A Deafening Silence by David Maas

A Deafening Silence

NUMBERS 23:19, “God is not a man, that He should lie nor a son of man, that He should repent.”

The doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the “Incarnation,” the belief that in Jesus “God the Son became a man,” are Foundational to Institutional Christianity.

Christianity developed from the ancient faith of Israel. All of the first Christians were Jewish or Gentile proselytes to Judaism. The Book of Acts makes clear that the early church in Jerusalem did not immediately discard all Jewish beliefs, traditions and customs. In the first third of Acts the Gospel was only proclaimed to Jewish audiences. It was opened to Gentiles only as a consequence of Divine intervention as recorded in Acts chapter 10. The early church did not see itself as a “new religion” distinct from the faith of Israel. Rather it was a messianic movement within Judaism in which the promises of the scriptures of Israel were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

The books of the New Testament demonstrate the early church was not free of conflict and division. The letters of Paul, for example, were written to specific congregations in order to deal with particular issues. The Apostle was never shy about exposing and confronting problems.

Many of the controversies dealt with in the New Testament represent the sorts of problems one would expect from a movement linked to Judaism that accepted uncircumcised Gentiles as members. From the day the Gospel was offered to Gentiles disputes arose over circumcision, Jewish dietary restrictions, Sabbath keeping and the observation of feast days (ACTS 11:1-3, ROMANS 14:1-20, GALATIANS 4:10, 5:2-3, COLOSSIANS 2:16).

Non-Christian Jewish contemporaries of Paul found key aspects of Jesus’ life objectionable, particularly his crucifixion by Roman authorities. Paul described the proclamation of a crucified messiah as an “offense to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 CORINTHIANS 1:23). He used the same Greek word (skandalon) in GALATIANS 5:11 for the “offense of the cross.” Skandalon originally referred to a “trap” or “snare” a hunter used to catch animals. It later acquired the sense of something that offends, scandalizes, is a stumbling block.

Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution used especially for rebellious slaves and political revolutionaries. To Roman citizens crucifixion was the most dreaded and shameful form of death, so much so that in polite Roman society it was a social blunder to even mention it. Roman law forbade the execution of its citizens by crucifixion. The usual form of capital punishment for a condemned citizen was decapitation. One purpose of crucifixion was to shame the condemned. This is precisely why he was crucified naked and his body left to rot on a cross. It also demonstrated Rome’s irresistible power to any and all potential enemies of the State.

The crucifixion of Jesus was acutely offensive to devout Jews. The idea that Rome, Israel’s worst enemy, executed God’s promised messiah in such a dishonorable manner was beyond the pale. A “crucified messiah” was a contradiction in terms. Did not the Mosaic Law teach that anyone “hung on a tree” was under God’s curse and by definition outside the Law and covenant of Israel (GALATIANS 3:10, DEUTERONOMY 27:26)? Not only did Paul make no attempt to explain away this “embarrassing” fact, he proclaimed “Christ crucified” to be God’s very “power and wisdom” (1 CORINTHIANS 1:24). He boasted that God’s long hidden mystery had now been revealed in the cross of Christ. In an ironic twist the very attempt to stop God’s purposes by killing His messiah procured the overthrow the “powers, principalities” and “rulers of this age” that instigated it (1 CORINTHIANS 2:6-8).

Foundational to the faith of Israel was the absolute oneness of God. The Shema repeated daily by devout Jews began with the proclamation, “hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.” Isaiah wrote, “thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god’” (44:6). The Law claimed God is “not a man” or flesh, but a spirit who fills heaven and earth (NUMBERS 23:19, ISAIAH 57:15, JEREMIAH 23:24).

Concepts developed in later Nicene Christianity such as the Trinity and the Incarnation would have caused vociferous objections from devout Jews in Paul's day. The novel idea of one God existing in three persons would be seen as self-contradictory and a threat to Jewish monotheism. Was not the belief that God “became a man” contrary to scripture? While expectations about the messiah varied among Jews of Second Temple Judaism, none conceived of a messiah who was God “incarnated” in human flesh. Even today many Christians find the concept of one God “existing in three persons” incomprehensible. While later Christians might accept this as a matter of faith, they are hard-pressed to produce rational explanations of it. How much more would a Jew of Paul’s day find this idea inexplicable and theologically offensive?

Why is there no evidence in the New Testament of Jewish objections to the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ or the Incarnation? The New Testament records disputes over the notion of a crucified messiah, circumcision, Sabbath keeping, Jewish dietary customs, eating food offered to idols, sexual matters and so on. It provides evidence of the early rise [of] several heresies. Moreover, ideas like the Trinity and God “becoming man” are so unique and difficult to comprehend that one would expect a thoroughgoing teacher like the Apostle Paul to have taught them constantly, yet nowhere in his epistles is there any example of him attempting to explain the inexplicable to his congregations. This is a lesson that would have required constant repetition.

What one does not find in the New Testament is controversy about the Trinity or deity of Christ.

What one does not find in the New Testament is controversy about the Trinity or deity of Christ.

This is a Deafening Silence that calls for explanation.

The above article is taken from: A Deafening Silence

Jesus: Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David by Keith Dyer

Jesus: Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David

What do these titles or names of Christ say about him? It has often been suggested that “Son of God” refers to the deity of Jesus, while “Son of Man” refers to his humanity. Son of David, of course, speaks of Jesus as the expected “Messiah” of Israel, but what about Son of God and Son of Man? Do they represent his deity and humanity, respectively? Is that really what the terms are meant to convey? To answer these questions it's always best to start at the beginning.

Son of God

The beginning of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35 – his birth. Of course, in the Trinitarian scheme, Jesus pre-existed his birth at Bethlehem, so he had no beginning. But is it possible for one to exist before he exists? Let's look at the text of Luke 1:35...

“And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.”

Here we have, in simple terms, the reason Jesus is called “Son of God”. The word therefore means “for this very reason” (dio kai in the Greek). In other words, the child born will be called the Son of God because – for the precise reason that – the Holy Spirit (here equated with the power of the Most High) would come upon Mary. Notice also that the word born is “genao” in the original language. This word family is also where we get "genesis", which means "origins". Genao means “to bring forth, conceive, procreate, bear, be born”.

There is nothing in the above text to indicate any pre-existent being who “entered into” Mary's womb and became a human embryo. Nowhere in the Bible do we find language such as “put on flesh”, “clothed in flesh”, “take on human nature”, etc., in connection with the nature of Christ or his birth. And we definitely do not find the term “God the Son” anywhere in the Bible! No, this is the plain language of a life coming into existence - being born - at a specific point in time. However, given the fact that Mary was miraculously [with child] by the power of God and thus without a human father, Jesus would “be called holy—the Son of God”!

Whatever else may be said about the nature of the Son of God, we must recognize immediately that "Son" of God is not the same as God. Since God alone is immortal, without beginning or ending, it must be understood that a Son of God cannot be God in the same sense because there IS a beginning for the Son. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is clearly seen as separate from, subordinate to, even dependent upon God the Father. Rather than equality to God, the Sonship of Jesus is seen in his unique relationship to God.

The fact is, "Son of God" IS NOT a title belonging only to Jesus, much less an indication that he is himself deity. There are others in Scripture who are also called sons of God.

• The angels are referred to as “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; Psalm 29:1; Luke 20:36). Jesus tells us that angels do not marry and cannot die. By inference they do not procreate (Luke 20:35-36). Therefore, angels are all created individually by God. He made so many of them, and no more. They are sons of God by reason of their individual creation.

• Adam is called the “son of God” because he was God's original creation, uniquely made (Luke 3:38). All men after Adam are “procreated” beings - they are made after Adam's kind, not directly created by God (Genesis 1:1-12,21,24-25,28).

• Christians also are called “sons of God” (Romans 8:14 and 19; Galatians 3:26; because we are of the new creation. We have been “re-created”, born of “incorruptible seed” (1 Peter 1:23, 25, 2:1) as a result of receiving
  Jesus' ... message, and therefore authorized to be called “sons of God” (John 1:12).

So then, when the Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, instead of deity, it is a reference to his unique status with God. This in no way diminishes Jesus! In my view, it raises him to the status of the fully human, unique Son that he is, and makes his sinless life and suffering a greater accomplishment. It also keeps Paul's "two Adams" comparison, in Romans chapter 5, intact. I'm simply making the point here that the designation “Son of God” does not refer to deity, but to uniqueness.

Son of Man

The term “son of man” is probably Jesus' favorite title for himself. The term appears 30 times in Matthew's gospel, 14 times in Mark's gospel, 25 times in Luke's gospel, and 12 times in the gospel of John. It is also found many times throughout the Old Testament, especially in Ezekiel where God refers to the prophet often as “son of man”. Perhaps the most notable passage though, is Numbers 23:19,

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a 'son of man', that he should change his mind...”

Here we get the real impact of the meaning of the term. Son of man is placed in opposition to Deity. To say one is a son of man is to say that he is human, that's it. Eerdman's Bible Dictionary says the term Son of Man is

“...a Semitic idiom for an individual human being or for mankind in general, particularly as distinguished from God”

As mentioned earlier, the term appears extensively throughout the book of Ezekiel. When God calls Ezekiel “son of man”, it is way to emphasize, or call attention to, His Deity and Ezekiel's humanity - He is simply calling him “man”. Likewise, when Jesus refers to himself as “Son of Man” he is affirming his humanity. But in addition to his humanity, he affirms his status as God's Messiah, the Chosen One – His vice regent, or “right hand man”, if you will!

The 80th Psalm illustrates this point well. Here David prays for the restoration and salvation of Israel which he refers to as the “vine out of Egypt” (verse 8). But prophetically, this also looks forward to Jesus as “the true vine” (John 15:1) who also was brought out of Egypt (Matthew 2:13-19; Hosea 11:1). Then in verse 17 we find the term “son of man”.

“But let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself!” Psalms 80:17 (ESV)

Notice that the “son of man” is the MAN of God's right hand, who God MADE strong for Himself...”

Also, in the book of Daniel we find...

“I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” --Dan 7:13-14 (ASV)

This is probably the main Old Testament background for Jesus' use of the term for himself. Notice in both texts above that the “Son of Man” is MADE strong and GIVEN glory and a kingdom! Throughout the gospels Jesus constantly reaffirms the message that he does not act on his own but that his words, his deeds and his authority are all GIVEN to him directly from his Father. He never contradicts his own assertion of being the “Son of Man” by suggesting that he is also God Almighty (although many trinitarians use certain texts to support that view).

Matthew 12:32 clearly shows the difference between the “Son of Man” and God. Here, in Jesus own words...

“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Now this is a strange thing for Jesus to say, if he is Deity. According the the doctrine of the Trinity, all three persons are “co-equal” - they are all three equally God. How are we to understand this then? If Jesus is both God and man, and the Holy Spirit is God, do not both deserve equal respect and honor? How can one blaspheme the Holy Spirit – God, and not be forgiven; yet blaspheme the Son of Man – God, and receive forgiveness? Something is amiss.

I think the answer is an easy one, if we can accept it. The simple truth is that Jesus, as the “Son of Man”, is human – anointed of God, but not himself God; the Holy Spirit here is God's power at work in His Messiah, - NOT a 3^rd person in a Trinity. We should remember that “ the spirit” was GIVEN to Jesus “without measure”, according to John 3:34. In other words, Jesus was endowed abundantly with God's Spirit so that Paul could say “...in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell.” (Colossians 1:19).

In Mark's account (Mark 3:28-30) we are given the answer to what it means to blaspheme the Spirit in verse 30, "for they had said, 'He has an unclean spirit'." So then, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the same as saying Jesus did miracles by demonic power rather than by God's power! To make such a statement would be to totally miss and fail to recognize the nature of Jesus' relationship to God. But the point I wish to make here is that Jesus , the Son of Man, was a fully human Messiah, anointed with God's spirit, but not himself God.

One last text I'd like to mention is Hebrews chapter 2. I like the reading from the NET Bible, which says...

"2:5 For he did not put the world to come, about which we are speaking, under the control of angels. 2:6 Instead someone testified somewhere:
“What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?
2:7 You made him lower than the angels for a little while.
You crowned him with glory and honor.
2:8 You put all things under his control.”
For when he put all things under his control, he left nothing outside of his control. At present we do not yet see all things under his control, 2:9 but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. 2:10 For it was fitting for him, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 2:11 For indeed he who makes holy and those being made holy all have the same origin, and so he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, 2:12 saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the assembly I will praise you.” 2:13 Again he says, “I will be confident in him,” and again, “Here I am, with the children God has given me.” 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), 2:15 and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. 2:16 For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants. 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 2:18 For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted."

The above Scriptures, when read in context, make it abundantly clear that Jesus as “Son of Man” is human, and therefore separate in “substance” or “essence” from God. The whole point the writer of the book of Hebrews is making is to show that the New Covenant established through Jesus is superior to the Old. Jesus himself is superior over all that have gone before him, including angels, the prophets, Moses, and the priesthood. So then, Jesus, as “son of man” is the human Messiah. One might rightly say that Jesus is divine, but it cannot be said that he is Deity from either the title “Son of God” or “Son of Man”.

 

Son of David

“And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?”
--Matthew 12:23

What did the people mean when they asked, "Can this be the Son of David?" Of course, Jesus' genealogy recognizes him as being from the lineage of David (Matthew 1:1; Luke 3:31). But the question came as a result of the healing of the demon-possessed man. This miraculous deliverance from demon possession was, according to Matthew's view, taken as a definite sign of the the expected Jewish Messiah, the Chosen One of God, who would fulfill the prophecies concerning the throne of David. Thus, he is referred to as "Son of David", another title for the Messiah.

Although Jesus never used the title for himself, others used it with great expectancy and faith, desiring mercy from him for their particular needs. In Matthew 9:27, the blind man called out to Jesus as "Son of David" and asked for mercy. In Matthew 15:22 the Canaanite woman called him "Son of David" when asking for mercy for her daughter. In Matthew 20:20, two blind men said "Lord, have mercy on us, 'Son of David'!" And in what is called his "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem in Matthew 21:9, the crowds shouted, "Hosanna to the 'Son of David'! Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord!"

Fundamental to understanding this concept of the One coming in the Name of the Lord is Nathan's promise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, namely, the raising up of a successor to David from his offspring, and the confirmation of his "house" and kingdom forever. This prophecy provides the basis for Psalm 2:7; 89:4; and 132:11. And even greater is the reference in Psalm 110:1 which is the most quoted Old Testament Scripture in the New Testament regarding Messiah Jesus. In fact, the one place where Jesus does refer to the Son of David is in Matthew 22:42 when he asks the Pharisees what they thought of the Christ, i.e. whose son he is? In order to understand Jesus' response, we need to look at the Psalm in its Hebrew form.

In Psalm 110:1 there are two forms of the word "lord" used. The first is a direct reference to the Lord God, Yahweh. This word, translated LORD is used throughout the Old Testament and always refers to Yahweh, the personal name of God. The translators use all capital letters to distinguish it from other, lesser lords. The second use of Lord, which has only the first letter capitalized, is the word "adoni". This word is used 195 times in the KJV and refers only to men [and occasionally angels]. It is sometimes translated master, and even sir. So who is this "lord" which David calls "my lord"?

This is a clear reference to the LORD's Messiah.
The LORD God, said to David's lord, "Sit at my right hand..."

In Ezekiel 37:22-28, the prophet tells of a future time of peace and prosperity in which God's servant, David, shall be king over all Israel. This is figurative language referring to the promise made in 2 Samuel 7. David's offspring is simply called "David" to emphasize the keeping of God's promise to David, but it clearly indicates a descendant of David. Also, in Micah 5:2-4, the son of David is proclaimed as the one who would shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, and in the majesty of the Name of the LORD. Although the phrase “Son of David” is not found in this passage, the reference to Bethlehem, the city of David, is given as a figure of speech for the person himself.

All the above, in addition to many other Scriptures, identify the Son of David as a Messianic person who would come as savior and king, dispensing the righteous judgment and mercy of God. This was demonstrated in the person of Jesus through his ministry of teaching, deliverance, healing, and other acts of compassion. So then, when Jesus asked the question of the Pharisees as to how they understood the Christ, their answer, 'he is David's Son', was correct. However, Jesus calls to their attention the fact that David refers to him as his Lord. So, how can he be David's son and call him lord? Jesus answer shuts the mouths of his enemies by demonstrating that:
as the promised Messiah, He is both a descendant of David AND the unique Son of God, and thus, greater than David. Jesus was directly saying to them that he was the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah.

---

 

The above three posts were taken from:

 

http://neweyesfaith.blogspot.com/2009/03/jesus-son-of-god.html

 

http://neweyesfaith.blogspot.com/2009/03/jesus-son-of-man.html

 

http://neweyesfaith.blogspot.com/2009/04/son-of-david.html

Another Undeniable Proof by Keith Dyer

Another Undeniable Proof

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him" (1 Cor 8:6)
[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

It is interesting that, in defense of the Trinity, this verse is sometimes offered as a proof. Yet, it proves no such thing, because it makes a clear distinction between God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord. Also, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit here, so how can it be said to support a doctrine of "three in one"? At best, it might be a proof text for a Binity, but certainly not a Trinity!

But it appears much more likely that Paul knew nothing at all of a Trinity, or a Binity. Rather, Paul makes reference here of one, single, unitary God, and one Lord, Messiah.

In verses 4 and 5, Paul's language is clear. He speaks of only One God (v4); and though there be many lords (v5), yet for us (Christians) there is only one Lord Messiah (Christ), and that is Jesus.

This is so clear, I don't know how it can be mistaken, or misconstrued to mean that the one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, is One God but two co-equal Persons of the same essence within the one godhead. Keep in mind that it is not Paul's objective here to make a theological statement about the nature of God; he is not even making a philosophical observation about the nature of God. What Paul is doing is drawing attention to the fact that although pagans may recognize many gods and many lords, real or imagined,

Christians worship the One True God and follow the one Lord, Messiah Jesus.

The "so called" gods of the pagans, are no gods at all. In other words, although the world may worship many different gods, for the Christian there is only one God, and He is the Father. Although the world may recognize many lords (masters), for the Christian there is only one lord, the one sent by God, and that is Jesus Christ.

God is directly referred to as "the Father" about 70 times in the New Testament, and many more indirect references are made; but Jesus is never called God with the correlative "Son"; ie. God, the Son. Jesus is, of course, the Son of God, and the Christ (Messiah), neither of which is the same as God.

...

One of the most quoted Old Testament Scriptures found in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1

"The LORD says to my Lord,
sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The word LORD, in all capital letters, is not a true translation of the Hebrew text. It is a well known fact among scholars that in order to preserve the holiness of God's name, and because of their literal adherence to the command about taking God's Name in vain, scribes replaced the sacred Name with four letters -... YHWH - known as the tetragrammaton. These four letters are representative of God's actual Name, ... Yahweh.

Remember, this is a Psalm of David; it is David speaking here, in the Spirit.
The LORD (Yahweh, Almighty God), speaks to someone that David calls "my Lord". God is not speaking to Himself.
This is a clear reference to Messiah.

Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary says of the phrase "to my Lord"

According to Jesus’ interpretation of the passage (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44), this is a reference to the Son of God in heaven in the presence of the Father. David himself confesses the Son to be his Lord, that is, his master or sovereign. --Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible commentary (Ps 110:1). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

The point in all this is to say that Paul surely understood Jesus to be the human Lord, Messiah, and in no way, God Almighty.

This, in fact, is what he argued for with all who would listen (Acts 18:5; 18:28). The word "Lord" is used here in the sense of governor, master, or king. The idea is that Christians acknowledge only one ruler over their lives, the one who God sent to be the Christ. Whether, as some suggest, Lord does not necessarily indicate an inferior status than God, is irrelevant. There is no question that God "gave" all authority to Jesus, both in heaven and in earth (Mat 28:18). What we must recognize is that the titles Lord and Christ do not indicate shared essence;
i.e. to call Jesus Lord or Christ is not the same as saying he is true God
(as the creed says, "very God of very God").

Honestly, I don't think these arguments would even be necessary if a mystical, incomprehensible, doctrine such as the Trinity had not been introduced and subsequently embraced by the Christian Church many years ago. To me, a simple reading of the text, and the very fact that Paul makes a distinction between the One God and Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ, is undeniable proof that he does not recognize a Trinity. Certainly, he could have worded his letter differently, had he intended to suggest anything other than One, singular Person God, and one Lord who is His Messiah!

The above article was taken from:

http://neweyesfaith.blogspot.com/2010/04/another-undeniable-proof.html

Three Undeniable Proofs by Keith Dyer

Three Undeniable Proofs

The Scriptures are literally full of texts which declare God as the Father, and the Only God. Nothing changed in the New Testament regarding the revealed nature of God, as Father and as Almighty.

Nevertheless, the centuries old doctrine of the Holy Trinity has turned plain language and simple, direct, concepts into an unintelligible mystery. I have a solution to that problem... ditch the unbiblical doctrine and replace it with the clear teaching of Scripture!

It's time for another reformation!

There are many undeniable proofs throughout the Bible, but in this article I want to highlight only three texts that reasonably prove Jesus is NOT God, sharing essence in a multiple Godhead, or equal with God in any way. They are John 17:3, Matt 16:16 , and Ephesians 1:17

Undeniable Proof #1

John 17:3

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Any person can read this text and clearly see that Jesus delineates Himself from "the One True God". In order to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, one must explain away Jesus' own words. Remember, it is Jesus who said this; the same Jesus all Christians claim to be Lord and Master!

In order to attain eternal life, one must know the only true God, and the one that God sent (commissioned).

The "True God" is obviously a reference to "the Father" to whom Jesus prayed. The Father is the only true God!

All verses following must be interpreted within the context of Jesus declaration about the identity of the true God. For example, look at the continuation of Jesus prayer in verse five.

"And now, glorify Me together with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

There are several ways to understand this verse. First, if we take it literally, Jesus pre-existed his earthly life and shared glory with God. He is now requesting to have that glory again and to return to his pre-existent state. This is apparently how trinitarians interpret what Jesus is saying here. But even if it is true, we must deal with his statement about the only true God.

If the Father is the "true" God, then Jesus is not... there cannot be two "true" Gods! There is no co-equality here, as the doctrine of the trinity teaches.

In addition, it may be argued that if Jesus gave up glory in order to become a man, then he couldn't have been God during that time. This plays into the theory of "kenosis" from Phil 2:7 where it says he "emptied" himself. But the problem with kenotic theory is that Jesus was always conscious of His Godhood, according to the trinity doctrine. Giving up glory he had, would be tantamount to giving up divinity.

Another problem with this understanding is that asking God to restore glory which He previously had, makes him totally cognizant of His Deity at this time, when he doesn't seem to remember that he is fully God at other times. This "sporadic" awareness of Deity does not seem to be consistent with a divine being... and certainly not consistent with humanity. At least, I've never had the experience of realizing that I'm actually God! What about you?

There is, of course, another way to interpret this verse while adhering to Jesus statement about the One True God, and staying in agreement with his complete humanity, as well as other Biblical texts. First, look at 2 Tim 1:9...

"who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began..."

Paul says that we received grace according to His purpose in Christ BEFORE time began. Notice the past tense of the verbs. How could we be called before we existed in time? And further, no one suggests that we were around before time to receive His grace! It's obvious, and everyone acknowledges, that Paul refers to God's plan from before time. Also, in Eph 1:4 Paul makes a similar reference. How is it possible for us to have been chosen before the foundation of the world? Only in God's mind, His eternal plan!

Given these comparisons, and removing any bias towards a trinitarian theology, can we really prove that Jesus was Deity from John 17:5? Jesus was also in God's mind, His plan, before time, and that is precisely how we should understand John 1:1. The word - the plan - was with God in the beginning, but it did not become Jesus until He was born in Mary.

What Jesus is asking here is for the Father to fulfill Scripture concerning the glory that was promised to the Messiah; Jesus' glory was in God's mind before time and He prays that it now be made manifest. I believe this to be an honest assessment of the text without twisting or stretching it in any way.

Finally, we should not miss the import of 1 Pet 1:20-21.

"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."

I really don't think I have to say anything more, but in case you missed it,

• to be "foreknown" is not the same as pre-existing!
• God "gave" him glory, He didn't return it.
• God's purpose in Jesus is that our "faith and hope are in God"

Jesus himself is not the True God, but the one who was "sent" (commissioned) by the True God, to reveal the True God (17:3).

Just read through the remainder of John 17 and see how Jesus spoke the words that God gave him (17:8,14); that God has given Jesus [disciples who are kept in] His Name (17:11,12); that we are not of the world just like Jesus is not of the world (17:14,16); that we are sent as he was sent (17:18); that we may be one even as Jesus and the Father are one, and that they (Jesus and the Father) may be in us even as Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus (17:21-23).

Undeniable Proof #2

Matt 16:16

"Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

This confession is found also in Mark and Luke (Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20), but here, in Matthew's account, Jesus responds with a telling statement. He says: "Blessed are you...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father..." (Matt 16:17).

It is amazing to me how often I've heard people use this verse to make their claim that Jesus admitted to being God; yet, he makes no such claim for himself here, or anywhere else for that matter! He claims only that Simon's assessment of his identity is "revealed" by the Father and that he (Simon) is "blessed" for his spiritually attuned judgment. This means only that Peter recognized Jesus as God's Messiah for which Israel had long been waiting.

Luke's use of the term "Christ of God" (Luke 9:20) qualifies Matthew's "Son of the living God".

"Son of God" is a title of agency in the Bible, as well as the whole of the Greek-Roman world. Israel is called "the son of God", angels are called "sons of God", and even Christians are "sons". What we all have in common is that we "represent" God in some way. Angels were sent to relay God's messages and do His bidding, Israel is the nation God used to bring Messiah to the world, and Christians are the means by which the gospel is to be preached to the world. We are, in that sense, agents of God. ... I don't mean to put Christ on the same level as angels, ... I'm simply making the point that the term "son of God" refers to agency.

Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the True God's authorized Agent - His Vice Regent. He was given this title at birth, as announced by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:35), as a direct result of the miraculous begetting by the power of God. To be "Son of God" in the Bible means you are not God! In the same way, being my father's son means that I am not my father.

There are many other things we could discuss here. For example, in the trinity doctrine the Father, Son, and Spirit share "essence" which supposedly reconciles the validity of three persons yet only one God. However, the idea of "essence" uniting more than one person into one being breaks down upon further scrutiny. My father and I share the same essence, and so do my brothers; i.e. we are all human. But we are not one human, we are still three separate persons - three separate beings.

The bottom line is this: Jesus did not correct, adjust, or try to tweak Peter's answer in any way. If Jesus was "God the Son", as the trinitarian doctrine has it, this would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to make it clear. Wouldn't it have been more honest, more forthright, to say "well Peter, you're partly right, but you have much to learn yet." What nails this truth down for me is that Jesus commends Peter, calls him "blessed", and acknowledges that God the Father "revealed" this to him! What was revealed? Not that Jesus was the 2nd person in a triune God, but that:

Jesus is the Christ of God; i.e. Son of God.

Jesus is the Messiah, and I can find no indication anywhere in the Bible denoting that Israel expected the Messiah to be a God-Man. The Son of God is not the same as God the Son, which is a term nowhere found in Scripture. This is undeniable proof for me.

Undeniable Proof #3

Ephesians 1:17

"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him"

In trinitarian teaching, Jesus is called Lord because he is equated with the Lord GOD of the Old Testament. Since there is only one God who is called The LORD, and since there is only one Lord Jesus Christ, He must be God.

But apparently Paul did not understand this reasoning because he calls the Father of glory, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ". Notice that it is not just "Father" of our Lord Jesus, but THE GOD (ho theos in the Greek)! How is it that God can have a God? And this is not an isolated text. (Compare Eph 1:3). Even Jesus himself recognizes the Father as his God according to the following Scriptures:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46)

And after his resurrection, having been immortalized with a glorious new body.

"Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

And again, many years after having ascended into heaven, he still holds to the same understanding.

"Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God." (Rev 3:2)

'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (Rev 3:12)

Dear readers, I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, don't you? If it is, in fact, God's word, written by men who were moved by God to record His thoughts, then we must take it seriously - and I do. The plain, unavoidable, fact is that Jesus nowhere claims the designation "God" for himself, but everywhere - even after his resurrection and ascension into heaven - submits himself to, and acknowledges that he himself has a God. Certainly, if Paul believed, and taught his converts, that Jesus was the 2nd person of a trinity, he would have been more careful in how he worded his prayer.

These are, in my mind, undeniable proofs that the trinity is not a sound Biblical doctrine. Instead, it is inspired by man, handed down, and accepted virtually without question by the majority, even in the face of clear texts such as we have presented in this article.

I encourage you to research these facts for yourself. There is great freedom and joy in discovering truth!

The above article was taken from:

http://neweyesfaith.blogspot.com/2010/03/three-undeniable-proofs.html

A Man Under Authority by Keith Dyer

A Man Under Authority

Luke 7:1-10; Matthew 8:5-13

This passage of Scripture is very instructional and enlightening. Most bible translations give it a pericope heading of "The Centurions' Faith", or something similar. But perhaps it should be given the heading "A Man Under Authority." The Centurion had great faith to be sure, and Jesus commends him for it. However, I think the central truth found here is not so much in the fact of the Centurion's faith as the cause of his faith!

Notice in [Matthew 8] verse 9 that he says, "for I too am a man under authority..."

In the past, for me, the focus of this passage has been on [Luke 7] verse 7 where the Centurion says, "...but say the word, and let my servant be healed." Invariably, when I would read this, I thought to myself, wow, what a testimony to this man, and a gentile besides. He had the distinction of one whose faith had surpassed that of any Jew! He really got it! He knew that Jesus didn't have to be present or have to lay his hands on the servant in order for him to receive God's healing mercy. All Jesus had to do was "say the word" and it would be done!

Of course, what I didn't understand is WHY he only had to "say the word" and the actual reason for which he commended the Centurion! Somehow, I always related the authority to the spoken word, but the reason Jesus could simply speak the word and get results is because he was under God's authority. Now you may think I am rather thick headed not to have seen this before, and you could be right. But my previously held belief, that Jesus is also God, hindered my appreciation of the facts, and the truth of the Centurion's insight and understanding.

Time and again Jesus affirmed that he only did what the Father told him to do, and he only said what the Father told him to say. The Centurion understood this perfectly because he himself was a man "set" under authority! As a man under authority, he understood the power of one in that position. His words carried the full backing of Rome and, for all practical purposes, when he spoke, it was as if the words came from the Emperor of Rome himself. It was this very fact, that he understood Jesus as a man under the authority of God, that produced faith in him!

Luke points out that "when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him"! This word "marvel" means to wonder, to be in awe of something. To get the gist of the word "marvel" you might picture someone scratching their head, as if in wonderment; or dropping their jaw after hearing something they didn't expect or that didn't quite register. It's interesting to note that Jesus was said to be in this state of mind only one other time, and that was in Mark 6:6 when "he marvelled because of their unbelief"!

Here in Luke's gospel, Jesus simply follows up with the statement that "... I have not found so great faith, no, not in all Israel." But in Matthew's account, he adds a rebuke saying "...the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness." (Matthew 8:11-12). This rebuke to Israel and commendation of the Centurion, I suggest, is not just because a gentile demonstrated great faith, but because he recognized Jesus as a man commissioned by God and vested with His full authority! How else could he expect a spoken word to carry such power, not even being within hearing distance of the servant? Unless, the Centurion recognized Jesus as God ... but his words exclude that possibility! (...I also am a man ... [Luke 7] v8)

Here is yet another example of how my "faith eyes" have been made new! Understanding Jesus as fully human, without the need to see that he is at the same time God, has allowed me to see Scripture in a different way.

Should we not join with the multitudes in Jesus day who were "awe-struck... and ascribed the glory to God who had entrusted such power to a man." (Matthew 9:8 - Weymouth Version)

The above article was taken from:

http://neweyesfaith.blogspot.com/2009/05/man-under-authority.html