I understand this is long and could be longer. Please give me a couple of minutes of your time as I think this is an important message to learn and maybe the most important. Time is short and what we believe about this issue could mean life and death. Please be willing to listen to The G-d of Israel and His message. Some will tell you He is complicated and we can not understand Him, but this is untrue as He has made His message easy enough for a child to grasp, let's seek to be like children willing to listen to our Dad. Every Christian is to be a Truth-Seeker. When a person finds Truth, they become an agent of that Truth and should be willing to communicate that Truth in a spirit of commpassion and love with concern. So absolutely essential is the enthusiastic pursuit of Truth that Paul wrote these awful words: "whose coming is through the efficiency of the works of satan with great power and false signs and wonders and in every unrighteous deception for those who are being destroyed, because they did not accept the LOVE OF THE TRUTH for them to be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10) In the mind of the Apostle, a love and seeking of the Truth is equivalent to a love of Messiah, who is the Truth and who spoke the Truth. Let us be most careful not to misunderstand Paul. A love for Yeshua and His Father, means a whole hearted love for all the Truth Yeshua taught. It is all to easy for one to say "I love Jesus" all the while failing to seek out the Truth He taught. When this happens, professing a faith in Messiah becomes hollow. We must, as Paul says, open our minds to love the Truth. This means giving up our own and others idea's, however cherished, and replacing them with Truth, as we learn it through G-d's Spirit from the Scriptures. We can and will not learn it all at once. We must grow in Grace and Knowledge (2 Peter 1:5, 3:18). We may not always be popular when we abandon old ideas and learn the Truth of Scripture. But what is more important, Truth or popularity and acceptance? It is the essence of error that it parades as Truth. That is why the deceptive work of satan is so successful. "The whole world lies in the devil's deceptive grip" (1 John 5:19). Exponents of error, Paul said, masquerade as angels of light (2 Corinithians 11:13,14). They preach Yeshua, but it's a false Jesus, not the real Yeshua of the Scriptures. They preach "the Gospel" but it is a distorted gospel which omits vital saving information. They speak of "spirit" but it is a counterfeit of the "Breath of Adonai." In view of this threatening environment in which the congregation must continually seek to see thru the evil one's tactics, does the Bible provide any tests for telling the difference between the fake and the genuine? Can we unmask the false versions of the faith propagated by the ememy? Can we detect the camouflage behind which error hides? The Apostle John instructs us to apply this test, a yard stick to measure our own understanding of the person of Yeshua. Who is He? The test is as follows: "You can know the Spirit of G-d by this: every spirit that declares that Yeshua Messiah has come in the flesh is from G-d, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Yeshua is not from G-d." (1 John 4:2, 2 John 7) What does it mean to recognize and acknowledge that Yeshua has "come in the flesh?" Since the phrase "come in the flesh" is hardly one current in contemporary christianity, let us turn for help to the Translator's New Testament, a fine document produced by twenty five scholars, seventeen being new testament specialists in universities and theological collages and eighteen missionary linguists (published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973) Here is their reading of 2 John 7: "Many deceivers have gone into the world who do not accept that Jesus came as a human being. Here is the deceiver and the anti-christ." How would this vital test apply today? Are there systems of theology existing in our time which deny that Jesus came as a human being? According to the "official" definition of the person of Jesus, decided on at the council of Chalcedon (451 AD), and written into the creeds of nearly all denominations, Jesus is both fully god and man. Many who subscribe without question to this understanding of Jesus are unaware of the implications of this description. When we examine the meaning of the Chalcedonian definition more closely, some very remarkable facts emerge. In His book, "To know and Follow Jesus" (pub. Paulist press, 1984), the roman chatholic theologian, Thomas Hart, is critical of the traditional understanding of Jesus enshrined in the creeds of mainstream christianity by the concil of Chalcedon: " The Chalecedonian formula (Jesus is fully G-d and fully man) makes a genuine humanity impossible" (p.46). Hart explains: "The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in Him (divine and human, ie., he is fully God and fully man), it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent, and omnipresent.... This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kind of struggles we are familiar with” (p. 46). Thomas Hart then describes the official view of Jesus further: According to the Council of Chalcedon, “Jesus is called ‘man’ in the generic sense, but not ‘a man.’ He has human nature, but is not a human person. The person in him is the second person of a "blessed trinity". Jesus does not have a human personal center. This is how the council gets around the problem of split personality” (p. 44). I want to stress the fact that the Jesus of the church council, and nearly all denominations calling themselves christian, whose decision is taken as binding by millions of church goers, is not a human being, has not come in the flesh according to Scripture and does not have a personal human center. If anyone should be puzzled that the Jesus of the churches creed in not a human person, I can confirm this fact is an official teaching by quoting a leading protestant source: "If we affirm that Jesus was a human person, we are driven into an impossable conception of double personality in the incarnate Son of God...." (Oliver Quick, D.D., Doctrines of the Creed, p. 178) Dr. Quick obviously finds himself unable to affirm that Jesus was a human person. He then goes on to admit, “If we deny that Jesus was a human person we deny by implication the completeness of his manhood” But he and the Council did in fact deny that Jesus was a human person! Dr. Quick is not prepared to affirm that Jesus was a human person! From these official statements about the person of Yeshua it appears that the "Jesus" of the churches - the trinitarian Jesus — is not a human person. The churches are forced into this position because of their conviction that the person of Yeshua is the eternal second member of a trinity. Yeshua for the mordern day churches is primarily G-d himself who later put on a half human nature. Lets add a statment from another book, "What think Ye of Christ" by Leslie Simmonds: “Now the doctrine of the Incarnation (and therefore of the trinity) is that in Christ the place of a human personality is replaced by the Divine Personality of God the Son, the Second Person of a most holy trinity. Christ possesses a complete human nature without a human personality. Uncreated and eternal Divine Personality replaces a created human personality in Him” (p. 45) These quotations demonstrate that the Jesus of the Council of Chalcedon, in whom all the major denominations believe, is not a human person. He became “man” but not “a man.” The roman catholic writer we cited earlier is rightly unhappy with this official definition. Having pointed out that the Chalcedonian Jesus is not fully a human person, he insists: “Jesus is one person. Jesus is a human person. Both points are clear in the New Testament” (To Know and Follow Jesus p.64). There appears to be a radical flaw in the churches’ understanding of the central figure of the faith. We must remember that the vital Truth-test we are to apply to any system of teaching has to do with the belief that Yeshua is a real human being (I John 4:2, II John 7). But as Thomas Hart states clearly: “The Chalcedonian (trinitarian) formula makes genuine humanity impossible” (To Know and Follow Jesus, p. 46). And on page 48 he admits: “The Chalcedonian formula has no basis in Scripture.” Astonishingly, the god/man of traditional belief is not a genuine human person. Could a person whose ego — his personal center — is fully G-d really be a human person, when the human part of him consists only of “impersonal human nature”? Could the promised descendant of David have lived before David and still be considered his descendant? Can a single person be 100% god and 100% man? No! Can G-d die? No! If Jesus is G-d, and G-d cannot die (I Tim 6:16), Yeshua cannot have died! And if Yeshua is G-d he must be omniscient. Yet the Yeshua of the Bible said he was not all-knowing. He did not know the day of his future coming (Mark 13:32) Neither sincerity nor majority opinions are safe guides to the Truth of the Bible. The spirit, or character, of every religious system must be examined before its teaching can be accepted. We are commanded to “test the spirits” (I John 4:1), that is, to test the teachers and teachings we are offered in the name of christianity: "Many false teachers have gone out into the world” (I John 4:2). Interestingly, the word used by John to describe the appearance of the false teachers is a form of the word “come”; that is to say that they have “made their appearance in public.” The same verb “come” describes the appearance of Yeshua: “He came as a human being” (I John 4:2, II John 7). To “come as a human being” does not imply that one has existed before one’s birth. It is force of habit which makes readers of the Bible understand the word “come” in that sense when used of Yeshua. It is often forgotten that John the Baptist also “came” (Mat. 11:14). He was, like Yeshua, “sent” (John 1:6). The disciples, too, were sent into the world, just as Yeshua was sent into the world (John 17:18): “Just as You sent Me into the world, I sent them into the world.” Moreover, the prophet — the Messiah — whom the Jews expected would “come into the world” (John 6:14; Deut 18:15-18) was the prophet destined to be born. Yeshua, Himself, equated being born with “coming into the world” (John 18:37). John urges us to believe in a Yeshua who is authentically a human being, not an angel who became man, nor an eternal Son of G-d who became a man. Throughout the New Testament we are exhorted to believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. The Church is to be founded on Peter’s confession of Yeshua as the Messiah (Mat. 16:16). John wrote his entire gospel to persuade us to believe that “Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of G-d” (John 20:31). The early church in Acts “kept right on teaching and preaching Yeshua as the Messiah” (Acts 5:42). Paul “proved that this Yeshua is the Messiah” (Acts 9:22, 17:3, 18:5, 18:28). It is the “Man Messiah” who is the one mediator between the One G-d and man (I Tim. 2:5). No wonder, then that the spirit of antichrist denies that Yeshua is the Messiah. This is the arch-lie: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Yeshua is the Messiah?” (I John 2:22, 5:1). Being the Messiah dos not mean to be G-d, but the Son of G-d, come in the flesh, as fully human! It is crucially important to understand that the Messiah promised by the Old Testament was to be a real descendant of David (II Sam. 7:14). G-d would be the Father of this descendant, according to the promise, but the Messiah would be “the fruit of David’s body” (Psalm 132:11). There is no hint here or elsewhere in the Old Testament that G-d had been the Father of the Messiah for all eternity, much less that the Messiah was to be the uncreated member of an eternal trinity. Rather, he was to be a “prophet like Moses” raised up from an Israelite family (see Deut. 18:15-18, Acts 3:22, 7:37). The traditional Yeshua of the creeds is alien to this Biblical picture of the Messiah. The real Yeshua of history in whom Luke believed was the Son of G-d, not because He had been G-d from eternity but because of his miraculous conception. In Mary’s womb a real human person came into existence. Note the direct causal link between Jesus’ coming into being as the Son of G-d and the miracle which happened to Mary: “The holy spirit will come upon you and power of the Most High will cover you, and for this reason the holy one who is birthed will be called the Son of G-d” (Luke 1:35). This Yeshua is a genuinely human person, though supernaturally conceived. He is the descendant of David. If he were not he could not prove his claim to be the Messiah. If, however, this person is actually G-d, putting on “impersonal human nature,” why would his descent from David matter? Could one not receive “impersonal human nature” from a mother of any nationality? The theory that the person of Yeshua is not that of Mary’s Son begotten by the Father in Mary (Matt. 1:18, 20), but that of a preexistent person surely destroys both the genuineness of Yeshua's humanity and his descent from David. The Jesus of Trinitarian and Chalcedonian theology is officially not a human person — ”man” but not “a man.” Such theological jargon, as many should realize, is in desperate need of revision. The most important question of all is whether the Chalcedonian Jesus, in whom millions profess belief, qualifies as the one who came “as a human being” (1 John 4:2). The difference in John’s mind between the real human Yeshua and the one who only appears to be a man is the difference between light and dark, Christ and antichrist. One may profess to believe in Yeshua as Messiah but negate this confession by denying that he is a fully human person. John’s Truth-test (I John 4:2, II John 7) is critically relevant to our times. Belief in Yeshua as the Messiah, a real human descendant of David is still the Biblical criterion for proof that one is drawing inspiration from the spirit of Truth. It remains as true as ever that the fundamental doctrinal test of the professing Christian has to do with his view of the person of Messiah. The denial of the humanity of Yeshua is the fatal flaw detected by the Johannine test. G-d’s Son is the Son of Mary and of David. Of sonship prior to His conception in history the Bible has nothing to say. Such a notion is destructive of Yeshua's genuine humanity and genuine descent from David. Yeshua, the Jewish-Christian Messiah, needs urgently to be reinstated at the heart of Christian devotion. Belief in Him and in His Father, the only true G-d, leads to salvation (John 17:3). Peace and Grace! Post edited by: barry, at: 2007/04/12 19:12

Post edited by: barry, at: 2007/04/12 19:26

WOW! Instant bookmark. That covers so much of what I can never seem to get out quite right. You wrote all that? That's really great stuff. Thank you, and may Hashem open the hearts of each and every reader of this important topic, that they may see the clear and simple truth of the matter- That there is only one G-d, who stands alone, without peer, who sent His only begotton Son, fully human, who though He could sin, CHOSE not to, to die a spotless lamb, as a sin offering for the transgressions of all who believe in His Holy Name. Baruch atah, haveri. But above all, baruch Hashem.

Matt, our Father has used you to push me for the Truth more than you will everknow. I would have dropped the issue long before now. You and I have grown so much sence we first started discussing the issue togehter. I should thank you, Matt. You have shown yourself to be a true Brother. I praise Him for you! Any words or knowlage that are truth do not come from me and I do not seek credit or glory for it. I first started thinking along these lines on this "test" way back on ditty, but never could get my mind around it either. I have used many resources to compile all the info I have on this subject, including you, and am sure I will use many more since this subject seems to burn within me. I realize many will not listen or even choose to befriend me, and as we both have learned some will call me names or say I do not know the G-d of Israel. That's Ok. He has shown me many things thru the persicution and I can only hope for more persicution as He has blessed me in abundance and will do so even more as the rocks are thrown. Father, forgive us. Put in us the desire for Your Truth, to seek it, to know it, to live it, to love it. Bless all those who do not understand, and show mercy to those men before us who have heeded your call, but also to those who didn't. I, Father am nothing, but in You, through Your Blessed Son, I have life!

[b]barry wrote:[/b] [quote]Matt, our Father has used you to push me for the Truth more than you will everknow. I would have dropped the issue long before now. You and I have grown so much sence we first started discussing the issue togehter. I should thank you, Matt. You have shown yourself to be a true Brother. I praise Him for you! Any words or knowlage that are truth do not come from me and I do not seek credit or glory for it. I first started thinking along these lines on this "test" way back on ditty, but never could get my mind around it either. I have used many resources to compile all the info I have on this subject, including you, and am sure I will use many more since this subject seems to burn within me. [/quote] Back at you 100%, brother Barry. I remember those times, thinking I was alone until you jumped in. What Hashem lays on my heart, I cannot ignore, but I think G-d used your support to strengthen me, and give me more courage to speak what I knew to be the truth.That's something that I'll never forget. In all things, His will be done. Rand- [quote]But it (the Trinity) is not unknowable about God, any more than His omnipotence, eternity, omnipresence, or omniscience. For suggested reading, I submit to you Jonathan Edwards' "Treatise on the Trinity." It is, by far, the best understanding of the Trinity I have ever read. [/quote] Truly, I appreciate the efforts, brother. But see, the principle of that bugs me. Why should we need the treatises of man to explain something like this? Won't G-d give us what we need to know to do His will, and to know Him? I believe Deu 30 makes it clear that He does not want us confused, that He will give us the knowledge we need. If He is silent on a subject, we should be able to discuss it and debate it rationally, scripturally, and in love, even as the Talmud records debates between Hillel and Shammai, and also records that because these disagreements were for the sake of heaven, they endured. I just don't believe He is silent on this most important topic. This is a major stumblingblock, and a hindrance to our efforts to witness to our Jewish brethren, because anything which conflicts with the Sh'ma will be instantly rejected by any practicing Jew of any affiliation. [quote]Ya know Matt, I was thinking. The Jews stared getting it all wrong when they decided they needed a man as king. Then they needed commentary on Scripture to decide what Scripture meant. Man always seeks the wisdom of man instead of the wisdom of G-d.[/quote] Ooh! I had never "put two and two together" like that, but yeah, I believe that's a great example. The tendency is still to think of G-d as afar off, when we're in times of trouble, and even to WANT Him a little afar off, as the Israelites did at Mt Sinai. Thustly did the practice begin of having man interpret scripture, instead of letting scripture interpret itself. I guess there wasn't as much as I thought to catch up on. Barry has covered most of the trinitarian points better than I could, sometimes before those points were even made, so I'll leave it at that.

MaddMatt, Thank you for your encouraging words! You have made me decide to start typing in Microsoft Word so maybe what I post looks better to you, Again thank you, this piece has taken me days and my back hurts from it, but let us praise our G-d for His Wisdom and Truth. "Who rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us to the Kingdom of the Son by His Love, in Whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible G-d, Firstborn of all creation, because by Him all things were created in the Heavens and upon the Earth, the visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or leaders or authorities: all things have been created through Him and in Him: and He was alive before all things and all things have come together in Him and He is the head of the body, of the congregation. Who was in the beginning, Firstborn from the dead, so that He would be first in all things, because it pleased the Father to have to make all the fullness dwell through Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Him, because He made peace through the blood of His cross, through Him whether they be the things upon the Earth or the things in the Heavens." (Colossians 1:13-10) There are a couple of text's written by Paul that appear to be a trump card for those who teach the preexistence of Yeshua, the foundation of trinitarian theology so to speak, expressing in some sense Messiah's status as Deity. One is Colossians 1:13-20. At the time of the Nicene Council, two parties, the Arians and the Athanasians, were quiet fond of using this to prove that Messiah existed as a "personal" being before his birth or "incarnation". The difference between the two were that the Arians thought he had a beginning and was the first creature G-d made, while the Athanasians thought he had no beginning and was Himself "co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial" with the Father. The result was the claim, as seen today by the Trinitarians, that Yeshua must been seen to be G-d just as the Father is seen as G-d. I highly doubt whether Paul had any of those ideas in mind when he wrote this letter. Let's look at this verse to see if that is truly what Paul was expressing. Verse 15 tells us that G-d's "beloved Son" is the "image" of the unseen G-d. Image - 1. A picture or some other likeness of a person or thing. 2. a person or thing that looks very similar to or exactly like someone or something else. So, of course, an image is a visual representation, a copy of the original. The very fact of using a word such as "image" suggests that there is a difference in identity between a copy and the original. When you look into a mirror, you see an image of yourself. You would not consider yourself to be the person in the mirror, but the person in front of the mirror. The word "image" establishes, by its very meaning, that Messiah is not G-d. The image is not the same as the original, and in this case the original is the one and only G-d. When Yeshua told his disciples "Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) it was not a claim to be the Father, but rather a claim to be like the Father. Hebrews also confirms this fact. In verse 1:3 it says he is the "radiance of the glory, a "representation" of G-d's being, or G-d's nature (He is the radiance of the glory and representation of His nature). The English word "representation" or the Greek word it is taken from (Carakter) imply that a copy is being set forth, based on a original. The writer of Hebrews is telling us that G-d has spoken to us by a Son who is just like Him. So to say this Son is "just like" Him is to recognize that he is not, in fact, himself G-d, i.e., the One to whom he is now being "likened." Hebrews goes on to say that, the one who is like G-d, after purging our sins by his death, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, a further distinction between the Man who is "just like" G-d, and the being who is G-d, Himself! Verse 15 goes on to say, Messiah is the "firstborn of all creation." If the "first" in "Firstborn only means precedence in time, and if "creation" means the original creation of Genesis 1, then the case for the Messiah's personal preexistence would stand. The Arians and Athanasians would have been right in their claim that Messiah existed before His birth and abandoned his former mode of existence in order to become a human being. What should be questioned here is the definition of these words in the context of Scripture as a whole. Remember, the only tool that should be use to define Scripture, is Scripture itself! The word "Firstborn" is prototokos in Greek. It is used a number of times in Scripture, often to designate the child born first in a family. When Esau came to receive the blessing of the firstborn from his father Isaac, he pleaded he was Isaac's firstborn - his prototokos (Gen. 27:32 LXX). Prototkos comes from the root word protos and can mean either first in time or first in rank, the "firstborn" may be used to designate one who is honored with the first or chief position, regardless of time of birth. The idea for this is seen in Exodus 4:22, where G-d commands Moses to tell Pharaoh, "This is what (Tetragrammaton) says: Israel is my first born son...Let my son go, so he may worship me." Clearly here the word prototokos (LXX) has nothing to do with precedence in time, but rather in rank among the nations, as G-d viewed their relative importance. The same is true in Jeremiah 31:9 (38:9 LXX) G-d calls Ephraim his protokos (even though Ephraim's older brother, Manasseh, was the elder of the two). So we see in G-d's view, it is precedence in rank, or importance that is in view. A classic example of this use would be Psalm 89:27 (88:27 LXX), where G-d describes the promised Davidic king, the Messiah: "I will appoint Him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." The position of King of Kings is a matter of appointment, not in being co-eternal, or time of birth. Clearly the usage of this word in all of Scripture points to position and rank and nothing else. It now becomes important what Paul meant by the word "creation." Was Paul referring to the Genesis 1 account or what may be called a new creation, a new order? Paul goes on to define this creation as comprising all things "all things were created in the Heavens and upon the Earth, the visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or leaders or authorities; all things have been created through him and in him." Messiah himself described the original creation as being G-d's work (Mark 13:19 which corresponds with Hebrews 4:4, where G-d, not Yeshua, rested from the work of creation) and suggesting that Messiah did not see himself as the creator of "all things" mentioned in Genesis 1. Paul, in fact, seems to give an exact description of what he means "all things" created. Namely, “thrones, powers, rulers, authorities.” If this is what he means, then we must ask in what sense Messiah can be called the creator of such. Just before his ascension Yeshua said "all authority has been given to me in the Heavens and the Earth" (Matthew 28:18). With that authority he sent his students into the world to make disciples of all the heathens and teach them to keep all things that have been commanded. Moses for told that Messiah would be a prophet like Moses himself, a human man, whose word would have the force of the law, demanding obedience (Deut. 18:15, 18, 19; Acts 3:22, 23). But what of his authority in the Heavens? Paul said when Messiah was raised from the dead and was set at G-d's right hand in the "Heavenlies," his new position brought him a status "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also the one to come" (Ephesians 1:21). Not only that but G-d placed all things under his feet" (vs.22). Colossians 1:17 echo’s this, in saying "and all things have come together in Him." Colossians 2:10 says "who is the head of every principality and power.” G-d rewarded Yeshua's obedience unto death by highly exalting him and giving him a name above every name. “At the name of Yeshua every knee will be required to bow, in the Heavens and on the Earth, and every tongue confess that Yeshua is Messiah and Lord, in glory of G-d our Father” (Philippians 2:10) And by the way, the word here for Lord is ku/riov (Kurios). And the definition is, Lord / ku/riov (Kurios)- 1. He to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord. A. the possessor and disposer of a thing. 1. The owner; one who has control of the person, the master. 2. in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor. B. is a title of honor expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master. So, much to the surprise of some, this is no confession that Yeshua is G-d, but rather, their Master. These ascriptions of supreme authority to Messiah, under G-d, suggest that when Messiah came to be seated at the right hand of G-d, he, in turn, set up, or created, a new system of rulership's among the angelic beings as well as preparing a place of honor and service within His Father's household for all the faithful people, both in this age and in the age to come (John 14:2, 3). All of this is part of "the new creation." It is this new creation that is the subject of Colossians 1:15-17. Verse 17 declares that Messiah is "before all things" - pro panton. This has been seized upon as proof of the preexistence. One thing you need to take notice of is that the verb used here is in the present tense -"is"- not "was" Paul does not tell us Messiah “was” before all things. What does before mean then? The Greek word used here — pro — has three common uses: before, in the sense of place, “in front of”; before, in the sense of time, “prior to”, and before, in the sense of preeminence, rank, advantage. The latter usage is seen in Peter 4:8, “above all things (or before all things or most important of all, it’s the same word, pro panton) having constant love among yourselves…..” Here pro has nothing to do with time or place, but stresses the fact that love is the most important virtue you can posses, it’s above all things. James 5:12 gives us another example: “Above all things, my brothers, do not swear either by Heaven or by the Earth or any other oath….” Again Scripture will define Scripture. To say that Messiah is pro panton is to say he is under G-d, the Preeminent One, the Most Important One! This fact is highlighted as we continue reading. We see him as having, in everything, “the preeminence” (KJV), “the supremacy” (NIV), “the first place” (NASB ). To bring this point home, Paul adds the personal pronoun autos to the verb proteuo, meaning that HE, Messiah himself, is being given first place in all G-d’s universe! This of coarse, echo’s another piece of Scripture. (Gen. 41:40, 41, 44) “You shall be in charge of my palace and by your command shall all my people be sustained; only by the throne shall I outrank you. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See! I have placed you in charge of all the land of Egypt’……..Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I am Pharaoh. And without you no man may lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.’” This is so a picture of the relationship between G-d the Father and the Messiah, His Son. Pharaoh said to Joseph “I am,” He was like a god to Joseph’s kingship. Let’s continue reading this piece of Scripture and be fascinated at the picture being painted! Genesis 41:45 “Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah (Which means: he who explains what is hidden, Wow!) and gave him Asenath daughter of Poti-phera.” So Pharaoh gives Joseph a new name above all names and a bride. (Just like G-d the Father gives Yeshua a new name above all names and a bride, us, and sets everything under Him and no man may do a thing without Him). Again, this is the kind of preeminence and rulership that G-d has given to His Son, to be over all other beings, typified only dimly by the history of Joseph’s own exaltation! Paul is piling it on to declare that in Messiah “all things hold together.” The Greek verb sunistemi translated “hold together” is given various definitions by the lexicographers. One suggested definition is “cohere.” All things cohere in Messiah and provide a coherent meaning to the universe. He is the reason for it all, because he is G-d’s only-begotten Son, the perfect image of the Father himself! Another definition is “to have one’s proper place.” All things in the universe have their own proper place, designed by the Creator, (Tetragrammaton), to be in perfect relationship and harmony with “the Son whom G-d loves.” Messiah being first, the head or ruler of G-d’s congregation is a common theme in the writing of Paul. Verse 18 declares that and goes on to call him arche, “beginning” (KJV, NIV, NASB ). This word also means “ruler, authority.” It emphasizes Paul’s theme of Messiah’s preeminence and supreme authority under the one true G-d. In that authority all things begin and end in Messiah. As the beginning of a “new creation” Messiah is the “first born from among the dead.” The first human being to rise from the dead into immortality and become a “sharer of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) As prototokos he is also “chiefborn” from among the dead, because he in turn is the Lifegiver, the Prince of Life whose voice will awaken and call forth the sleeping dead from their graves (John 5:21-29; Acts 3:15). And it is by resurrection from the dead that he achieves his supreme position (v. 18: “in order that”). This means that he did not already have that position. “G-d was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (v. 19). The past tense here, combined with the immediate mention of Messiah’s reconciling work in his death on the cross (v.20), would seem to indicate that Paul has in mind the period of Messiah’s mortal lifetime. It was then that Messiah was already filled with G-d’s fullness, just as believers are called upon to seek that fullness for their own lives today (Eph. 3:19). In Messiah’s case, there was no limit to the Spirit working in him, he was totally filled with G-d’s Spirit and power throughout his earthly ministry. His initial preeminence is seen in his walking the earth as though he were G-d himself. Later, in Colossians 2:9, Paul speaks of G-d’s “fullness” again, but describes it in a special way and in the present tense. “In Messiah all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” Since his resurrection to immortality and his being granted “all authority in heaven and earth” Messiah is exalted by his Father to the highest place in the universe, next to G-d himself, and is given the highest name (Phil. 2:9). He can be described, therefore, as possessing the fullness of the Deity. How could his preeminence be emphasized more powerfully than this? But all of this is short-circuited and spoiled by Trinitarian notions and the teaching of Messiah’s personal preexistence! If those ideas were true, he already possessed — in person — total preeminence long before he was born, before he had been obedient unto death. But, as Paul insists, it was this very obedience — and the humility from which it sprang — that was the reason for, and the cause of, that exaltation and that preeminence! Peace and Grace!

Post edited by: barry, at: 2007/04/16 12:12

Another so called trump card for trinitarians is Philippians 2: 6-8. “Who was in the form of G-d, yet did not think equality with G-d was to be eagerly clung to or retained, but emptied himself of his own equality, taking the for of a servant, when he came in the likeness of men: and when he was found in a manner of life as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient until death, even a death of the cross.” Paul writes here that Yeshua was “in the form of G-d” as rendered in English texts from the Greek phrase, en morphe theou. This is taken to mean that Yeshua is the very G-d, who created all. According to this faith, Messiah is “co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial” with the Father, the “second person” of a so called trinity. It would mean that Yeshua is really and truly G-d in every sense, apart from his being also man born of woman. All of this is declared to be a “mystery” which must be accepted by faith, under pain of excommunication or, in past centuries, death. O how empty these threats are in light of the Truth. For those who accept Yeshua’s words of John 17:3, “And this is eternal life, that they know You, the Only True G-d, and whom You sent, Yeshua HaMashach” or that of John 4:21, 22 where Yeshua tells the Samaritan woman that the Jews were correct in their doctrine of G-d which left no room for anything but the absolute oneness of G-d. It is a puzzling thing to be assaulted by this insistence on viewing G-d as “three persons.” One becomes further alarmed at such a requirement when reading John’s criteria for a saving faith: “Messiah did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this scroll: But these things have been written that you may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of G-d, and so that when you believe you would have eternal life in his name” (John 20:30, 31) There is nothing there about believing Yeshua is G-d. No hint here of the Trinitarian title, “God the Son.” It is all a straightforward requirement to believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah of Israel, The Son of G-d, the Anointed One. Plain and simple! We are told that we must take this on faith. Faith is neither absurd nor stupid. It is believing the promises G-d made He will keep. That if I believe that He sent His Son to die instead of me, He will raise me to eternal life in the end, period. Trinitarianism assumes that Paul wrote “in the form of G-d” to mean before Yeshua’s “incarnation”. His supposed life as G-d before stepping down into our world. Totally forgetting the fact that He was born of a woman and then later become the Anointed One at his mikvah (baptism). What do you think the Spirit like a dove was doing? Just getting some exercise? Paul gives not hint to a prior existence as G-d. The one who “was in the form of G-d” was in fact, a man, Yeshua. And Paul is describing what was true of that man while he was on the earth! Trinitarian commentators often interpret the Greek word morphe in light of some of its usage in classical Greek literature, that is, from the period five or six centuries earlier. That usage could imply “what is essential and permanent.” But the New Testament is not written in “classical Greek,” but rather in what is called Koine Greek, the popular language of Paul’s day. From many Koine manuscripts discovered by archaeologists and dating from the first century, we know that some terms had acquired new meanings. One of those terms was morphe, usually translated “form.” From Professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute, Kenneth S. Wuest, himself a Trinitarian, we learn that in Koine Greek the word morphe had come to refer to “a station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this context (Philippians 2)” (The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84 How can we be sure that morphe in Philippians 2:6 means “station in life, status, rank, position,” and not “inherent nature,” as some translators or commentators would interpret the Greek word (see NIV on Philippians 2:6, for example)? Here we appeal to the immediate context to help us understand how Paul is using the word. In verse 7 he says that Christ took the “form,” the morphe, of a servant — literally, of a slave. What does this mean? Does morphe suggest that a servant has some kind of “inherent nature” that would constitute him a slave, or does it not rather imply that servanthood is, per se, a matter of “status, rank, or position”? One’s position as a servant is either a matter of choice or a matter of circumstances. We cannot see, therefore, that the context supports any other meaning for morphe than that which deals with one’s rank or status. Messiah’s status as G-d is contrasted with His status as a servant. To translate or to understand morphe as “inherent nature” in Philippians 2, then, clearly does not fit the way it is used in this context. I can never say it enough, Scripture defines Scripture! What does this all mean? It means that the man, Yeshua, was on Earth functioning in the status, rank, or position of G-d. The exact same as any messenger of a king would be doing. Wow, imagine that. But let’s ask a question. Was there any historical precedent for this? When G-d called Moses to be his agent to bring Israel out of Egypt, he told him, “See, I have made you like G-d to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet” (Exodus. 7:1). The Hebrew text is even more startling, because the word “like” is not there at all. Rather, G-d declares to Moses, “I have given you to be Elohim to Pharaoh.” Earlier, G-d had said that Moses would be “Elohim” to Aaron (4:16). This means that Moses functioned as though he were G-d on earth; he was the appointed leader to act for G-d and as possessing the authority G-d had conferred on him by designating him to bear the G-d of Israel’s own title, Elohim! This is similar to the character or role of an ambassador or other diplomat who has received “plenipotentiary” authority to act on behalf of the government he represents, and whose decisions and transactions are regarded as equal or identical to those of the sovereign state which has sent him. Wow, Scripture fits within itself without making some absurd contradiction, what do ya know! So let’s ask some more questions. How did Yeshua function in the status of G-d during his earthly ministry? Do the four Gospels portray his activities in such a way as to suggest that he was doing what the Father himself would have been doing, had G-d been present visibly and personally to carry out the ministry that his Son in fact fulfilled? Does the record show that while on Earth Messiah was exercising prerogatives that really belong to G-d himself? Ummmm…..Let’s see! You do not get very far into the gospels before this issue comes up with a question. “Who can forgive sins but G-d alone? (Mark 2:7). Yeshua had just healed a man who had been paralyzed. The teachers of Torah heard him say “your sins are forgiven” and started to accuse him of blasphemy. What did Yeshua say? I am G-d, why do you question me! Nope. He said “Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” then added “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .” He was given authority by the only True G-d that there is. The scribes were correct in knowing that the only authority for doing this was from G-d, but what they did not understand was that G-d had sent His Son into this world to act on His behalf, in His Name, with His power and to die for us. In this act of forgiveness, then, Messiah was functioning in the morphe, the status, of G-d, who had sent him. More proof for Yeshua’s status in acting for G-d on Earth is John 5:21. “For just as the Father raises the dead and makes alive, so also the Son makes alive whom he wishes.” The power to resurrect the dead rest only in the Hands of the Father. He put that on display so Magnificently when He raised the one whom He had bestowed this power upon and brought him into immortality (Acts 17:30, 31; Rom. 6:9; 8:11). But before that, while Messiah walked the Earth, he used this gift from G-d to bring several back to life. Most notably Lazarus. It was such a startling display of G-d’s power that they plotted to kill the risen Lazarus as well as the One who had raised him! (John 12:9-11) Again, Messiah was acting in G-d’s name, in G-d’s place when he raised the dead and showed himself to be in the morphe of God. Question: If Yeshua, the man, did not have the authority to act as G-d, would we have even heard of Him? Wouldn’t he just be you or I? What trinitarians have done is what the people of Lystra did when Paul healed a crippled man, because he displayed the power of G-d, acting in G-d’s stead, they called him and Barnabas gods (Acts 14:8). More proof of the authority of G-d given the son is John 5:22, 23. “For neither does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all would honor the Son just as they would honor the Father. The one not honoring the Son does not honor the Father, the one who sent him.” If Yeshua was G-d already, why would the Father need to give him this judgment, wouldn’t he have it already? The Father gives it to him so he will be honored just as He, the Father, is honored. But, as G-d, wouldn’t Yeshua already have Honor, being G-d? If you do not honor Yeshua as a Son because you say he is G-d, aren’t you dishonoring the Father by denying the sonship and his humanity? Paul told the Athenians that someday G-d would judge the world with justice “because he established a Day in which He is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man Whom He appointed, when He gave assurance to all the faithful by having raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31) God number 2 couldn’t be a man as he would be god number 2 and not a man. G-d has said “I am no man” (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15: 29, Hosea 11:9). Would god number 2 need to be appointed since he would be g-d? Wouldn’t he already be? Being god? G-d is the Judge of the universe, one who is both just in his judicial sentences and yet able to be the “justifier of him who has faith in Yeshua” (Rom. 3:26). But again, Paul reveals that “G-d will judge men’s secrets through Messiah Yeshua” (Rom. 2:16). Such texts provide evidence that the White Throne Judgment described in Revelation 20:11 will be presided over by Messiah, who will be seated on the throne of judgment. (The Greek text does not have “G-d” in verse 12, but “the throne”, contrary to the reading in KJV) Messiah “did not think equality with G-d was to be eagerly clung to or retained”. In what sense was Messiah “equal” with G-d? We have already seen where Paul was saying that while on the Earth, Yeshua was working “in the status of G-d”. We have also considered the implications of divine status, i.e. his ability to forgive sins, to raise the dead, and to judge. On top of this we could consider command of the elements (to make to wind and the sea obey him, (Matt. 8:23-27). With all that in mind it is possible for Paul to declare him “equal with G-d” in a since that such equality was a delegated authority from G-d Himself. Let’s keep something in mind here, equality is not the same as identity. Paul never said Yeshua was identical with G-d, which would provide proof for either trinitarianism or modalistic monarchianism (also called Sabellianism, the doctrine that G-d is simply one person or one being, but one who may be viewed as Father or Son or Holy Spirit). The Greek text of Philippians 2:6 shows that Messaiah recognized his equality with G-d but that he did not consider this G-d-given equality a harpagmos. KJV translates this word as “robbery.” The word can imply something that is snatched or taken by force. The Arndt-Gingrich lexicon says it can also mean a “prize” or a “windfall” in Koine usage. If Paul is using it in the latter sense, he implies that Messiah did not have any kind of presumptuous attitude as he viewed his equality with G-d, nor did he seek to take advantage of it, or exploit it, for his own purposes. Rather, he took the status of a slave, seeking only to serve his G-d and the human race that he had come to save. The verb “empty” is the Greek kenoo, from which some trinitarians have developed a doctrine called the “kenosis theory.” According to this doctrine, the “pre-existent Christ” divested himself of the manifestation of some of his attributes of deity in order to become man. There is no need to get into any details of it or even the disagreements of those who profess it but all of them use the term “kenosis” to support their fancy ideas of a personal preexistence of the Messiah. The KJV ignores such ideas by translating that he “made himself of no reputation,” an obvious and correct reference to the period of his human life and ministry. We have clear proof that Paul talks of the historical man Yeshua and not about a person who was later to become Messiah Yeshua. It is the Yeshua born of a woman who “emptied” himself. In such a setting, the word screams the fact that Yeshua put away any temptation for self-importance or to exalt himself in any way. An example of this if you need it would be the Queen of Sheba. She was “emptied” of pride when she looked upon the magnificence Solomon’s court. There was “no more spirit in her” (1 Kings 10:1-13). Just like her, Messiah’s “self-emptying” left within him no room for pride, arrogance, or any plans being made without total subjection to the will of God. (Hebrews 10:7-10, Psalm 40:7-9) Messiah’s “self emptying” goes hand in hand with him having taken the status of a servant and of having come into existence in human likeness. “Having taken” is from the aorist participle labon, and “having come into existence” from the aorist participle genomenos. Such aorist participles often denote a time prior to the action of the main verb. This would support the view that his “self-emptying” (the main verb) occurred after he was born, not before. “Kenosis theories,” therefore, can be considered simply philosophical speculations that can have no basis in the text or the Truth. As such, they would be an example of “eisegesis” (reading into the text), not exegesis. Moulton and Milligan’s lexicon sees the word schema, here translated “appearance,” as implying “external bearing” or “fashion.” One is tempted to translate that Messiah was found to be “in the human scheme of things” or “in the human condition.” He was totally human, apart from sin. He looked to be what he was, a man. Such descriptions, being inspired of God, forbid any kind of gnostic, neognostic calvinism or docetist teaching that Messiah only “appeared” to be a flesh-and-blood human being while being in fact “purely spirit.” In their view anything material was, ipso facto, evil. So Messiah could not have a material body. He only “appeared” to have one, said the docetists. Pastor C. T. Russell used a similar kind of “sleight of hand” when he taught that Yeshua had no physical body after his resurrection. He simply “materialized” a temporary body to show to his disciples — a teaching still propagated by those called Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as by others from the russellite tradition. Paul further explains how far Messiah went in subjecting himself to his Father, who had placed him in the status of G-d to carry out his earthly ministry and had delegated him to exercise equality with G-d according to that status. “He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death.” G-d’s plan, as foretold by Isaiah, was to lay upon his Son “the iniquity of us all” (53:6), to crush him and to cause him to suffer, and to make his life a guilt-offering (v.10). Peter says that Yeshua was delivered unto death by G-d’s “predetermined plan and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23). And yet Yeshua willingly submitted himself to this plan, in loving obedience to his Father. “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life, only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:17, 18). Any doctrine of the atonement must take into account this judicial infliction of death upon Messiah by his Father, so that G-d the Judge could also act justly in being the “justifier” of those who belong to Messiah. (Rom. 3:26 KJV) Messiah’s willing obedience “to the point of death” is made even more amazing by the fact that his death was carried out by one of the most painful and humiliating methods available, crucifixion! Paul stresses this shocking truth by using the word “even.” Of all the ways that one might die, death on a cross is the most horrible he can imagine, and at the same time the kind that most reveals Messiah’s total submission to the will of the Only G-d! As a Roman citizen, Paul realized that the government reserved death by crucifixion for the worst criminals, or else for the persons she most despised. From this lowest point of humiliation Messiah was elevated to the highest pinnacle of authority in the universe, excepting that of G-d himself. Yeshua as Lord is exalted “far above every rule and authority and power and dominion, and then he was named above every name, not only in this age, but also in the one that is coming” (Ephesians 1:21). His present position is such that all G-d’s angels must worship him as being “much superior to them”, he has inherited a name superior to theirs (Hebrews 1:4-6). This name is “the name above every name.” One could say that G-d has given to his Son his own name, just as human fathers do in naming sons after themselves. Peace and Grace!