1. Giving of the Mosaic Law-Compare Exodus 20:1-26; Deuteronomy 5:1-27 with Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19. See Hebrews 2:1-3.
2. Meting out of the ten plagues-Exodus 12:12-13; Numbers 33:3-4. Compare Psalm 78:49; Hebrews 11:28.
3. Judgment in the Wilderness-Numbers 14:28-30; Joshua 5:6; 1 Corinthians 10:5, 10; Jude 5.
4. Destroying people in Jerusalem after the census was taken-2 Samuel 24:14-17; 1 Chronicles 21:13-17.
5. Did Jacob wrestle with God, a man or with an angel?-Genesis 32:1, 22-20; Hosea 12:3-5. Compare Judges 6:21-24.
6. Who brought Israel up from Egypt and gave the law covenant?-Judges 2:1-4; Isaiah 63:8-9, 14.
See also Genesis 48:15-16.
205 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 205 of 205"The fact that it only excludes the involvement of false gods is not supported by anything." - mere verses before and after support this.
The others are also easily explainable as who else in focus helped God make everything?
Christ is never in focus
nor the holy spirit in any such passage.
The spirit is also referred as "Gods hand" in places
"There is no such established rule at all" - notice th word rule is surrounded by " " - word is being used in a different sense. Check English writing handbooks.
In this case I mean Johns pattern, but that also doesnt convey the meaning I want to present.
"Christ is called "the head OF the church" (Ephesians 5:23, kephalē *tēs* ekklēsias), and at the same time the same epistle calls him "the head OVER all things for the church" (Eph 1:22, kephalē *HYPER* panta tē ekklēsia)," - are "heads" of churches not part of the church? is Jesus not part of the church? Last I checked he was, considered part of it
Is the head of a compnay not part it? last i checked they were
is a head over a company part of it? last I checked they were.
"it already loses the meaning of "divine act of creation", "brining a creature into existence" and has the meaning of "to ordain", "to install", "to appoint"." - all have the common meaning of something that wasn't before.
the 2nd part is your opinion, not a proven fact.
""preached in *all creation* that is under the heaven"" - yeah under heaven, not in heaven... isnt heaven a creation aswell as the angels (Who are in heaven)?
"The fact that a preposition needs a certain grammatical case (in this case genitive) does not mean that it is a "genitive structure"." - believe you or scholars and linguists.. hmm, someone who has lied or not... nah your wrong.. anything that is in the genitive is a genitive construction.
"The two are not mutually exclusive"
- kind of are'nt, if you survey all the uses of them..
one literally is "origin"
where-as the other one is agency unless no one is "behind" or "before" the object, then it is the "source".
"by the way, even in the ancient doxologies, subordinate and subjunctive formulas " - is this like your nomina sacra claim, which is an outright lie btw (I have fact checked this).
as pneuma came in later, not in the original four, along with with (about) 5 others
"If Paul really wanted to reveal that the Son is a created being, he could have stated it explicitly." - he could of also said the trinity explicitly, it works both ways.
infact he uses similar wording in multiple places proving he could have done it - but he didnt.
"I also spoke with the utmost respect about the person of the blogger"
- telling someone who studied subjects for a p.hd to stop quote mining isnt what I call respectful, infact its hypocritical and rude.
espeacially coming from a "Laywer" (what attorneys fall under where I live) Who quote previous cases all the time as support for their claims.
"confidential WTS materials " - i wonder why, maybe teh adjective at the beginning would be a hint..
Would you go spreading confidential Government materials all over the internet (even if they are leaked)
How would you like it if i spread any leaked confidential material you had all over the internet?
I wouldn't, its disrespectful and rude, and when did christ say to do this? to back up an argument? thats just malicous, not cool.
"what about Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus" - They are philosophers, enough said.
I can think of about 10 more reasons, but they are self evident.
(This also proves theological motivation)
2) The LXX is closer to the times the NT was written than ever the church fathers so examples from it are even better.
(infact the apostles quoted from it, thats very evident)
"the Church Fathers unanimously rejected Proverbs 8:22 as supporting the Arian interpretation that the Logos is a created being." - they didnt reject it applied to Jesus tho.. as you do.
It was used to support doctrine by Atha, he only used it to refer to Jesus' earthly existance. (which it clearly does not.)
If Jesus isnt the First creation, Who is?
Im pretty sure God would label his First creation..
" this Bible verse has already fallen out of the circle of "proof texts", two remain." - never said that.. What hints does it contain that Wisdom isnt a "creature"?(Which isnt even the belief of the Witnesses lol)
as far as most theologians and scholars are concerned "bought me forth" is a verbal saying of existance.
My opinion on "Firstborn" is both meanings should be applied - as it is in other places.
again I refer you to 3 examples of which teh subject is clearly not a descendant of the group, but is still part of the group mentioned.
1) Firstborn of the dead (most deadly disease, part of the group of "dead"(or disease))
2) Firstborn of the sons of isreal (this person(s) wasnt a descendant of all the sons of israel - this should be singular but it isnt)
3) David is firstborn of the kings
(admittedly this isnt a genitive)
David may be the foremost king - But he was one of the first kings to obey God (1/2 possible meanings) and he himself was a king - or a literal nation.
Dr. James D. Tabor, Professor of Christian Origins and Ancient Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, says concerning agency:
"The confusion comes when people misunderstand the basic idea of agency. As chief agent of YHVH the Messiah does carry out the Divine Will. In that sense he too can be seen as King, Judge, Shepherd, Redeemer, Savior, Lord, etc. But he is never called YHVH, and all such roles are clearly given to him by YHVH Himself. Shared rulership, task, and mission, do not imply shared identity. For example, according to Revelation 3:21 the Messiah promises his faithful followers that they can "sit with me on my throne, as I sat with my Father (YHVH) on His throne." The idea here is unity of task and mission, not a merging of personal identity.
"The same is the case with the oft quoted statement of Yeshua that "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Christians, trying to defend the non-biblical doctrine of the Trinity, often rip this verse totally out of context and completely ignore the commentary of Yeshua himself in John 17:21-23. He makes it clear that the "oneness" he has with "the only true God" (see 17:3!), is precisely equivalent to the "oneness" he has with his followers. Such language never implies "ontological identity" but unity of purpose and mission! The problem is that these texts are written in Greek, and particularly in the Gospel of John, have been given a Hellenistic cast. Subsequently, Christians who have totally lost all contact with Judaism and with the basic Biblical, Hebraic, thought-world, read them and make out of them what was never intended by their Jewish [Israelite] authors" (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, Genesis 2000, Charlotte, NC 1993, p. 78).
Dr. James D. Tabor also notes that:
"There are a few New Testament texts which speak of the Messiah as reflecting the image of YHVH God (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). Again; this is not to be confused with identity. An image is just what the word implies, representation. The idea here is that YHVH Himself is invisible and unseen, but the Messiah can reflect the image of God. In other words, the Messiah can function as a human representation and manifestation of God.
"One must never confuse the reflection, no matter how functionally important, with the One reflected. The angel of YHVH of whom YHVH speaks at the time of the Exodus, could speak for God and even represent Him with full power and authority. He was a visible manifestation of the Invisible One whom no man can see or behold, but nonetheless, the two are distinguished (***Exodus 23:20-21; Exodus 33:12-17; Zechariah 1:8-14). Indeed, Moses is quite concerned that this representative one whom YHVH says He will send is not the actual and direct Presence of YHVH Himself.
"The Messiah is also called "Son of God" as we have seen (Psalm 2:7). This does not make him YHVH God. Rather it implies faithfulness and intimacy (see 2 Samuel 7:14!). The son remains just that, a "son." As such, he carries out the will of his Father, YHVH God. Never are the roles confused (see 1 Corinthians 15:28). The later Christian Church made a subtle but fateful shift in concept here: the Hebrew image of "Son of God" became God the Son, a "Second Person" of the Trinity or "Godhead." Such an idea is blasphemous and is nowhere found in Scripture. The entire God-man idea, as developed in Christianity, is an Hellenistic, pagan, concept, completely foreign to Biblical Hebraic thought" (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, pps. 78-79).
Notes Tabor --
"As one can clearly see in Acts 3:13, 4:24 and 17:24, YHVH God, the One who appoints and exalts the Messiah, is always named as the Creator -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the YHVH of the Hebrew Bible (O.T.). To speak of Yeshua as YHVH God, as some have dared to do, is to totally ignore and trample the very language patterns and careful distinctions of the New Testament writers themselves!" (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, p. 78).
Post a Comment