 44:24). Yeshua (Jesus) was very careful to distinguish himself, the Anointed One, from his Father, YHVH (Matthew 7:21, 10:32, 11:25, 16:27, 20:23, 22:41-45, 23:9, 23:39, 26:64; Mark 8:38, 10:40, 12:24-27, 12:29, 14:62; Luke 4:17-19, 9:48, 10:16, 10:21, 20:42, 23:46, 24:49; John 3:16, 4:23, 4:34, 5:19, 5:30, 6:27, 6:29, 6:32, 6:38, 6:44, 6:57, 6:65, 7:16, 7:18, 7:28, 8:16, 8:18, 8:28, 8:29, 8:38, 8:40, 8:42, 8:49, 8:54, 9:4, 10:29, 10:36, 11:41, 12:26, 12:28, 12:44, 12:49, 12:50, 13:20, 13:31, 14:16, 14:24, 14:28, 15:1, 15:9, 15:15, 15:16, 15:24, 15:26, 16:3, 16:10, 16:16, 16:23, 16:27, 16:28, 16:32, 17:1, 17:3, 20:17, 20:21). Because of this Premise three is wrong and should read, “Therefore, either the Bible contradicts itself, or Jesus is not YHVH,” and this in itself negates the conclusion of the syllogism.
    Both the cited passages supporting premise two, John 1:1-3 and 1 Colossians can be validly interpreted in a different way, and this must be so because of premise four. In particular the interpretation of 1 Colossians cannot be interpreted in such a way as to contradict with Paul’s words in Acts 17:22-31 where he makes a clear distinction between YHVH the creator and the man, Yeshua (Jesus) whom YHVH appointed and raised from the dead.
    The first premise of syllogism three is scripturally inaccurate. An accurate version would be “Anyone who accepts worship due to YHVH is a blasphemer”. A fine example of this is what happened to Herod, (Acts 12:21-23). David was worshipped, but there was a distinction between the worship due to him and the worship due to YHVH (1 Chronicles 29:20). Yeshua (Jesus) accepted worship because he knew that he was not being given worship that was due to YHVH. He knew this because he had taught his disciples well concerning YHVH’s primacy (see the list above: Yeshua (Jesus) distinguishes himself from YHVH). Paul and Peter did not accept homage from people who were used to worshipping people as Gods. Cornelius was a Roman who were known to do this (Acts 10:25,26), and the Lycaonians were Greeks (Acts 14:11-18) who even went as far as to label them with names of their gods.

    Reply
  6. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Evan,

    As a child, we have a very limited (small) concept of reality, basically is surrounds our stomach, that concept grows as we get older to include our parents, our block, the city, the nation, the planet, solar system, and so forth. In fact much of the angst of a teenager that seeks too hard to find some significance about themselves is do to the fact their concept of the universe has grown so large they begin to experience their own insignificance because surely we are a lonely particle of dust in the massive universe that seems to care little for us. Storms, earthquake, all can put an end to us as if we are nothing. Also a large part of Christianity is composed of those who are simply seeking their own significance, wanting to be special in some way. This is the psychological gestalt that we walk through as we grow up and more importantly, as our concept of the universe grows within us.

    As a religionist we can add to that material breadth with the layering of what we call a spiritual world, angels, souls, etc…Now we have the size of the material universe, which only appears infinitely wide, and a heavenly side which also APPEARS infinitely wide. Yet both worlds are composed of FORM, in the material their is you over there, and me over here. Likewise in the Heavens this same dynamic applies, this is because both layer were created together. TIME is also evident in both layers of reality, even if it is experienced differently in each, but the mere existence of time determines it to be part of the FINITE Creation.

    In our growth we tend to come to a conceptual level where our concept of God is as if He is the whole of this Creation, as if His Spirit simply stretches across the breadth of the Creation, filling all things as it were. It is in fact this limited understanding of the Father that restricts us from being able to understand what we call the Trinity. Simply we find a conflict of how two, the Father and the Son can exist one and separate within the confines of time and space, so we think of God as expansive (the whole) and the Son as localized. Ultimately this is still a form of Idolatry as our understanding of God is still limited to the Creation.

    God the Father though exist APART from this Creation, Holy, set apart, He is not a part of the Time Space continuum at all, this can be understood as we contemplate the Infinite as it relates to the finite in mathematical terms. The two simply do not interconnect. Our normal finite minds stop at the boundaries of FORM and have a difficult time understanding that which is formless and timeless. In the Father’s reality He alone exist, He alone is One and whole and there simply is nothing else that exists. Hence when God creates He does not divide Himself as if He “begets” the Creation, He creates out of Nothing, and even though takes form as if you created a toaster, the innate nothingness remains as simply a “thing” but possessing no life. As you exists, including consciously, differently than the paper weight on your desk, so does the Father exists differently than that which He created, including if those things which APPEAR eternal to us such as angel. This set apart (Holy) state of God the Father’s existence. God is not the MOST powerful Spirit, He is not the MOST anything for He exists beyond all such designations, God the Father is simply the One Who IS.

    Time and space create a framework that allows others things to temporarily exist, angels, creates souls, etc… and this womb which is the Creation actually protects us from annihilation even as no one can see God and live, His oneness is all inclusive. What we would understand as the Trinity is an effect of God Creating and maintaining this present Creation, when God “speaks” to create it is from His timeless state, not a PAST event as we perceive it. So God’s voice is still reverberating as it maintains this Creation, If God ceases to speak then the Creation shall dissolve back into the cosmic water of nothingness from which it come forth. Think of it as if God, hovering over (Holy, set apart) is speaking over that which is empty and void, and the void responds as water would to our voices, the compression waves of our breath making the water vibrate to form patterns, forms. That same Breath of God does not BECOME the waters (void) but the waters responds, and POOF! Creation appears, and God continues to speak, although sing would be much more accurate, and the Creation continues.

    Now we Have the Father, separate, independent, never making direct contact with the void, And we have His Breath, the Holy Spirit, through which He is singing forth to presently create this universe of time, space and form. Now here is a great mystery, to purpose of Creation is to be a womb where God brings forth forms such as created souls, (first birth), and then impregnates some of those souls (second birth) with the nature of His own Being, thus producing Children of God. To do this He sends a SEED of Himself into the realms of time and space and form, that seed is Yahweh, existing in the Heavenly realm for a while, and later descending into a body of flesh as Jesus the Christ. And as that Seed dies it impregnates created souls making a body of believers, all sharing the same divine nature. As the divine nature in Christ altered and elevated His own created flesh, so does His Spirit in us alter and elevate the nature of the created soul so that when God ceases to create, and the Creation is dissolved is fervent heat as it were, those souls protected by His own nature will not be destroyed with everything else.

    God the Father, transcendent to all Creation. Breathing out (Holy Spirit) as He is in the act of beginning and maintaining this Creation, and when that Breath, by the will and intent of the Father to communicate, takes the form of The Word, God’s seed and nature coming forth within the confines of time and space. As we are standing within this active Creation looking out so do we see three ASPECTS of the One nature as God is working and maintaining this Creation, but they are forever one.

    The priests who wrote the creeds, three persons? as if God is divided and confined within time and space, simply had no real spiritual understanding, like those around here they were lost and thinking they might find truth line upon line, precept upon precept, but they stagger and are snared. As large as this universe might be, it is nothing compared to God, and the only way to truly comprehend God even partly, is to understand that ALL that is created, all that exists, literally does not, we take up no space within God’s transcendent Being. We are nothingness, temporarily given form like a pattern of waves across the top of a pond, soon to be dissolve. As long as we think we possess true existence, our idea of God will remain idolatrous and pagan as our concept of the Father rises little above the Creation itself. Giving up personal desires in order to work for the church organic is good, but can we give up our very clinging to existence so that God alone can possess all the Glory.

    Reply
  7. Lowel O'Mard says:

    Dear Brent Hurst,

    What you wrote is very lyrical and interesting. I was particularly caught by the description of, “…God’s voice is still reverberating as it maintains this Creation,…” This is indeed an intriguing thought. I also agree with your concept of, “…we have His Breath, the Holy Spirit, through which He is singing forth to presently create this universe of time, space and form”. However, you make a distinction between God and YHVH when you suggest that YHVH is just a seed from himself. This goes directly against Scripture where YHVH says that he created the heavens and the earth (Exodus 20:11), and that he, God, wants to be known by the name YHVH (Exodus 3:15). YHVH is not a “Seed” of God, but is the Creator Himself. This is what He told us, so to suggest otherwise is wrong.

    It occurs to me that you are paraphrasing John 1:1-3, replacing “Word” with “Seed”, and in doing so are falling into the same error as those who try to use it to support the concept of the “Trinity”. The error is in thinking that Yeshua (Jesus) is YHVH, but Yeshua (Jesus) refutes this by his own words (see text references in my comment above, March 10, 2018 at 7:30 am).

    You seem to chide us as human beings in allowing ourselves to be constrained to fitting our understanding into “FORMS”. This may well be the case, but it was YHVH who set us the example in this. At the beginning of days, the world was without, form (Genesis 1:2), and YHVH changed that by producing forms. He separated darkness from light, he separated the heavens from the earth, he created from nothing things that had form (Genesis 1 and 2). As the pinnacle of His creation, YHVH formed man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7) and gave us life. When we use forms to define our understanding, we follow what we have been taught by YHVH.

    YHVH has given us the language and constructs to know Him. He told David that the Messiah would be his descendent, from his bowels (II Samuel 7:12, Psalms 89:4), this was affirmed through the prophets (Ezekiel 34:23,24, Hosea 3:5, Amos 9:11, Jeremiah 23:5,6, Micah 5:2) and Yeshua’s (Jesus’) lineage is confirmed in Revelation (Revelation 5:5). YHVH’s agent Gabriel, who stands before Him (Luke 1:19) told Mary, “…The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for this reason that Holy One being born of you will be called Son of God.” (Luke 1:35 [LITV]). So Yeshua (Jesus) is not YHVH but is, as he himself told us, His son (John 3:16). It is with good reason that Yeshua (Jesus) is compared to Adam. Both can claim YHVH as their direct father, however, Yeshua is distinct from Adam in that he was born of a woman.

    Finally bear in mind that, regardless of how little we are in the great scheme of things, we are not nothing. We have great value to YHVH: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 [LITV]).

    Reply
    • Mark Heavlin says:

      “It occurs to me that you are paraphrasing John 1:1-3, replacing “Word” with “Seed”, and in doing so are falling into the same error as those who try to use it to support the concept of the “Trinity”.”
      .
      I would agree with you on your comments about John 1:1-3.
      .
      The concept of the Trinity is clearly shown though in the following 4 passages of The New Testament:
      ( Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34 ).

      Reply
      • Lowel O'Mard says:

        All four passages that you listed recount the baptism of Yeshua (Jesus). The concept of the “Trinity” is clearly show in that event in that the “Three” members said to make up the “God Head” described by the Trinity doctrine are mentioned. This is as far as the fundamental support of the doctrine goes. It is like saying that mentioning all the disciples supports the concept of the “Dozen” as there are twelve of them. The Trinity doctrine goes beyond counting and this is where this event can be seen to contradict it. An intrinsic part of the Trinity doctrine is the relationship between its three members, however, the relationships shown in the event can be interpreted in a way that does not support the doctrine.

        What happened when Yeshua (Jesus) was baptised can be seen to give us a clear understanding of YHVH, the Holy Spirit and the relationship between them. When YHVH speaks from heaven saying, “…This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found delight.”, (Matthew 3:17). He is showing His approval and love for Yeshua (Jesus). He affirms this by imparting His spirit upon Yeshua (Jesus). The fact that one is addressing the other in itself can tell us that these are independent beings. In addition to this, because YHVH finds, delight in Yeshua (Jesus) we can look at this to mean that there was the possibility of disapproval too. If Yeshua (Jesus) could be looked upon as just an extension of YHVH, then his good behaviour would be expected. Because Yeshua (Jesus) was created like us with free will, and we sinned, then there was the possibility that he could do the same. This must be the case, or Satan was wasting his time even talking to him as he does in the very next chapter where he tries to recruit him (Matthew 4).

        The last verse that you quote can also point to an understanding of the relationship between YHVH and Yeshua (Jesus) as John describes Yeshua (Jesus) as “…The Lamb of God…” (John 1:29) and the “Son of God” (John 1:34). We can interpret this as John knowing that YHVH is not a lamb, and that a father is not his son.

        Reply
  8. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel, this will take more than one post.
    .
    Dear Lowel,
    .
    First off, thank you for being the first here to take the time to actually try to understand where I am coming from. I appreciate your concerns and will try to answer them. But you should know that my knowledge is more direct and expansive than simply muddling my way through scriptural verses. And if I appear chiding or too lofty at times (muddling), it only reflects the depth of my understanding and not my heart. To know God we must also understand “what” He is as well as what He does.
    .
    “””””“…we have His Breath, the Holy Spirit, through which He is singing forth to presently create this universe of time, space and form”…. However, you make a distinction between God and YHVH when you suggest that YHVH is just a seed from himself.”””””
    .
    “we” in this case was speaking of our collective understanding and not the personal attribute. Hopefully let me clarify. In the ACT of creating, an act symbolized as if speaking, there is the Father as transcendent, formless, eternity, Breathing forth upon the void. Picture a bowl of water in front of you, as you will yourself to speak, you generate compression waves that cause the surface of the water to vibrate, if you are singing a B note, so will that vibration be transferred to the water creating a pattern in the waves. In this we can understand several things, God Himself is making NO direct contact with what He creates. As far as Infinity is from Finitude, so is God the Father set apart from that which He creates. It is through the MEDIUM of His Breath that He effects the void.
    .
    We are at first the void, formless, nothingness. Lets say God is vocalizing four notes simultaneously, one note or vibration stabilizes the speed of light across the surface creating the underlying foundation of Time. Simultaneously another note from His voice sets up another overriding wave construct that creates Space. If you are familiar with wave interference you should see where this is going.
    .
    Once you have space and time, you now have the capacity for “here and now” verses “there and then”, into which “Identity” can condense, IOWs gravity. We can now know POINTS of reference. Before Creation, ALL is God. The Creation itself is like a womb, it allows us a framework for existence as it protects us from the all inclusive oneness of an Infinite Reality that is God. One might consider that in a field of pure energy, now we can condense points of solidity, not just as an atom, but all “identities” as all “things” are provided a place and time to exist in. And so is born the world of FORM. Now there is one thing lacking, LIfe, consciousness.
    .
    This completes the Heavenly archetypical frame work for existence, in my Ebook “In Search of the Lost Parable” I lay this out using the week of Creation, although this only runs to the third day, after which God generates the Material (Earthly) side of Creation. Instead of using Creation as a linear model I use it vertically to build the PRESENT structure of Creation rather than some past dead historical event as I understand God to be explaining the way things ARE rather than the way they WERE. The mysteries of God are often hidden in plain sight….
    .
    Now lets return to YHWH, God the Father is forever formless, He is separate from the Creation and remains forever uncontaminated by any form of limitation (sin), anything created. His Breath is now vibrating upon the nothingness are holding this creation in a stable matrix. Whereas your breath over the bowl is by proxy transferring force to generate vibrating waves, if you will that same breath to form a WORD, to directly Communicate your will, that Word is likewise still you, begotten by your will through your breath. It says and communicates exactly what you wish it to. God creates the Creation, but by His Breath He breaths Himself into the framework of time and space and this Word then takes on “Identity”. God the Father has now entered into His own Creation in the Heavenly realm as the Identity of YHWH.
    .
    This is the “form” of God that we see walking in the Heavenly Garden with Adam, bartering with Abraham over the fate of Sodom, the Angel (messenger) of the Lord, the Word of the Lord, the Bread from Heaven that bring the Divine nature into the Creation, the Identity that latter incarnates into a physical body derived from Mary, The same YHWH that called Israel, watched over them, has not entered into their midst, but they did not know Him.
    .
    All things are Created, YHWH alone is begotten, uncreated, He is as His name implies, The One who IS. And He has been representing the formless Father from the beginning of time, first in the Heavenly realm, and then upon the Earth. Now let me speak of His goal.
    .
    This Creation is as a womb, created souls such as you and I have been brought into existence here. We are composed initially from Adam as a physical body of dust, with a heavenly component that is our soul and consciousness, although it is much truer to say I am this consciousness, this soul, and I merely am now experiencing existence through the senses of this physical form. It is often assumed that the breath given to Adam was God’s own, but the scriptures add a qualifier, basically God breathed “the breath of Life”, which is to say that those souls (breaths of life) that were created during the week, a week that “completed” Creation, are now breathed into Adam to manifest as the Adamic race. Like Levi was in the loins of Abraham, so all the souls mankind were in the loins of Adam to be manifest later. This is probably figurative, but the point is, If Adam was begotten of God’s breath, he would have shared Gods nature, thus he would not have sinned. Adam, and us included, we have all been created from the void, thus the void, nothing, emptiness, is still the FOUNDATION of our Being, being sinners (falling short), so it is we sin.
    .
    The first Adam was from below, created, the second figurative Adam, Jesus, YHWH, was from above, begotten along with the Creation, having within Himself the divine nature, so it is He does not sin. And if we as created souls, receive this divine nature from Him as a second birth, then…………….continued

    Reply
  9. Brent Hurst says:

    ….Continued
    .
    .
    Then………. when God finishes speaking, when the song of creation ceases, and the Breath and Word of God return to Himself, so will the Word ascend above all the created Heavens and with Him all those with whom He has shared His nature and Being with (His Trane), being ONE in Him, shall be able to enter into the Oneness of God’s nature, and yet in Christ not lose their individual Identity.
    .
    This Creation, this womb, protects us now as a woman’s womb protects her husband’s child (seed) until such time as that child can survive in the outside world, and when that child is born, so does the Father rejoice. The mystery of Marriage, of man and wife, within our very nature has God revealed His purpose for Creation, to bring forth children into His own Realm of Being, having become eternal just as He is, and He, His divine Being, through Christ, becoming the very source of our Being and individual Identities.
    .
    The Created nature is ever diminishing, tear a piece of paper and there is loss, God’s nature is as I describe it, ever full and overflowing, overflowing out of Christ as five loafs could feed 5000, overflowing as His nature flows into our created nature birthing us as children of the Most High, God the Father, forever expanding as He begets Children innumerable. Is there anything more beautiful, and how can I not be somewhat chidish as God’s gift has been degraded into the doctrinal plea bargain whereby men seek only to avoid the pain of their idea of Hell. Reading in the wrong context, so do they come to the wrong conclusions.
    .
    I apologize for the length, let me look back at your post to see if I missed anything,
    .
    The body of Christ comes through David physically directly from Mary, even by adoption through Joseph, the soul of Christ, that LIVING part of Him, was begotten by the Holy Spirit, reflecting also How YHWH is begotten in the Creative process as God’s Word and Seed.
    .
    The Trinity, so called, is simply a distinction of the three attributes apparent while He is singing the Creation into existence. The Father transcendent, His Breath as it maintains and directs the matrix of time and space, and His Word and Seed as He implants (begets) HIs own nature into this Creation in order to impregnate created souls with His divine nature. When God stops speaking so will the ONENESS they all had before (as it were) the Creation be restored. Lets look at it this way, from our POV, within the boundaries and limitations of time and space as it is being sustained, that one nature appears as three. From their POV, namely the Father, Son, and Spirit, they are always One.
    .
    Adam was from below (created), Christ from above (begotten), I probably already said this sorry, just trying to be thorough.
    .
    “Believing”? If we believe in a God who is simply demanding penal punishment for our disobedience, who simply demands a retaliatory justice of an eye for an eye like spoken of in movies by vengeful people, are we then believing in the TRUE God. An eye for an eye was never intended as a demand to TAKE, rather it was an instruction to the Judges to take ONLY an eye for an eye, never more. Balance, fairness, and yet even on top of this one could show mercy. Does a man, despite being a Christian through the flesh, going to church, etc…and claiming to “believe” in God truly believe in THE God, when his minds concept of God is off, does a man believe in the true Jesus when they picture Him sitting with a child on His lap supposing He loves everyone unconditionally.
    .
    “Believe” is much over used by the church through the centuries as it brings adherents into their organic organization along with money and power. No doubt we accept Christ THROUGH belief, as we do any truth, but the nature of Salvation lies in the Spiritual Birth where Christ shares with a soul His own divine nature, in this we satisfy the righteousness of God as His own Righteousness, His own Holiness is given to us. God is no reactive ultimately but proactive. Neither is “Faith” some personal virtue of ours whereby we blindly accept something we do not understand, (which is actually impossible) and thus God rewards us with simply dismissing our shortcomings.
    .
    Just as we are born first through the flesh, not by our own will but by the will of our parents, so in the second birth, assuming such an analogy is even effective, God pours His Spirit into those whom He has chosen to save, our awareness though takes time to catch up. As we mature in our flesh we come to understand ourselves, who we are, etc… Likewise Spiritually, the children of God slowly come to realize that divine nature which God has given them. They might in their immaturity THINK it is of their own design, but in reality “ZECH. 4:6 “…This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.”, or JN. 1:13 “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
    .
    So it is that Salvation is of the Spirit which God has poured out, a child of little faith (understanding, vision) things it is their own doing, thus are often scared of losing it. Greater faith, greater vision and understanding, recognizes this is God’s doing, as we are simply slowly realizing (believing) it. Our believe or lack thereof has no bearing on the REALITY of the Spiritual Birth, but it does denote our growth in the faith and thus how we might act and treat our brothers upon this Earth.
    .
    Continued

    Reply
  10. Brent Hurst says:

    Last one….
    .
    .
    You might notice that I rarely if ever use verse references, but neither did the writers of the books we call the bible, much of the new testament were simply letters to a congregation or a brother in the faith. Since God has opened my eyes and ears, so I simply speak from my own understand, and my knowledge is consistent whereas doctrinal theology can often contradict itself if studied with an honest mind. I.e. Exactly when did the wicked get access to the tree of life whereby they might live forever, even if that life is in Hell? Subconsciously they have subverted the meaning of “Eternal Life” to MEAN something else, namely eternal pleasure since that is what their flesh seeks. Anyway, now I have laid out the mysteries of the Faith and Spirit, the “How” and “What For” God has created, and the beautiful conclusion of the Eternal Father eternally begetting Children, forever expanding the Spiritual Sky as it were, ever expanding.
    .
    I say this so you will realize I am not as these others, feeling blindly around for syllogistic arguments, bantering verses trying to find proof to convince others of Jesus’s divinity. There is no one here, neither apologist not poster who can write as I do, I simply see the big picture, and try to relate such an exalted, overriding, foundational context with consistent speech, in the hopes of revealing a grander paradigm of our existence. Once, and if, you have absorbed the world as I see it, then you can return to the scriptures and see if they might make more sense, but more importantly if the objective nature of God’s creation also witness to all of this, for there is no contradiction between the scriptures and not His Creation as true science reflects it. And by a multitude of witness, of the water (Creation) and the Blood (Spirit), you will come to know (Faith) for yourself. And then enter into the Sabbath, which is His rest for those who rely solely upon His Spirit, and the revelation of having been chosen by Him, not because of us but despite of us, understanding that we are His Children, not just in name, but even by Blood as His Spirit lives within us.

    Reply
    • Mark Heavlin says:

      Dear Brent,
      .
      “All things are Created, YHWH alone is begotten, uncreated,”
      .
      Maybe you should go look up the definition of the word “begotten”. Because you really just said ” created, uncreated”. Very, very confusing.
      .
      .
      The first Adam was from below, created, the second figurative Adam, Jesus, YHWH, was from above, begotten along with the Creation, having within Himself the divine nature, so it is He does not sin.
      .
      Jesus is speaking here in Revelation:
      .
      Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
      .
      Please explain the conflict between Jesus word’s and what you wrote that Jesus was begotten along with the Creation.
      .
      .
      “The body of Christ comes through David physically directly from Mary, even by adoption through Joseph, the soul of Christ, that LIVING part of Him, was begotten by the Holy Spirit, reflecting also How YHWH is begotten in the Creative process as God’s Word and Seed.
      .
      The Trinity, so called, is simply a distinction of the three attributes apparent while He is singing the Creation into existence. The Father transcendent, His Breath as it maintains and directs the matrix of time and space, and His Word and Seed as He implants (begets) HIs own nature into this Creation in order to impregnate created souls with His divine nature. When God stops speaking so will the ONENESS they all had before (as it were) the Creation be restored. Lets look at it this way, from our POV, within the boundaries and limitations of time and space as it is being sustained, that one nature appears as three. From their POV, namely the Father, Son, and Spirit, they are always One.”
      .
      These two paragraphs appear to be in direct conflict with one another given the definition of “begotten”. In the first paragraph you say “the soul of Christ, that LIVING part of Him, was begotten by the Holy Spirit” and then in paragraph two you say “From their POV, namely the Father, Son, and Spirit, they are always One.” If they are not in conflict please explain how they are not. Again, Translation, Book, Chapter, and Verse would be greatly appreciated so I can verify it myself.

      Reply
  11. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Mark,
    .
    “”””””””Maybe you should go look up the definition of the word “begotten”. Because you really just said ” created, uncreated”. Very, very confusing.”””””””
    .
    A “thing” that is created does not possess the nature and Being of it’s creator, and so we create toasters and microwave ovens. Children are begotten because they share the same nature and Being as their parents. Every “THING” you can possibly imagine from ants and planets to even those heavenly things such as angels, in fact every thing other than God Himself, was created.
    .
    “””””””Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
    .
    Please explain the conflict between Jesus word’s and what you wrote that Jesus was begotten along with the Creation.””””””
    .
    God hovers over the void and speaks, so above the nothingness (waters) there is God the Father, His Breath, and His Word, One Nature, but in the very act of Creating that Nature performs as three. All of Creation, all “Things”, including souls, are effects as the nothingness of the void below takes shape.
    .
    When the Father ceases to speak, and all of Creation returns to the formlessness from which it arose, The Word (Christ) returns to the Father, along with any created soul with whom Christ has shared His nature so as to be ONE in Him. This “sharing” is what we call the second birth as we receive God’s divine nature within ourselves.
    .
    The Word is the beginning (Alpha), and it is the end (Omega).
    .
    “”””””””These two paragraphs appear to be in direct conflict with one another given the definition of “begotten”. In the first paragraph you say “the soul of Christ, that LIVING part of Him, was begotten by the Holy Spirit” and then in paragraph two you say “From their POV, namely the Father, Son, and Spirit, they are always One.” If they are not in conflict please explain how they are not. Again, Translation, Book, Chapter, and Verse would be greatly appreciated so I can verify it myself.”””””””””””
    .
    An atheist thinks of the world with one layer, namely the material world of matter. With religion we begin to think of a two layer world, matter beneath from which the body is made, and the heavenly sphere above from which our soul is made. But most everybody stops at this two layer concept and they think of the earth as temporal and this higher heavenly region as the eternal.
    .
    But they are wrong, the attributes of finitude, namely time, space, and things (forms), inhabit both realms as both realms are part and parcel of the Creation. That which is truly Infinite and eternal by nature exists quite separately (Holy) from all things of the Creation, it is difficult for us to conceptualize God as He is timeless and without space, when we remove everything we can imagine, what is left, that which just is, is God. God, and His self awareness, knows only Himself as He alone is truly existing.
    .
    We think of ourselves as being real, I think therefore I am, and then when we think of God as existing we tend to equate the two as if we both are real. But from the eternal’s POV, all that is created is not real, it will all cease to exist as it is only a matter of time. This is why Jesus speaks of us as dead, because we have been formed from the void, so does the void remain the foundation of our Being. Jesus Himself is the true LIFE that comes down not just from the Heavenly realm but from the very bosom of the Father, possessing within Himself the divine nature.
    .
    Having set the stage I will address what you perceive as conflicting. When God created the Heavens and the Earth, so did He implant, incarnate, His Seed into the Heavenly realm, that is YHWH. The Father who is beyond all “form” took on the form of an Identity within the boundaries of time and space. YHWH is the God that we have had access to throughout the Creation, 2000 years ago YHWH further incarnated into a physical body and then we call Him Yeshua (Joshua) or Jesus in Greek.
    .
    In the present physical reality we are two part, the soul which is the living part of ourselves, the true us, and the physical body as the dead part of us as the body has no life without the soul. Jesus also possess a dead body, but His soul, unlike ours, is divine in nature. Mary provided a body, but the soul that entered it was YHWH, the divine seed of the Father and the Father’s representative in time and space.
    .
    A little advice Mark, spend the next 20 years pouring your mind into Genesis and the Creation and stay away from Revelation, it is only as we understand the beginning that we can clearly see the end.

    Reply
  12. Lowel O'Mard says:

    Dear Brent,

    I understand that you are exercising your intellect in forging an understanding of YHVH. But it is important to temper that exercise with caution. When we buy a new piece of technology, a new television perhaps, it is usually created so that it can be used intuitively. However, we will probably never understand all its features until we take the time to read the instruction manual. This is how it is with YHVH. He has given us models and structures in the Scriptures with which to understand Him. We ignore these at our peril. Moreover, with our limited minds we will most likely create for ourselves something that bears no resemblance to the truth. I surmise that YHVH knew this to be true, so He directly instructed us not to try to create something to represent Him.
    .
    At Sinai YHVH spoke to all of the assembly that had come out of Egypt, but all they saw was smoke, fire and the mountain quaking (Exodus 19:18). He pointed this out out to them and told them they should not try to represent Him (Exodus 20:22-25). In this passage using silver or gold to do so is specifically mentioned, but later texts suggest that we shouldn’t use anything else either (e.g. Deuteronomy 28:36, 29:17; 2 Kings 19:18; Jeremiah 2:27, 10:3-5). If we follow what seems to be the spirit of YHVH’s command, then we should not be using words to make an image of him either. This is what the people who invented the Trinity doctrine have done, and you seem to be doing it too.
    .
    It is important that what we say and teach to other’s about YHVH can be tested to what YHVH has told us in the Scriptures. You should give scriptural references supporting what you say. You have said that the New Testament writers do not reference scripture. I do not think that is a fair statement. Today there are many cultural references that people use without reference. If I say to somebody, “I’ll be back”, especially in a deep voice, many will automatically recognise it as a reference to the “Terminator” film. Normal conversation can be littered with, for example, Shakespearian quotes such as, “To be or not to be” or responses like “You can’t handle the truth!”, without references being given. We must remember that all the New Testament writers, except perhaps Luke, were Jews, and as such would have been taught the Scriptures from childhood. These were their cultural references, and as such they, like us, would not often feel the need to provide a reference to their words, but the quotes are there.
    .
    By the way. Paul disagrees with you regarding our possessing the nature and being of our creator. Paul said that Yeshua (Jesus) did, and that we should too (Phillipians 2:5-8).

    Reply
  13. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel,
    .
    Apparently I’ve done the long thing again so let me see if I can get this in two posts.
    .
    “”””””””This is how it is with YHVH. He has given us models and structures in the Scriptures with which to understand Him. We ignore these at our peril. Moreover, with our limited minds we will most likely create for ourselves something that bears no resemblance to the truth. I surmise that YHVH knew this to be true, so He directly instructed us not to try to create something to represent Him.””””””””””
    .
    Yes, there are models and structures, or we might say reoccurring contexts given. YHWH, as the Identity (form) within time and space of the transcendent and formless Creator, is to reflect or reveal, or lets say He glorifies the one who is above all form. With YHWH and His relationship with the children of Israel there is a quality of shared existence, YHWH is, Israel is, and so there is communication between the two.
    .
    That which is formless, transcendent, undivided, where there is nothing but only God, a true mathematical Infinite that nothing of the finite can even compare, YHWH within time and space must represent as they are of the same nature. Mystically we can say God (the Father) is represented by His own Word. When Christ walked the Earth, He looked like one of us, and thus we would mistake Him thinking He was of a created nature like ours. Even so, in the Heavenly aspect of Creation where souls stand around the Throne for example, and we gaze upon the “Ancient of days”,

    “””” I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
    Daniel 7:9″””
    .
    Even in this realm this image, this personage, still exists to REPRESENT the Father who in His oneness exists beyond any form. (Sorry about all the Transcendent, formless, adjectives. I can never really be sure any man truly has the concept of this transcendent oneness- see, I just keep doing it:-) )
    .
    “””””””” You should give scriptural references supporting what you say. You have said that the New Testament writers do not reference scripture. I do not think that is a fair statement.”””””””
    .
    I did not mean they do not [ever], only that they speak fluidly from their own understanding, their own revelation. They had VISION, they saw, they knew, and so they spoke, and then once in a while they might throw in a scripture. They were not as the vast majority of Christianity today that are trying to pick their way through doctrines trying to discern the broader context. Having seen, they spoke with authority, and this kind of authority is very intimidating to those who are still struggling to understand. Envy, that quality in the human heart that is always “comparing” and beset Cain even as it did the Pharisees, never truly feels comfortable around such authority.
    .
    And so I could tell you I am a prophet, which is better translated as “seer”, and simply means a man of insight. (special revelation of specific future event is optional if God divulges these). Is there not a piece of you that wants to “put me in my place”, after all how can I, a mere man like you, think to understand so much of God and the Creation. But yet, yes, I am a seer, and the revelation flows out of me, speaking not only of the flesh, not only of the Heavenly realm of angels and thrones, but also of the formless Divinity that resides beyond all of these.
    .
    And to come full circle, “Rightly dividing”, the finite comes forth with a definite set of attributes, that which is infinite and exists beyond any form bears forth its own attributes. So we look into the Heavenly realm, and there sits YHWH, the Ancient of Days even as He was before all else, the Holy Breath given communicative form, the “Word” thru whom all things came into Being, and it is clear that He possesses FORM and IDENTITY such as we do as created Beings.
    .
    All created things share those attributes of the finite, temporal, limited, etc… But whereas we are “one among many”, YHWH is “ONE and Only One”, and so even as He sits with us in time and space with a certain degree of form as He is YHWH, this Oneness is His connection with the Infinite Oneness of the Father. Think mathematically, which is simply of form of ORDER through which God created time and space, and one can discern there can be no synchronicity between the infinite and the finite, where one exists, the other cannot. Yet the only concept, context, that can exist in the finite that might represent the infinite, is the context of “ONE and only ONE”. And yet with all this being said, it is not wrong that we should think of YHWH as the Father, if we could take that divine formless Father, and squeeze Him as best we could into a comprehensible form within time and space, so do we have YHWH, the nameless one though He is simply called “the One who IS”, I AM that I AM”. He possess no name of distinction for there is but One of Him and nothing else to distinguish Him from.
    .
    “””””””If we follow what seems to be the spirit of YHVH’s command, then we should not be using words to make an image of him either. This is what the people who invented the Trinity doctrine have done, and you seem to be doing it too.”””””
    .
    Continued

    Reply
  14. Brent Hurst says:

    Continued
    .
    In Zen, which does not concern itself with tell a man WHAT to believe but rather emphasized that one should first see HOW one believes, IOWs, look and discover the beam that is within our eyes, there is a saying “Before Zen, a mountain is a mountain and a river is a river. But during Zen a mountain is not a mountain and a river is not a river. But after Zen, a mountain is a mountain and a river is a river.” Such a statement can sound like gobbledygook to many, but it expresses how we see our mental constructs rather than the THING itself, we look at a river and think “that’s a river”, and the mind is deceived that it is actually perceiving the river when it is merely seeing its own mental construct of what it thinks a river is.
    .
    I speak about God but can I ever really know God, if God were present, then where would I be, there would simply be no room for me to exist. So despite the fact some many claim to know God, no one can, I know OF Him, but I cannot experience HIm. Our minds always think in FORM because even a CONCEPT of God is still a Form. YHWH, as the name implies, is a WINDOW into the Oneness that is God the Father, Elohim. In Genesis, Elohim CREATES, in the Garden YHWH shapes, molds, forms.
    .
    Furthermore, as regards me making multiple scriptural references, would a Christian of basic biblical knowledge even stand a chance of grasping what I say, I am a teacher of teachers, I expect those to whom I speak to be well studied in scriptures and hopefully above a blind adherence to church doctrines or creeds. I not only have the scriptures as a valid witness, I also have the Creation, the Universe even as I appeal to math as a pure form of Logic because God also left these to help us understand, the Parables of Jesus were simply appeals to universal standards in nature, whether psychological or in nature.

    “””””””By the way. Paul disagrees with you regarding our possessing the nature and being of our creator. Paul said that Yeshua (Jesus) did, and that we should too (Phillipians 2:5-8).””””””

    I’m not sure exactly what I said that this is a counter to, but yes, Paul here is speaking of the relationship we have with other believers and is using Jesus as an example, that even though Jesus IS in very nature God, He lowered Himself to APPEAR as one of us, and did not vaunt or lord Himself over us but was gentle with us. So LIKEWISE, of like mind, so should we be patient, loving, and gentle with one another. OTOH though..
    .
    “”””””””2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.””””””
    .
    “””””””””1 Corinthians 15:45-46 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.””””””””

    “””””JN. 6 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”””””

    Reply
    • Lowel O'Mard says:

      Dear Brent,

      First of all, I would like to say that it is not my intention to, ”Put you down.” I am nobody at all, so what right would I have to try and put somebody else down. I am sorry if I have given that impression. My only aim is to try to follow the truth of the Scripture. I believe that many mainstream Christian ideas have departed from that truth, and can be seen to have done so when tested against the Scriptures. Part of this testing for me is understanding what I see as truth in the Scriptures, and another part is engaging with people like you who have the grace and patience to discuss my understanding and compare it with your own.
      .
      You have said, “When Christ walked the Earth, He looked like one of us, and thus we would mistake Him thinking He was of a created nature like ours.” I would like to know where it says that Yeshua (Jesus) was not of a created nature like ours. Moreover, I would like to know why you would not believe Yeshua (Jesus) own words when he tells that he is not YHVH many times over (see my Comment dated, March 10, 2018). From the beginning Yeshua (Jesus) was to be of the seed of Eve (Genesis 3:15), Abraham (Genesis 12:3) and David (2 Samuel 7:12, Psalms 89:4). He was to be a brother, from among us (Deuteronomy 18:15; Micah 5:2-4). Yeshua (Jesus) went out of his way to identify with us, referring to himself almost exclusively as the “Son of Man”. He was born of a woman, suckled at her breast, taught as a child and grew to be a man. He was tempted as we are, he bled when he was injured and died. Why would we not think that he was of a created nature like ours, especially as we were told that he would be, he told us he was and those that walked with him thought so too. I believe this is what John cautions us about when he says that Yeshua (Jesus) came in the flesh (1 John 4:3).
      .
      With regard to YHVH’s nature, we must remember that we were told by Him that we were made in His image (Genesis 1:27). This means that there are aspects of what we are that we will recognise in YHVH. As you mentioned, Daniel described YHVH as “…the Ancient of Days…” (Genesis 7:9). This is not the only place where YHVH is described. He is also described by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:26-28) and also by John (Revelation 4). All three accounts provide very similar details, especially those of Ezekiel and John. This is information given to us by YHVH, so that is what we should accept. Anything else is unsupported speculation. What we are shown, is that YHVH has an identifiable form (see also Genesis 3:8, Exodus 33:20-23, Acts 7:55,56, Revelation). What we are also told in the Scriptures is that YHVH also acts through His Spirit (e.g. Genesis 2:4). This suggests that He is not restricted by His form, as we are.
      .
      I like the phrase that you used about the people who wrote the Scripture; “…they saw, they knew, and so they spoke…” and yes I believe that YHVH still now uses people in such a way. However, there were those before who spoke for YHVH without His instruction and there are people do so now. Everything is to be tested against the Scriptures, and if there is conflict then it is not truth (Deuteronomy 13, 18:20-22, Acts 17:11).
      .
      In Genesis Elohiym and YHVH refer to the same Creator. Elohiym is a title of YHVH. Moses, as the writer of the first five books of the bible (the Torah), used “Elohiym” over seven hundred times to refer to YHVH.
      .
      You said, “…I expect those to whom I speak to be well studied in scriptures and hopefully above a blind adherence to church doctrines or creeds. I not only have the scriptures as a valid witness, I also have the Creation, the Universe even as I appeal to math as a pure form of Logic because God also left these to help us understand,…” I believe that many learned people, the late Stephen Hawkins being one of them, have exactly the same witnesses as you and yet decide that YHVH does not exist. Even those with vast knowledge do not realise that what they think they know about the Scriptures is wrong, because the world has been following myths for so long that they think it is truth. This is why it is always important to include references, so that those who wish to do so can examine one’s use of ideas, testing it against Scripture.

      Reply
      • Brent Hurst says:

        Dear Lowel,
        .
        “””””First of all, I would like to say that it is not my intention to, ”Put you down.” I am nobody at all, so what right would I have to try and put somebody else down. I am sorry if I have given that impression.”””””””
        .
        Not necessarily “you” personally, it is a generally human quality. Someone is putting themselves down, we want to lift them us, someone places themselves above us, we want to put them in their place. All men have this to some degree for envy resides in all of us. Anyway we can move on
        .
        “”””””” I believe that many mainstream Christian ideas have departed from that truth, and can be seen to have done so when tested against the Scriptures.””””””
        .
        Seeing the breadth of that departure, I am awed. It brings out the Jeremiah in me as it make me sad, and it brings out the Elijah in me wondering if I am the only one, though I know in truth I am not.
        .
        “”””””You have said, “When Christ walked the Earth, He looked like one of us, and thus we would mistake Him thinking He was of a created nature like ours.” I would like to know where it says that Yeshua (Jesus) was not of a created nature like ours.”””””
        .
        Do you really need scripture and verse, He is “Begotten” of the Holy Spirit. All other men are descendents of Adam who was created. Adam had a body formed of the dust, that’s part one even as we have a body or tent as Paul once referred to it. This body is also represented in the feast of tabernacles as out temporary dwelling. .
        .
        Part two is the soul, it is not something we POSSESS, even though while we are in the body we often speak of it as “my soul”. My soul, in essence, is the little “I am” of my consciousness, my individuality. This “I am” and the many “I ams” (souls) of this Creation is how we REFLECT the one true I AM of God.
        .
        Lets go back to God hovering over the Waters (Void). He is like a sun in the sky, As He speaks the waters are stirred and waves appear, at the crest of each wave we see a reflection of the sun above. One true Sun, made of fire and light, and many reflections MADE from the waters. There is though a DISTINCTION of BEING between the two. God is fire, we are water, He is REAL, we are from the void. The FOUNDATION of our Being is the void. Thus when Christ appears He speaks truthfully as He says we are dead, there is no Life within us. He alone is begotten of the nature of the Sun, He is the Fire, the Manna, the river of Life, He is the true and we are the false.
        .
        Now, back to Adam, there is the assumption that as God breathed life into Adam, it was as if He breathed His own Breath, and so there is the assumption of our own immortality, at least of our souls. But the scriptures use a qualifier, God breathed THE “Breaths of Life”, this refers to “Mankind” as all souls are already created by Elohim during the Week of Creation. Now if Adam was begotten, then he would not have manifested sin as His nature would not have “Missed the mark” or fallen short. Neither would there be A NEED for the Tree of Life, neither would God have had to remind Adam that just as he was created, so too would he return to the nothingness (dust) from which he was brought forth.
        .
        So we exist, as a body formed from the created material universe, and a soul made from the created heavenly material or sphere. The heavens and the earth, both reflected in out present existence, and both created from the void. And because we are MADE from nothingness, so it is that we MUST manifest that short coming, we sin because we are sinners…..
        .
        Now God begets His own nature into His Creation, this nature with its identity in time and space is YHWH, God’s breath, given FORM, as a word from our own mouth is our breath given form needed to communicate. And later, that Word descends into the physical, via a body provided by Mary, but Himself, the soul, the true Him, begotten of the Spirit.
        .
        (continued)

        Reply
  15. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel,
    .
    “””””I would like to know why you would not believe Yeshua (Jesus) own words when he tells that he is not YHVH many times over (see my Comment dated, March 10, 2018). From the beginning Yeshua (Jesus) was to be of the seed of Eve (Genesis 3:15), Abraham (Genesis 12:3) and David (2 Samuel 7:12, Psalms 89:4). He was to be a brother, from among us (Deuteronomy 18:15; Micah 5:2-4). Yeshua (Jesus) went out of his way to identify with us, referring to himself almost exclusively as the “Son of Man”. He was born of a woman, suckled at her breast, taught as a child and grew to be a man. He was tempted as we are, he bled when he was injured and died. “””””””

    BUT He did not sin (fall short, miss the mark) since the seed within Him was divine in nature, as He shared His nature with the Father, so did He not manifest any shortcoming or sin in any way. The INCARNATION, the MESSIAH, the anointed one, was as you say, to be a descendent of Eve, David, and so forth, not Adam though. As all the Created souls are to be descendents of Adam, the Christ was begotten of the Holy Spirit. In speaking of His incarnation, so the scriptures stress He will be as we are, but He was in nature different.
    .
    This understanding of His divine nature is paramount since it is the divine nature that He shares with us, and it is in that nature that we receive eternal life and being, it is our holiness and the only way we can stand holy before the all consuming fire of the Creator. This divine nature enters creation in the form “Identity” of YHWH, incarnates into a physical body “anointed one”, then dies….. So that His life force, His Being, could be poured out into the creation, we drink that blood, His nature becoming part of us, and as the dead flesh of His physical body was not only resurrected but its very nature changed, so too do the created souls, who share in His divine nature, are elevated into an eternal substance.
    .
    Now when the Creation is destroyed in the lake of fire, which is the consummation of all created things, that divine nature which cannot be destroyed lives within us and we are protected in Christ, the Ark of His body as it were.
    .
    Elohim (the Father), from His side comes Creation, as Eve comes from the (side???) of Adam. So this Creation is as a womb, within the womb are a limited number of eggs, created souls, they have potential, but they are dead. In a woman they express no mobility. The living seed comes from Adam, as seen by the mobility of the sperm, this life giving seed impregnates the non living seed of the woman, and children are brought forth for the Father.
    .
    The ultimate purpose of the Creation, to bring forth Children for the Father, Children born of His own Spiritual nature, for which reason the Creation exists as a womb for the Children of God, is REFLECTED in the “knowing” of Adam and Eve, also in the “knowing” of man and wife as children are brought forth into this reality extending life, and is reflected in the “knowing” to which Christ states “I never knew you” who thought themselves saved but were not. This is the great mystery Paul spoke of about marriage.
    .
    I could post all the scriptures that speak of this but because of the preconceived definitions of modern doctrines it is hard to get (see), but the scriptures, just as nature itself reflects, follow this same context. When we see it in the scriptures AND see it paralleled in nature, the blood and water testify and the matter is established, the mind is awakened and we simply see this truth as self evident.
    .
    Those who are still lost in a Christianity where they assume themselves (their souls) to be immortal, and thus use Christ as a replacement just to die in their place, to absorb God’s punishment so they can have a life of pleasure rather than pain, have NO NEED of the reality of the Spirit (divine nature) that is given through Christ, but it is upon the revelation of this divine nature that the true Church is built upon, the one where death cannot overcome.
    .
    Having laid the context, we can look at Christ, He IS NOT the Father (Elohim) as if the whole of the Father incarnated as His seed, in which case there would be no more transcendent infinite to even hold the creation (finitude) in. So the Father remains transcendent, but Christ is of that same nature of the Father, the Seed, the one and only Son. To say Christ acts as if God tells Him what to do and through only Jesus’ will power He performs it is an immature understanding (milk). Since Jesus has the same nature within Him as the Father, so it is that as natural as it is for us to sin, being made from the void, even so as Christ is made from God, so He manifest righteousness as His very nature is such.
    .
    In the Infinites perspective, where divisions have no meaning, we do not say God HAS the truth as we would in our compartmentalized existence, rather God IS truth, IS love, IS Spirit, and it is this Divine, Infinite, SUBSTANCE that we must receive in order to Live Eternally with God. God must enter us before we can enter Him.
    .
    If I write too much the post won’t post as I reach some limit, having laid out the broad context I will address the rest in summary in the next post.

    Reply
  16. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel,
    .
    “”””””””With regard to YHVH’s nature, we must remember that we were told by Him that we were made in His image (Genesis 1:27). This means that there are aspects of what we are that we will recognise in YHVH.””””””””

    Image, not substance of Being, your image in a mirror is not made of the same flesh and blood as you. The LIKENESS, has to do with our “I ams” as we reflect His singular self consciousness. The Infinite, that which is forever complete, is conscious of Himself as that completeness. God KNOWS that He IS, (YHWH) as the name of His seed, REFLECTS this transcendent IS-ness, like a window into the transcendent Oneness of the Infinite Father. The ASSUMPTION is to think Image translates into substance, although the church teaches this. The very reason “image” is used is to qualify this separation of the holy from our own created nature, otherwise we would be begotten and said to be children from the onset. A perfect nature manifest perfection, an imperfect nature manifest imperfection, so does the Law, which is a description of the perfect nature, teach us we are not THAT.
    .
    “”””””””However, there were those before who spoke for YHVH without His instruction and there are people do so now. Everything is to be tested against the Scriptures, and if there is conflict then it is not truth (Deuteronomy 13, 18:20-22, Acts 17:11).”””””””
    .
    “”testing against scripture”””” can be difficult as we might not have a perfect understanding of scripture to begin with. This “testing” is not simply to see if a prophets words line up with our present understanding, but rather to take those words back to the scriptures, and see if maybe that is what the scripture might truly be saying, it is no doubt a balancing act, but my expectation is for you to gently suspend your present understanding long enough to grasp my paradigm, world view, grand context, and then return to the scriptures to see if maybe they do concur. There is no discussion more pointless than those who simply lob verses like grenades back and forth, which I am sure you have witnessed before.
    .
    But I would also point out, that as I ceaselessly speak of Man’s inherent nothingness, his deadness, and the need for a TRUE Spiritual birth, a Spirit that is given only at God’s electing and NOT as a reward, even for a man’s own virtue to BELIEVE, as if that would make such a man BETTER than another, that I grant mankind no glory at all but rather reserve all such glory and righteousness to exist only in God, and applied to us only in as much as His Spirit resides in us. The Created (Adamic) nature within us is by nature contrary to the Spirit, if it could CHOOSE God then the Law would have worked. It is because of the contrarious nature that God had to GIVE US a new heart, this refers to His Spirit and this gift is His grace, even while we were yet sinners (created).
    .
    “””””” In Genesis Elohiym and YHVH refer to the same Creator. Elohiym is a title of YHVH. Moses, as the writer of the first five books of the bible (the Torah), used “Elohiym” over seven hundred times to refer to YHVH.”””””””””
    .
    Elohim is non discriminative, it also refers to Baal or any so called gods which in truth are not even gods at all. And we are not talking of the five books, we are talking of the first 2 chapters of Genesis as Elohim creates (Bara) from nothing. Then when this Creation is COMPLETE “” Genesis 2:1 , “The heaven and the earth were finished; and all their array.””.
    .
    Now moving from the cosmos, the universal into a planetary where Adam and Eve are to come forth and we are dealing with individuality, YHWH FORMS (yasar) Adam from the dust, walks with Adam in the Heavenly paradise, etc…YHWH can also be referred to as a Elohim since He is the God of this Creation, sitting as it were on a throne in the heavenly realm and occupying a place in time and space. My division comes from a discernment of the context, anytime God is seen in some form, it is YHWH, and YHWH IS Elohim (God). My (dividing) is determined between form and formless, The infinite Oneness of the Father, or the forms that work within the finite. The infinite and the finite each maintain their own distinct attributes.
    .
    “”””””””””I believe that many learned people, the late Stephen Hawkins being one of them, have exactly the same witnesses as you and yet decide that YHVH does not exist. Even those with vast knowledge do not realise that what they think they know about the Scriptures is wrong, because the world has been following myths for so long that they think it is truth. This is why it is always important to include references, so that those who wish to do so can examine one’s use of ideas, testing it against Scripture. “”””””
    .
    Hawkings mind STOPPED at the boundaries of time and space. What he saw as FORCES impacting the barrier of the universe, other (multi) universes, strings beating against it, etc… I see from scripture as God speaking above the void, His voice generating as it were a compression wave, impacting against the void as only God can, and cause that void to vibrate and thus producing time (speed of light) and space etc, first the laws that establish the CONTEXT of existence and then matter and so forth. Wave theory being the closest in physical to explain matter. Maybe Hawking was bitter because of his disease or what I don’t know, he never impressed me. Minds can work differently, mensa is filled with intellects of remembrance, their intellect a conclusion of their knowledge as they can remember facts. Then you have theoreticals like Einstein who have their heads in a virtual world SEEing the dynamic structure itself.
    .
    This is how I think, IQ testing identified me as a visual philosopher. My point rating as 1 in 50, meaning out of a 100 people there is one other as smart as I am, but that does not mean they think as I do. I know that I am intelligent, but I do not consider myself exceptional. I teach because I believe others are capable of a deeper understand.
    .
    But when it comes to Spirit all bets are off, intellect is simply a functional capacity of the brain, a talent or natural skill, but the Spirit can manifest in a low IQ as generosity, kindness, or love, and thus possess the same value as it were. As for Hawking, I think he received more credit than he deserves as some great thinker due to pity for his condition. The wheel chair means nothing to me, he gave us an observation of some radiation surrounding a black hole, but I have not seen much more than that despite the hype around him. (perhaps I never studied his work hard enough).
    .
    But over all you are right, intellect does not equal insight or revelation. But I also have a hard time believing John or Paul or Isaiah, or Ezekiel or Moses were men of modest IQ. As I would instruct my children “you must use your powers for good”.

    Reply
  17. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel,
    .
    In reading back over my responses, I fear I am just too confusing for most people to even get a glimmer of what I am saying. Perhaps you can remember a time when you were young, and the only world you knew was the visible world, that material world which is ever apparent before these eyes.
    .
    Then perhaps later you started to conceive of the invisible realm. Angels, demons, pearly gates, basically that when we die, we would awake within this subtle layer of existence.
    .
    Normally people tend to start thinking the physical is temporary, while this Heavenly realm is eternal. We die, go to heaven, and live forever with God, or something of the like.
    .
    The major difference between my understanding and that of the modern church is in the fact that I understand this conceived heavenly realm to be just as temporary as the physical realm of the flesh. More enduring than the flesh in the sense it is of a superior substance, but temporal nonetheless. In a crude analogy its like the oxygen and carbon, carbon like the earth I can pick up and throw, but grabbing oxygen is a bit more tricky. Now of course with our present understanding of the elements and such we know both are based upon atoms, oxygen can be crushed, thrown, compressed, etc…
    .
    Likewise this heavenly realm that so many assume to be eternal, I see as part and parcel of the Creation, just existing with a different density. Furthermore one could say that all souls exist from the beginning of the Creation to it final consummation where all will be destroyed in what is seen as the Lake of Fire. But in the material world this cycle of birth and death works at an accelerated rate. But all in all, those attributes which are indicative of the temporal and finite, are expressed in both realm, FORM being the dead giveaway.
    .
    Most people’s cosmological model, STOPS at this point. Two levels, one eternal, one temporal, And when I speak, they have a tendency to try to understand what I am saying by cramming it down into this two dimensional structure.
    .
    Beyond these two level of the Creation I possess a solid concept of the Infinite, that which I refer to as transcendent not only of the material world, but the heavenly world also. In this transcendent, there is no form, there is nothing except one thing and that one thing is God (Elohim). He has no name because there is simply nothing else. He is the REAL and nothing else can truly exist, all of Creation is like a dream in the mind of God. We exist but nothing like the way He does. The infinite always expresses those attributes of infinity. Likewise the Creation, both of the Heavenly and the earthly manifest the attributes of temporal, finitude.
    .
    My theology, just like my cosmological model, maintains a clear distinction of the attributes of each. If one thinks of the soul, or even the angels as eternal, they have misapplied an attribute that the infinite (God) alone possesses, that of which there is only and always ONE as He alone is the sum and substance of the Infinite realm. If God were to create something eternal then the Infinite itself would be divided against itself, it would no longer be infinite but finite, God would be no more, or we would have two gods, neither of which could be infinite.
    .
    The simplicity of this is expressed in Mathematics as one contemplates those attributes of each, to misapply such attributes would instantly have your work thrown out by a professor, yet in theology, people lose all sense of logic. They apply attributes that belong to God to man and vise versa. They might think of God as the MOST powerful Being in the universe but they are still idolaters. (But through ignorance). The only way to understand God the Father, is to surrender the idea that anything else even truly exists. Everything must become nothing, void, a passing face upon a cloud, before God can be understood to be the ONLY true Being.
    .
    But people say, “that’s crazy talk, look at me, of course I am real”, and yet illusions and lies are experience by people everyday as being real, yet with enough light, enough understanding, it is all just smoke and mirrors.

    Reply
    • Lowel O'Mard says:

      Dear Brent,

      Yes I really do need, “Scripture and verse” as you put it. It, usually makes it so much easier to see the source of a particular understanding, and to judge if it is being portrayed in line with what I see too. In addition, it also serves to show when somebody is basing their words on their own philosophy rather than from the Scriptures.
      .
      You say that Adam was formed from the dust, and for that reason he had a different nature from Yeshua (Jesus) who was begotten. I do not think that this was the case. Both were brought into existence through YHVH’s actions and as such were created. Both were human beings made of flesh, and both had free will (see my comment on March 24, 2018). I would also say that Adam did not have a fallen nature, and that Yeshua (Jesus) had that same nature. The difference between Adam and Yeshua (Jesus) is that one decided to be obedient, and the other did not. Had, Adam not sinned, then there would not be a need for a Messiah and we would be in paradise right now. I do not believe that Adam had to sin – Yeshua (Jesus) has shown us this and through his example, we have the opportunity of eternal life (Romans 5:19). Yeshua (Jesus) ate and drank to maintain his body like we do (Matthew 11:19), and will do so with us in YHVH’s kingdom (Matthew 26:29). As far as I can see, the Tree of Life was necessary to us for immortality (Genesis 3:22,23), and will be necessary in YHVH’s kingdom too (Revelation 2:7).
      .
      You are correct in saying that Yeshua (Jesus) did not sin. However, this is very much like the people who mock that so much fuss was made about the Y2K bug, when nothing seemed to happen. A non-event can always be problematic in this way. With the Y2K issue, a huge amount of work, world-wide, went into mitigating the problem. The effort was so successful that it eventually seemed like nothing happened. If you buy travel insurance and get home safely, it will always seem like an annoying additional expense. The difference comes when something actually happens, and you have to be Helicoptered home or something like it. That is when you really appreciate having the insurance. In truth, however, we do know what happens when there is a failure – this is where the world is right now, and it is not good. The issue with Yeshua (Jesus) is not that he did not sin, but that he could have and did not. As I said before, Satan knew that Yeshua (Jesus) could sin, which is why he tried to make him do so (Matthew 4). Satan is a case in point. He was among the heavenly beings, but decided to rebel against YHVH. He took a third of his fellows with him, but two thirds remained loyal to YHVH (Revelation 12:4). Love requires free will, and free will is useless without the ability to exercise it. I believe that this is why the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17). Yeshua (Jesus) showed his love for YHVH by obeying him (Matthew 26:39), and his love for us by dying for us (John 15:13). If, as you seem to suggest, Yeshua (Jesus) had no choice because of his nature then where was the love?
      .
      You wrote, “The INCARNATION, the MESSIAH, the anointed one, was as you say, to be a descendent of Eve, David, and so forth, not Adam though. As all the Created souls are to be descendents of Adam, the Christ was begotten of the Holy Spirit. In speaking of His incarnation, so the scriptures stress He will be as we are, but He was in nature different.” The word, “Incarnation” is a man-made concept which is not Scriptural. All human kind is descended from Adam, even Eve. If Yeshua’s (Jesus’) is of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12, Psalms 89:4), then he is also the seed of Adam as well as Eves (Genesis 11:10-26; Matthew 1:1-6; Luke 3:31-38). The issue of seeds is an important and interesting one. A woman’s eggs (her seed) are not dead: There is a limited period of viability after which no amount of fertilisation will help – then they are dead. The man’s seed is certainly mobile, but again they have a limited period of viability. During that period of viability unless they fertilise an egg then they die. Human life will not begin until an egg is fertilised. If, as we are told (see above) Yeshua (Jesus) was to be of the seed of David, then the woman’s egg had to be from a woman of the line of David. How fertilisation was achieved, we do not know though we do know that fertilisation was somehow activated by YHVH through the Holy Spirit.
      .
      As soon as you base your ideas on YHVH becoming human, you depart from the Scriptures. Yes YHVH imparts His nature upon human beings as we were told from the beginning (see comment March 24, 2018, paragraph 3), but once that being has free will, then they have an independent mind of their own and are, as such, a different person. Yeshua (Jesus) knew who he was, and that he was on a mission from YHVH (Matthew 10:32, 16:27, 20:23, Luke 4:17-19, 9:48, 10:16, John 3:16, 4:34, 5:19, 5:30, 6:29, 6:38, 7:16, 7:18, 7:28, 8:18, 8:28, 8:29, 8:42, 9:4, 12:44, 12:50, 13:20, 14:28, 15:15, 20:21). Yeshua (Jesus) was not coerced, nor blindly following a defined path, but acting out of love (see above).
      .
      You wrote, “Creation exists as a womb for the Children of God, is REFLECTED in the “knowing” of Adam and Eve, also in the “knowing” of man and wife as children are brought forth into this reality extending life, and is reflected in the “knowing” to which Christ states “I never knew you” who thought themselves saved but were not.” Here you have taken Yeshua’s (Jesus’) words out of context. The ”knowing” of a man and a wife is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This has nothing to do with what Yeshua (Jesus) was talking about. Yeshua’s (Jesus’) words come from Matthew 7:23. The context of the passage is that Yeshua (Jesus) is talking to those who are only feign following him. He will say, “you weren’t following me!”, or rather as he put it, “I didn’t know you!”. Here he identified his true followers as those who did the will of YHVH (Matthew 7:21), as he, Yeshua (Jesus), taught them (Matthew 7:26, John 5:19, 5:30, 7:16, 8:28, 8:40, 12:50, 14:24, 15:15). I agree with you that this is the divine nature upon which the true Church is built. We were not given a life where we live according to our own fallen desires, but the choice of a life where we willingly follow YHVH’s way, as instructed by YHVH and exemplified by his living instruction, Yeshua (Jesus), the word made flesh (John 1:14).
      .
      The idea, “…(YHWH) as the name of His seed,…” goes against the Creators own words (See comment on March 17, 2018). With regard to assumptions about images, I tried to ensure that I did not state exactly how we are images of YHVH, as I know there are unresolved issues on this point. However, the visions of Ezekiel, Daniel and John should not be ignored. (See my comment on March 24, 2018, pg. 3). I agree that the Law is a description of the perfect nature of YHVH.
      .
      I concur with your definition of testing: “This ‘testing’ is not simply to see if a prophets words line up with our present understanding, but rather to take those words back to the scriptures, and see if maybe that is what the scripture might truly be saying…” Using verses from Scripture, in context, is the way that such testing can be done. Of course, one would expect to be able to, “lob verses” and assume that the context is know, but sometimes the context is not known, or misunderstood. In such cases it is up to those in the discussion to ensure that their understanding of the context is communicated. Sometimes such issues can be missed and, as you say, endless arguments ensue.
      .
      In the paragraph that begins, “But I would also point out, that as I ceaselessly….” You talk about YHVH giving us a new heart because of our contrary nature. This is what I believe too, though I think that you cannot separate free will within a person. You seem to describe what you call the “Created nature within us” as having the ability to choose. A person is made up of flesh (what I think you are calling the “Created Nature”) and spirit, and it is the person as a whole which has the ability to choose, not the individual components.
      .
      You are correct in saying that the word “Elohiym” is non-discriminative. It is a title, such as in the way we would use the English word “God”. This is the point that I am making. The word “Elohiym” was used in the first two chapters to refer to YHVH. We know this because we know that YHVH said that He personally created the world with His own hands and alone (See my comment, March 20, 2018). In addition, YHVH is also used in Genesis 2 where it appears as the phrase “Lord God” which is the translation of the Hebrew words “YHVH Elohiym”.
      .
      You propose a “…(dividing) is determined between form and formless,…” as a distinction between YHVH as an infinite being and YHVH as a finite being. The implication seems to be that Yeshua (Jesus) is the finite form of YHVH himself, this also being the mainstream Trinitarian view as derived from John 1:1-3. Again I appeal to Yeshua (Jesus) insistent claim that he is not YHVH (see my comment, March 10, 2018). In addition to this, YHVH says that Yeshua (Jesus) will sit at His right hand (Psalms 110:1) and that the Messiah will be His servant (Isaiah 42:1-8). Daniel, Stephen and John saw both YHVH and the Messiah at the same time (Daniel 7:13, Acts 7:55, Revelation 5:7). Therefore, the distinction that you suggest conflicts with what we see in Scripture.
      .
      There is no harm in metaphysical speculation, where it conforms to scripture. YHVH gave us the ability to reason and expects us to use it. This thought always brings to my mind how YHVH brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them (Genesis 2:19). I must say that some of the ideas you express in your last post (March 28, 2018 at 11:30 pm) sound similar in nature to the more morose views expressed in Ecclesiastes, “…vanity of vanities! All is vanity!” (Ecclesiastes 1:1). Don’t let it get you down.

      Reply
  18. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel,
    .
    “”””Yes I really do need, “Scripture and verse” as you put it. It, usually makes it so much easier to see the source of a particular understanding,””””
    .
    I will endeavor to do so, but you should know my understanding is not built simply upon “Line upon line, precept upon precept”, where upon we tend to borrow our context from established and traditional doctrines. On one hand I have the scriptures, on the other hand I have the nature of the universe itself. It is between these two witness that a matter is established as God is the author behind both.
    .
    “”””””You say that Adam was formed from the dust, and for that reason he had a different nature from Yeshua (Jesus) who was begotten. I do not think that this was the case. Both were brought into existence through YHVH’s actions and as such were created. Both were human beings made of flesh, and both had free will. I would also say that Adam did not have a fallen nature, and that Yeshua (Jesus) had that same nature. The difference between Adam and Yeshua (Jesus) is that one decided to be obedient, and the other did not.””””””

    “1 Corinthians 15: 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made* a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. “
    .
    “John 8: 23 And he said unto them,Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
    24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
    .
    The scriptures say otherwise.

    “”””””The difference between Adam and Yeshua (Jesus) is that one decided to be obedient, and the other did not. Had, Adam not sinned, then there would not be a need for a Messiah and we would be in paradise right now.””””
    .
    Apples seeds bring forth apples, watermelon, watermelon, all things can do nothing except MANIFEST what nature is already within them. This is as it were a universal law and it negates the idea of superior obedience just as it does evolution.
    .
    “””” (Jesus) ate and drank to maintain his body like we do”””””
    .
    This physical body is only the dust into which the soul was breathed. Bodies are neutral, they cannot sin, it is the soul that desires and thus DECIDES to sin. Furthermore it is the MIS-identification with the flesh and its inherent limited world view that leads to atheism.
    .
    “”””2 Corinthians 5:1[ Awaiting the New Body ] For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”””””
    .
    “””””” Satan is a case in point. He was among the heavenly beings, but decided to rebel against YHVH. He took a third of his fellows with him, but two thirds remained loyal to YHVH (Revelation 12:4). “””””””
    .
    Perhaps we should establish that we understand the basics before we get into the supposed existence of a divine devil based upon a couple places in the OT where the context was the king of Tyre and vague reference of serpent and stars from the most symbolic and very last addition to scripture. I have enough greed, lust and envy within my own nature I have no need to project these onto another being for blame. I will agree we have an “Adversary” for so it is we are subject to illusion, ignorance, and deception. But we are only deceived when we believe something that does not exist to actually exist, like a lie.
    .
    “”””””Love requires free will, and free will is useless without the ability to exercise it.”””””””
    .
    This is legalism, just as it is the first commandment, commandments which of our own free will we could not accomplish. I love God but I have also be a whore more times than I wish to recall, but I do not compartmentalize my life, it is a WHOLE before God and I have nothing of my own being that is satisfactory. Besides, God does not NEED my love nor was I created to fulfill some NEED of God for He is forever complete.
    .
    “””””””I believe that this is why the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden”””””””
    .
    The Tree of Knowledge is where by compartmentalization and value assignment we elevate or devalue aspects of life so we can elevate ourselves within our own story, so we think we love God more than some other man, thus we swell with our own virtue like Pharisees. God continues to put before us a choice so we might learn our own nature is deficient, thus we might seek His nature as offered through His son. Adam was incapable of obedience, Israel was incapable of following the commandments, and we are incapable of producing any kind of love that might mean something to God.
    .
    Elihu the prophet spoke of this in Job whether a man’s wickedness of righteous may only effect a man like ourselves, if the clouds above receive nothing, how much less God who is eternally self-sufficient.

    “”””””””” Yeshua (Jesus) had no choice because of his nature then where was the love?””””””””
    .
    “Love” is something we think to DO, Jesus, like His Father, as the eternal substance of the Infinite whole ARE love even as they ARE truth. Jesus loved the Father because He is family rather than a creation, they share the same blood, as it were. When we receive the Spirit so as to share in the divine nature also, then the Father is in us and we are in the Father and love, in its highest form, so does the lover become one with his beloved. This is the mystical union between Christ and His bride.
    .
    “”””””” The word, “Incarnation” is a man-made concept which is not Scriptural.”””””
    .
    Like “spiritual death” which is oxymoronic, as if Life itself could not be alive at the same time. Incarnation simply means to receive a physical body, we are all incarnations as we, as souls, now reside in such a body. But whereas our soul was created, Christ was begotten, we are created from NOTHINGNESS, Christ was begotten from the very nature of the Father.
    .
    “””””””All human kind is descended from Adam, even Eve. If Yeshua’s (Jesus’) is of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:12, Psalms 89:4), then he is also the seed of Adam as well as Eves (Genesis 11:10-26; Matthew 1:1-6; Luke 3:31-38).””””””
    .
    Then I must accept you do not accept the virgin birth. Let us move on though as my further responses might make this clearer.
    .
    continued

    Reply
  19. Brent Hurst says:

    “”””””The issue of seeds is an important and interesting one. ……… How fertilisation was achieved, we do not know though we do know that fertilisation was somehow activated by YHVH through the Holy Spirit.””””””
    .
    Remember how I expressed that the objective nature, therefore the true nature of the universe is expressed in a duality of something or nothing. This reflects the higher reality where God, as the One hovering over the void is the true something, while all that is created, both of the heavens and the earth, soul and body, come forth from the void, from nothingness. This duality is further expressed in female and male which is why Christ, possessing Gods nature is the groom, and we, possessing a created nature are the bride.
    .
    A woman possesses a FINITE number of eggs, each month releasing one at a time. There is no “life force” perse to speak of as they are inert, pushed along by the mothers body to await possible fertilization.
    .
    The male, who reflect God in this scenario, has a POTENTIALLY unlimited supply of sperm. Millions upon million, all active, all self-driven, so does the MALE express the ACTIVE principle while the female expresses the PASSIVE principle. One ACTS, the other is ACTED UPON.
    .
    Just as the universe is so big that it APPEARS as if infinite, so does a man’s ability to produce unlimited sperm give an appearance as if. Ultimately both are finite also, but God has given us such things beyond our ability to count so that we might begin to meditate on a true infinite beyond that is Him. This is to allay the obvious objection that man is finite also. Back to man and woman
    .
    The SEED of the man enters into the seed of the woman, and in doing so bring life to it, and that which is created, or rather actually BEGOTTEN, shares the nature of both. Bodily that nature is Genes, but for the soul which is the true us within the body that nature is created from nothing as was Adam, or begotten of the Father as was in Christ. Thus a NEW creation as we are born of the Spirit of God, not children merely in name or by some legal adoption process (substitional theology) but by blood as the LIFE BEING of the Father now resides in us.
    .
    And so it is we are “KNOWN” by Christ, possessing His seed (God’s Spirit) within us also. This is to know Christ after the Spirit, and this is salvation. I AM NOT speaking in metaphors, God’s BEING, His Spirit is REAL, and to be born of such, even if we do not see it with our physical eyes, is a reality of realities.
    .
    “””””””As soon as you base your ideas on YHVH becoming human, you depart from the Scriptures. Yes YHVH imparts His nature upon human beings”””””””
    .
    YHWH APPEARS as one of us even as He takes upon Himself a physical body from Mary, but we are from below (created), He is from above (Begotten).
    .
    OK, we have an issue as to whether Jesus was YHWH within (incarnated) a physical form whom we refer to as Jesus. Set that side for a minute and see the Spirit as it descends. First God places His Seed, a part of His own nature into the Creation, then that Seed takes upon itself a body, as that Seed dies, so does it produce as it comes to reside in us. And now, the deliverer of the Seed, Jesus, becomes the source of true life for a body (created souls). Just as within us we are One soul, with a body of multiple cells that become one in our identity. Then, when Creation comes to its conclusion, where all that can be shaken is shaken, when the Creation returns to the void from which it was drawn forth, when the voice of God goes silent then there will be this event…….
    .
    “EPH 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) “
    .
    The Seed has come forth of the Father, and that same Seed who is YHWH, then Christ, will ascend back to the Father, bring us (Children) with Him in tow.
    .
    “””””I agree with you that this is the divine nature upon which the true Church is built. We were not given a life where we live according to our own fallen desires, but the choice of a life where we willingly follow YHVH’s way, as instructed by YHVH””””””
    .
    You say “upon us” and “given A life”, where we “live according”. Is it not obvious to you that you have not accepted the factual reality of a true Spiritual birth but rather simply some inspiring force like a little angel upon your shoulder directing you which way to go, and that everything you said above places your salvation as an effect of your obedience. IF CHOICE were possible, then we would have been Obedient to the commandments.
    .
    Furthermore “BIRTH” as a metaphor must share qualities with which it is to be symbolic of. No child has ever chosen his own birth, nor loved his parents before he was born. We USE “choice” so we might by comparison (envy) lift ourselves above others so as to FEEL ourselves to be righteous. I have no “choice” when it comes to salvation, God birthed me from His Spirit, as I have grown I have come to know myself, my Father. Now by “choice” I can choose to be an obedient son or a rebellious one, but just as there is no power in Heaven of Earth that can change the fact I am the son of my physical parents, neither is there a power in all the universe that can change the fact I am God’s child. Born of God’s will, not my own, and thank God.
    .
    “””””””” A person is made up of flesh (what I think you are calling the “Created Nature”) and spirit, and it is the person as a whole which has the ability to choose, not the individual components.”””””””
    .
    Body and soul, both created, just as God created the heavens and the earth. Lets clear up another misunderstanding in Christianity. Man, like Adam is of two parts, a soul (breath of life) which is the source of himself, his “I am”, and a body of lower elements with which he find expression in the world. “Body, mind, and spirit” as used once by Paul in all of scripture, refers to those who are born of God, hence three tiers.
    .
    When a soul is within a body as with us, then the term soul is used in scripture as it is a part of a whole (soul and body), (nephesh, ego). When a created soul is mentioned in the context of being disembodied, as in hades or paradise, etc…, it is addressed as a spirit (Ruach, pneuma,) . But over all a man is composed of two parts in our present experience, body and soul, unless he is also born of God’s Spirit. Man’s spirit, of which there are many, are of a created nature, having once not existed. God is THE SPIRIT, as it addresses His Infinite Being. The use of a similar term does not mean that we exist in, or of, the same context of Being. I am a spirit where I am but “ONE OF MANY” when God is spoken of as Spirit, He exists in a context “ONE AND ONLY ONE”, “God is One” does not simply mean out of many He is the best, biggest, strongest. Superlatives have no meaning in the eternal context. He simply is the One and only. If you set your spirit and God’s Spirit in the same context, then whereas you as a defined breath, would be lost forever in the whole of the atmosphere.
    .
    continued

    Reply
  20. Brent Hurst says:

    “”””””Elohiym” was used in the first two chapters to refer to YHVH. We know this because we know that YHVH said that He personally created the world with His own hands and alone (See my comment, March 20, 2018). In addition, YHVH is also used in Genesis 2 where it appears as the phrase “Lord God” which is the translation of the Hebrew words “YHVH Elohiym”.””””””””
    .
    I did not merely make a distinction by name, but also by activity. Elohim creates out of Nothing, YHWH forms from pre-existing material. Elohim hovers above the void where creation is to arise, YHWH exists within the Creation as He is forming Adam from the dust. YHWH as the Seed of the Father, is the face of the faceless, the form of the formless, One with this Father though expressing Himself in time and space, the fact the YHWH would say He created all things, or that all was created through Him, I find both to be true. Like soul and spirit, it all depends upon the perspective one is writing from or simply addressing
    .
    “””””””You propose a “…(dividing) is determined between form and formless,…” as a distinction between YHVH as an infinite being and YHVH as a finite being. The implication seems to be that Yeshua (Jesus) is the finite form of YHVH himself, this also being the mainstream Trinitarian view”””””””
    .
    Now you are just being insulting (smile), the doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt by spiritually blind people to describe how one might be functioning in three capacities from the perspective of standing on the earth and trying to peek behind the curtain into the infinite. I begin in the infinite, standing with God as He breathes forth Creation. Father, breath, and Word (YHWH) above the void, and the God’s WORD, His expression (YHWH) acting WITHIN the boundaries of time and space. I agree that there is one God, one divine nature, functioning in three roles, as it were, but to say “three persons” places all with the same context of Being, thus they do not understand the difference between the finite and the Infinite, and their concept of God the Father as if “one of three” is idolatrous as the Father bears the attributes of being one but not another.
    .
    Because they cannot surrender the reality of their own existence, they cannot perceive God as a transcendent whole of which we are not a part.
    .
    “””””” Again I appeal to Yeshua (Jesus) insistent claim that he is not YHVH (see my comment, March 10, 2018).””””””
    .
    The name YHWH is a combination of two references to self, thus “I AM that I AM”. When seen in Greek, we have the words “ego” and “emia”, where is speech one would use either one or the other but never both together as that would be redundant. In fact they only time they are used together is when the Pharisees are questioning the blind man if he is really the same man who was blind at the gate, to which he responded, “Ego eimi” or “I am He”. When Jesus uses the seven (I am)s in John where He says, “I am the bread of life”, etc…, He is in fact using what is the Greek equivalent to God’s name “I am He, the Bread of Life”, in Hebrew He would be saying “YHWH, the bread of Life, etc…”
    .
    We know He said He was not the Father, and yet stated “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”. I doubt seriously Jesus ever stated in Aramaic, translated in Greek, I am not I am. (Ego [not] ego eimi) or (eimi [not] ego eimi) or however those terms would combine, I don’t actually speak Greek. THEOS does NOT translate to YHWH.
    .
    “”””””” In addition to this, YHVH says that Yeshua (Jesus) will sit at His right hand (Psalms 110:1) and that the Messiah will be His servant (Isaiah 42:1-8). Daniel, Stephen and John saw both YHVH and the Messiah at the same time (Daniel 7:13, Acts 7:55, Revelation 5:7). Therefore, the distinction that you suggest conflicts with what we see in Scripture………………There is no harm in metaphysical speculation, where it conforms to scripture.”””””””””
    .
    Then let’s speculate a bit as we are delving deeper into the mysteries than most ever come close to. I have stated that the Father, impregnates His Seed into the Creation, and all without losing anything of His completeness as they are existing in two totally different contexts of Being, one in time and space, the other without.
    .
    Let’s presume, even as we might not understand the direct relationship between that substance of the heavenly realm or soul, and the substance of our physical realm, as the two seem similar and yet heaven seems not to occupy and part of space and time, even as we cannot point to it here or there. But I will bring down the same scenario in that while YHWH, through the Holy Breath, breathed a soul identity (Jesus) into the body He received from Mary, YHWH did not diminish Himself as He sits upon His heavenly throne. (Shhhhh, don’t try to tell the Trinitarians this because then they would have four aspects to deal with.)
    .
    To me this would make perfect sense as the lower scenario simply reflects a higher one. Father-YHWH, YHWH-Jesus, Like The soul of YHWH is the Father, and the soul of Jesus is YHWH. I have expressed how one context reflects the other, why not here. But all in all, the nature is the same, there is one substance as it were we would call divine Being, and whether in the Father, YHWH, or Jesus, it all does the same work towards bringing us as children to God.
    .
    “”””””””sound similar in nature to the more morose views expressed in Ecclesiastes, “…vanity of vanities! All is vanity!” (Ecclesiastes 1:1). Don’t let it get you down.”””””””
    .
    Ah yes, the wise words of the Preacher as he addresses his congregation. And probably the most misunderstood book next to Revelations. Yes, the world, and all that is within, so is it all passing away, and what can we do, what choices can we make as God does whatever God does. So then what conclusion, walk humbly before your God, sit with your family, enjoy, share some wine, be happy when you can because the days of suffering are already so many. Yes, all is Nothing (vanity).
    .

    Reply
    • Lowel O'Mard says:

      Dear Brent,

      It is ironic that you should start your reply with the phrase, “Line upon line, precept upon precept”. This phrase is consistently misunderstood by Scripture readers who think that this is how to understand the Scriptures, however, it is actually the opposite. I myself only learned this a couple of years or so ago. The phrase comes from Isaiah 28:10 and is actually an admonition as to how not to use Scripture. This is made clear by its repeat later in the chapter where it says, “Yet the word of Jehovah was to them, precept on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, there a little; that they might go, and stumble, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” (Isaiah 28:13 [LITV]) Here we see that the result of this use of YHVH’s word is not a good one: The people were to suffer dire consequences because of their misuse of YHVH’s scripture; they would stumble and be broken; their failure would lead to them being fooled and captured. The whole chapter is a warning or reproof concerning inaccurate use of YHVH’s Scripture. It tells is that concepts should not be take from here and there and used inappropriately. Verses should not be taken from their proper places and applied to meanings for which they were not made. This is my understanding of what is being said in this chapter, but there is little doubt that “Line upon line, precept upon precept” is not something that we should emulate.
      .
      I do not believe that my understanding of the nature of Yeshua (Jesus) being similar to Adam’s differs from Scripture. What I am saying is that both were Men, though they came into being in different ways (1 Corinthians 15:45). Yeshua (Jesus) is not talking about his nature when he says that he is not of this world (John 8:23); he uses the phrase in the same sense pertaining to us too “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.” (John 15:19 [LITV]).
      .
      My saying that, “love requires free will, and free will is useless without the ability to exercise it.” could not possibly be considered legalism: “strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit”. Yeshua (Jesus) defines love for us and it always has an element of the exercise of free will. He told us that YHVH loved the world, so He gave His son (John 3:16). YHVH did not have to give His son, but He chose to do so. Yeshua (Jesus) also tells us that if we love him we will keep his commands (John 14:15). We do not have to keep his commands if we do not want to. You are correct to say that YHVH does not require our love, but he does want it; it is the greatest of all His commandments, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the first and great commandment.” (Matthew 22:36-38 [LITV]
      .
      I think that your views about love, and obedience would require full discussion of their own, so I will not pursue them further right now.
      .
      The word “Incarnation” is not used to describe normal human birth. It is defined as the “new personification of a familiar idea.” A normal human birth is the personification of something new – a new creation. The word “Incarnation” is used with regard to Yeshua (Jesus) by those who believe that he existed before he was born. The word is not used in the Scriptures, nor does the idea appear there as a fundamental concept. Anywhere that it seems to be implied can be understood differently (cf. John 1:1-3). The word, “Begotten” does, however, apply to every human accept Adam, as each one came from what was before. The Greek word translated as “Begotten” is “Monogenes” and means “Only born”. It is not only used in relation to Yeshua (Jesus) but applies to any only born child (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, Hebrews 11:17). Being born of a woman is what distinguishes Yeshua (Jesus) from Adam, both of whom have YHVH as the instigator. I do believe in the virgin birth. Yeshua (Jesus) had the human mother Mary, a descendent of David and hence Adam, however, her pregnancy was not caused by a male human but by YHVH (Luke 1:31-35). Because Mary became pregnant without having had sexual intercourse with a man, it was a virgin birth. This would be an amazing thing in those days, though we know enough today to do something similar. Of course, we would use a man’s seed, but we do not know exactly what YHVH did.
      .
      In the paragraph beginning, “The SEED of the man enters….” you suggests that the seed of the man brings life to the seed of the woman. This is not truly accurate. Life only begins when the seed is fertilised, it does not exist within the man’s seed to be given to the woman’s. I would say that this is the quickening as described in 1 Corinthians 15:45. Unlike you, it would seem, I believe that Yeshua (Jesus) was begotten just as we were. He had no existence before he was born. The difference is that he did not have an earthly father, his father was YHVH. This is why he is called the son of YHVH (Luke 1:35).
      .
      Let me give you and alternative understanding of Ephesians 4:4-10, but first we must remember that Yeshua (Jesus) made in known repeatedly that he was not YHVH (see my comment on March 10, 2018) and that Paul was clear that YHVH was the Creator, and that Yeshua (Jesus) was the man He sent (Acts 17:22-31). That being, said Paul is telling the Ephesians to be united. He tells them that they should be so because everything that they are and believe comes from the same source, and that is the Father, YHVH. The seed is not a person, nor is it YHVH, but it is divine, i.e. from YHVH (see my comment on March 10, 2018), but this idea does not come from Ephesians 4:4-10, but from John 1:1-3 and is also expressed similarly in 1 John 1:1-2 and also by Paul in Romans 1:1-4.
      .
      The two paragraphs starting from, “…You say ‘upon us’ and ‘given a life’…” relate to your views of free-will and obedience, and I repeat that though worthy of discussion, do not really relate to the discussion at hand. I would also say the same for your views on the body and soul.
      .
      You wrote, “I did not merely make a distinction by name, but also by activity. Elohim creates out of Nothing, YHWH forms from pre-existing material.” Whether it be by distinction by name or activity, Elohiym can refer to YHVH. The Scriptures says, “ And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because He rested from all His work on it, which God had created to make.” (Genesis 2:3 [LITV]) In this text the Hebrew word translated as , “God” is “Elohiym”. YHVH says, “For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.” (Exodus 20:11 [LITV]). Where it is written, “And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7 [LITV]) both His name, YHVH and the generic title, “Elohiym” are used to refer to the Creator. It was “Elohiym” who spoke to Abraham (Genesis 17:3), to Isaac (Genesis 26:24) and Jacob (Genesis 31:11). It is written, “And God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, and by My name JEHOVAH I never made Myself known to them.” (Exodus 6:2-3 [LITV]) These passages show us that the name “Elohiym” is used to refer to YHVH and they are not different entities.
      .
      You wrote, “When seen in Greek, we have the words “ego” and “emia”, where is speech one would use either one or the other but never both together as that would be redundant.” Regardless of the two being used together being redundant Yeshua (Jesus) uses the phrase twenty times in John alone (John 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 10:7, 10:9, 10:11, 10:14, 11:25, 12:26, 13:19, 14:3, 14:6, 15:1, 15:5, 17:14, 17:16, 18:5, 18:6, 18:8, 18:37) the blind beggar, as you said, uses it: (John 9:9) and Peter uses it (Acts 10:21). There a so many other places where it is used, and by different people that I stopped counting. I think that it is safe to say that the phrase, “Ego emi” should not be translated as YHVH.
      You are correct in saying that “Theos” does not translate to YHVH, however, “The Theos” does.
      .
      The speculation in the paragraphs starting, “Then let’s speculate a bit…” do not correspond to what we were told in Scripture (see my comments on March 27, March 30, 2018 and above).

      Reply
  21. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel,
    .
    “”””””It is ironic that you should start your reply with the phrase, “Line upon line, precept upon precept”. This phrase is consistently misunderstood by Scripture readers who think that this is how to understand the Scriptures, however, it is actually the opposite.””””””””””
    .
    Not so Ironic, I tend to use it as a test so as to qualify those whose are simply repeating standard Christian dogmas and those who are serious in their own study. The scriptures are to be a WITNESS, to the truth and the Spirit, but like the serpent in the desert, so does the Bible become an Idol to many. You are showing such a strong demand for scripture at times I wanted to make sure that you were not as one to whom Jesus spoke.
    .
    “JN 5: 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”
    .
    Now of course many Christians interpret “come to me” as if we are to have a “relationship”, BUT, that “relationship” as defined in their eyes is “the agreement of two to walk together”, which is in nature strictly a legal arrangement, the same as the Old Testament or Covenant, is not actually what the NEW Covenant was about.
    .
    “14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.”
    .
    My “relationship” with Christ is not based upon my choice at all, it is not a “walk” or an “arrangement”, God has impregnated me with His own nature, taking away my heart of stone (the natural created nature-Adamic) and giving me one of flesh (His Spirit). Through the Spirit I have become as much a child of His as I am of my fleshly parents. I might choose to be a receptive (good) or rebellious (bad) child of His, but as we share the same nature, so am I family, and I will not be left behind even if I were a difficult child. Although to be fair I still possess both natures, but on the eighth day, that day of Jesus’ resurrection, that day beyond the week and speaks of the eternal age, so it is on that day we are circumcised, having the flesh CUT AWAY. This is the day that the Bride will be glorified along with Christ.
    .
    “”””””but there is little doubt that “Line upon line, precept upon precept” is not something that we should emulate.”””””
    .
    And of course this is juxtaposed with “they would not enter into My rest” (Para.) Which is where we CEASE from any work of our own, including thinking we can choose a relationship or be an active member in the new covenant and simply let God do all the work (impregnating us with His Spirit), whereby He receives all the glory. All I can do is Recognize what He has done, but I had no choice in the matter anymore than I did in my first birth.
    .
    I am one of the Children of God, for whom this whole Creation (womb) was created, and my hidden identity, along with His other children, will be one day revealed as the true full nature of everything will one day come to light.
    .
    “””””” (John 8:23); he uses the phrase in the same sense pertaining to us too “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.” (John 15:19 [LITV]).”””””
    .
    Yes, even as He is begotten of God and of God’s nature, and is therefore not of this Creation, so then as that ONE Spirit has entered into us, as we have drank His blood, eaten His flesh, we also are no longer of this world as the divine nature has come to be part and parcel of our own Being. This is where nearly all but the twelve turned away from Jesus, they just could not grasp the Spirit within Him and our need to receive it fully as a part of our Being, rather they wanted to DO something themselves so secretly their hearts might take some credit for their own salvation, even if only as they compared (envy) themselves against others who have not “Chosen”.
    .
    Let’s backtrack to the covenants, the covenant with Abraham was directly between God and Abraham, and EXTENDED to Abraham’s seed, one did not need to choose to be a Jew, they were born a Jew and so they were part of the covenant, Generally God would say to Abraham, “to you and your seed”. The NEW covenant follows a similar pattern, God vows to save Christ, and all of His seed, His offspring, and it is by His Spirit that we have become offspring. The “choices” of the new covenant is between Christ and the Father, we come into it only as we possess His Spirit.
    .
    But, as we grow up in this world, as we mature and are coming to know and understand ourselves, it is easy to assume we are choosing God, But we could not truly choose God had He not placed His Spirit within us, God had to choose us first, before the foundations as it were.
    .
    “”””””YHVH did not have to give His son, but He chose to do so. Yeshua (Jesus) also tells us that if we love him we will keep his commands (John 14:15). We do not have to keep his commands if we do not want to. You are correct to say that YHVH does not require our love, but he does want it; it is the greatest of all His commandments, “””””””
    .
    I would not remove love from the motivation, but from the functional mechanism. Because God loved us, so did He allow His Son to die so as to pour out to us His Spirit so that the very nature of God might become in us our salvation. The commandments are a perfect description of the Holy divine nature, our inability fulfill it even if we choose it was indicative that we lacked the nature to do so. The Law revealed to us our sin, our inability as we miss the mark. And God’s choice was never weak as was ours.
    .
    So the Law confirms our nature is insufficient, God is Holy and He can associate only with like Holiness. So what the Law could not do, the Spirit can, without God’s Spirit we possessed no Holy nature of our own. Hence its need to be implanted, now when God sees us He sees Him children, not simply His creations, and this “seeing” is not based upon a legal arrangement where God simply calls us something that we are not, then He would be lying or deceiving Himself, rather He has actually placed His nature within us making us true children. Adopted not through legality but by the drinking of blood, imputed not by proxy but by presence as His nature resides within us. So it is the LIFE within the blood.
    .
    “”””The word “Incarnation” is not used to describe normal human birth.””””
    .
    Normally no because we are ignorant of ourselves as souls and think we came into existence simply at the behest of two human being. Human Beings can create a body by their combined DNA, but the “I am” within, the seat of consciousness that is the soul, was created by God Himself and was breathed into our present physical forms. In ignorance we all begin thinking of ourselves as these bodies, in truth we all incarnate for the soul and the body are not even of the same realm as Heaven is not made up of Iron and carbon and the like. But we can move on from this.
    .
    (Continued)

    Reply
  22. Brent Hurst says:

    Continued
    .
    “””””Of course, we would use a man’s seed, but we do not know exactly what YHVH did.””””””
    .
    Unless the essence of God’s own nature does not transverse from the Father, through His Son, and into us, there is no salvation. The SEED principle is built into the very nature of the Creation on the third day when God laid the framework for life. It is universal, and with it nothing can grow into something beyond the potential of the seed within it. We mature, but evolution is a universal impossibility. In the same way we cannot ever enter act with God, but less enter into the eternal realm, unless His Seed has first entered into us. Again, legalism cannot make this happen, our actions can make us into something we are not by nature. Even when we lie, if everybody believed us, God and truth would see the lie and we would have only manifested the fact we are a liar.
    .
    “”””””In the paragraph beginning, “The SEED of the man enters….” you suggests that the seed of the man brings life to the seed of the woman. This is not truly accurate. “””””””””
    .
    Yes, and the universe is not actually without boundaries, though we cannot actually see them. Every analogy of Infinity in the finite breaks down eventually. The infinite is expressed in man’s constant reproduction of supply, whereas the woman possessed a limited number defined at her puberty. We can count a woman’s eggs anytime we like, but we cannot count a man’s but merely estimate.
    .
    “””””””Paul was clear that YHVH was the Creator, “”””””
    .
    Ok, this is important to you, so lets separate
    .
    First I want you to understand how the Spirit, God’s nature transverses from the Father through the Son and into us as the functional mechanism that affords us our salvation. That’s one issue, and in this issue we have the idea of free will, choice etc….
    .
    Secondly was YHWH the Father or the Son or perhaps even the Holy Spirit.
    .

    You say this reference to God speaks directly of the Father, YHWH is the Creator, BUT, the creator would exist OUTSIDE of time and space, outside of the creation itself. He is without form, He is simply that “which is” and the nature of His wholeness, His completeness, His Oneness, burns up anything that would take up residence beside Him.
    .
    After all that which is Infinite is infinitely One and can know nothing else to exist. If we are speaking of the First Cause, the Creator God, the Father, then we have to assign Him the attributes that go with that position. Perhaps you have yet to understand this kind of transcendence from all form where only God exist, alone, Himself as the totality of everything because He is everything and everything is simply one thing, God.
    .
    BUT, BUT, BUT, here is the problem, YHWH walks and talks, in the Garden, with Abraham, etc… Now there is no doubt that in the Heavenly realm of this Creation YHWH is it, He’s the main man as it were, He has the throne and everything. He is the praise of the Heavenly hosts. No Man has seen the Father, but men have seen YHWH, not many, but a few.
    .
    Now I agree that the main purpose of YHWH, just like Jesus, is to constantly glorify the Father. To point back outside of the Creation, outside of the veil of time and space, to the transcend infinite ONE Being that started this whole thing. Jesus would paraphrase, don’t see me as if I were this body and a man like unto yourselves, know that I am sent, God’s son, and of God’s Spirit, and even as I came to give my LIFE, so I can take it up again for it is incorruptible.
    .
    Likewise YHWH, seated upon the Throne, expresses the transcendent Father through the Nature of His own Being. I appreciate that you have a lot of verses, and you are trying to fit them together to hold forth an understanding. But ultimately I have to fall back on the attributes as I see, not really see, that the Father is beyond all form, all distinction. The second I cram the formless creator TOTALITY into a form that is walking and talking in time and space, I become an idolater.
    .
    For lack of better words the nature of God existing both within and without of the creation is a mystical mind melt. So I will return again to the beginning. God hovers over the void, He speaks and in speaking, does is there a manifestation of three, the speaker (Father-creator), His breath (Holy Spirit), and His Word as Breath is given form (YHWH). These three “aspects” of God are all part of Creating, Creation coming forth by the interaction of these three working in unison. If I simply breathed upon you you would not understand my, I would be communicating no information.
    .
    When God creates He has to send information to the void so it will take on the structure He desires. The Father desires-thinks, wills, breaths, communicates. Now you say YHWH is the Creator, this is true, but so is Jesus, Jesus is also known as the Word, and all things were created though Him and for Him.
    .
    But I do not want this issue, that might have more to do with semantics, to negate my first issue as that of the Spirit of God that has come to reside in us and is the effectual agent in our salvation.
    .
    “”””””” “Ego emi” should not be translated as YHVH.
    You are correct in saying that “Theos” does not translate to YHVH, however, “The Theos” does.””””””””
    .
    And yet, as Jesus uses this combination in the “I AM” statements, it is in the Greek as in Aramaic, improper grammar even as it is redundant. This same kind of combination of two personal pronouns is also how the Lord’s name is formed in Hebrew. The greatest mystery of the Lord’s name in Hebrew is that there is no mystery, it is simply “I am, I am”. I would only suggest it is worth a bit more study on your part if you are so interested. It is not a “name” as we think of name as our names distinguish us one from another, you say “I am Lowel”, and I say “I am Brent”, because we co-exist at a level of equality. God exists above and beyond anything created, He is simply that which IS, thus no distinction, He (I) simply IS (AM).

    Reply
  23. Brent Hurst says:

    Dear Lowel,
    .
    “”””Again, legalism cannot make this happen, our actions can make us into something we are not by nature””””
    .
    Hopefully when I said this you understood my context is continuing, so the “can” after “actions” is “cannot”.

    Reply
  24. Brandon R. says:

    Syllogism 1:

    Jesus and God can both rightfully be called the savior of the world because they both have a part in it. Jesus followed the command of God to live sinlessly, preach, and then give himself up to death. God is the savior because He created the plan of salvation and sent someone to carry it out. Jesus is the savior because he followed the command of God to be the savior. This is the same thing as when one says that a captain/commander/general wins or loses a battle or that Donald Trump built a Trump Tower. The ones at the top didn’t actually do the thing which was attributed to them. However, the end goal/action would not have occured if the leader did not originate it. Tell me, who was it that saved Peter from the prison in Acts 12:7-17? Who was it that appeared to Moses, according to Acts 7:29-34?

    Syllogism 2:

    Second Premise: The intro to John is (to my knowledge) the most controversial passage of the new testament. So I’m not going to offer anything other than this: Read through 1st John a couple times. Some of the same exact phrases are used. It uses “the beginning” bunch of times in a way that can’t possibly be the creation reference (I think only one of them is). It also repeatedly says that we must believe Jesus is the Son of God (which matches the rest of the bible). There is no mention of Jesus being God.
    (cheat sheet I threw together last week for this:
    John 1:1-5 = 1 John 1:1-2
    John 1:4-11 = 1 John 1:3-7, 2:1-4. 2:13-14, 3:1, 3:6, 4:6-8, 5:19
    John 1:12-13 = 1 John 1:7, 1:9, 2:12-14, 2:28-29, 3:1-2, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1-4, 5:18
    John 1:14 = 1 John 4:2-3
    John 1:16 = 1 John 3:15-22
    John 1:18 = 1 John 4:12 & 5:20)

    Also, that Colossians 1 verse says that Jesus is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God. If they wanted to say he was God, they would have left out “the image of the.” The new testament never calls Jesus “Almighty,” “Immortal,” or “invisible.” (See https://youtu.be/z-3kqcycivQ) 1 Corinthians 11:7 says that men are the image and glory of God. Do you then say that all men are God? (See also Colossians 3:9-10, James 3:9, Romans 8:29)

    Syllogism 3:

    We worship Jesus because God is glorified when we glorify his son.
    John 5:19-47 (emphasis on 22-23), John 8:49-50, Acts 2:32-33, 5:31, Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Peter 4:11, 2 Peter 1:16-17, John 11:4, 13:31-32, 14:13, 15:8, Acts 3:13.

    I hope you will reconsider your position on this subject after some more studying. I have heard some pastors say they went 5-10 years studying before finally concluding that Jesus isn’t God. They didn’t want it to be true, so they had kept denying it.
    Once the idea of the trinity and incarnation are removed, the bible makes a lot more sense and has far fewer apparent contradictions. It also opens the opportunity to convert muslims and some atheists to christianity.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *