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

Jesus is NOT a Trinitarian! By Keith Dyer

Jesus is NOT a Trinitarian!

It still amazes me that for so many years it never really occurred to me that God was not a trinity, or that Jesus was not God. The fact is though, I had lots of help with that particular mindset. Now that I have discovered the truth that has been right in front of me all these years,
I can see it everywhere. Jesus did not believe in the trinity!

While reading through the gospels recently, I came across a passage of Scripture that jumped out at me in this regard. Mark 12:28-34 reads as follows:

28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. --Mark 12:28-34 (ESV)

In verse 29, Jesus is quoting from Deuteronomy chapter six;
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
This is called the "shema" and to this day you will hear it recited in every Jewish synagogue, and hear it on the lips of every sincere Jew. It is now, and was in the days of Jesus, the creed of Israel. It is the thing which made the nation of Israel stand out from the other nations; the belief in ONE God. But more than just one God with regard to those whose practice was to worship multiple gods, the shema is a declaration that God is a singular Being!
Notice in verse 32 that the scribe agreed with Jesus by saying
"You have truly said that he is one..."
But then he adds "...there is no other besides him."

The shema acknowledges, that Yahweh alone is the God of Israel AND that He is ONE; i.e. not multiple in any sense. If this was the creed of Jesus, should it not be the creed of any and all who claim to follow Jesus?
Should not every Christian declare, along with Jesus, that God is ONE?

The practicality of seeing that Yahweh alone is God, and Jesus is not;
is immense.
Belief in the trinity requires a philosophical outlook that is not supported in the plain language of the Bible. It requires us to love and trust a God we cannot possibly hope to understand or relate to in any way. It reduces our knowledge of God to a philosophical concept, and it's difficult to love and trust a philosophical concept! On the other hand, Jesus teaches us that God is a singular being - a person - worthy of our love and trust.

Jesus, quoting Hebrew Scripture, affirmed that the greatest of the commandments is to "love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." When I believed in God as a trinity, I generally always associated God with Jesus and therefore unwittingly gave him the glory that was due to God alone. By following the example of Jesus and affirming that God is ONE, we can love and trust God in the way that Jesus taught us. At the same time, we can give Jesus all the praise due to his name without confusing him with God.

If the Bible is God's message to mankind, and I believe it is, then it honors Him when we take Him at his word. Jesus never claimed to be God, but he did worship, pray to, and teach about a personal God; a God Who he called "the only True God" (John 17:3); a God with Whom he was intimately acquainted. It was also Jesus' prayer that as he and the Father were one (unity of purpose), that we would also be one (John 17:11). And, that as he was in the Father and the Father in Him, that they would also be in us and we in them (John 17:21-23).

This is a call for the Church to awaken from the stupor of Greek philosophy and tradition.

Let God be God, and let Jesus be who he said he is...
the Messiah... the anointed one... God's chosen servant.

Jesus is not a trinitarian!

The above article was taken from:

http://neweyesfaith.blogspot.com/2009/05/jesus-is-not-trinitarian.html

A 5-MINUTE ERRONEOUS VIDEO TITLED "Did Jesus Really Claim To Be GOD?"

A 5-MINUTE ERRONEOUS VIDEO TITLED
"Did Jesus Really Claim To Be GOD?"

The answer to the above question is obviously "NO"!

However, there is currently a 5-minute video being circulated on the Net; which presents four (actually five) questions, whereby the answer to these questions ends with the erroneous conclusion that:
"Jesus claimed to be ALMIGHTY GOD!!"

Let's take another look at these questions :-

1) Does the Bible claim that Jesus is God?

The video gives 4 sets of verses in answer to this question:

Matthew 1.23, Colossians 1.15-17, John 1.1, 1 Corinthians 12.3

• Matthew 1.23: Because Jesus is given the name "Emmanuel"
  which means "God with us".
  
  However, this name is simply expressing the fact that the ONE GOD is with Judah via this child. This was the original context of the meaning of the name when given to the boy in Isaiah chapters 7 & 8.
  Therefore, did that make that child, Almighty GOD? No!
  
  Likewise, when the Messiah was born, GOD's purpose for the salvation of Israel was being initiated. GOD indeed was with Israel (cp. Luke 1.68-69) via the Messiah.
  
  
• Colossians 1:15 begins with the very opposite of the premise of the video! It doesn't say that "Jesus is GOD" but rather that Jesus is "the image of the invisible GOD!"
  And an image, of course, is a visual representation; an image/representation is not the original itself!
  Nevertheless, the context of Colossians 1.15ff is about the new creation i.e. the (future) kingdom - the kingdom of his dear Son (v. 13).
  The all things created are "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" i.e.nothing to do with the Genesis creation.
  And in actuality, verses 16-17 is states that:
  
  'for in him [Jesus] all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-- all things have been created through him and for him.
  And he is before all things [in the sense of pre-eminence.]'
  Not 'by' him, but rather 'in/through' him - this obviously changes the context of the verse; and ought to be translated that way.
  
  For example, NRSV: for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--
  all things have been created through him and for him.
  For more details please see:
  COLOSSIANS 1:15-20 - PREEXISTENCE OR PREEMINENCE?
  
  
• 1 Corinthians 12.3: Yes Indeed - Jesus Christ is Lord!
  
  But he is not the Lord God rather he is the Lord Messiah.
  [Luke 2.11, Col 3.24].
  He is the LORD (GOD)'s Christ. [Luke 2.26]
  The LORD GOD has made Jesus, 'Lord', in fulfilment of Psalm 110.1.
  
  
• The video quotes John 1.1 as follows:
  In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), ...
  In other words, the video's author performs the classic error of reading Jesus into John 1.1. As Colin Brown so succinctly states:
  "It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John's Gospel to read it as if it said:
  'In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God' (John 1:1).
  What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning."
  
  The video performs this patent misreading!
  John 1.1-3 doesn't mention Jesus at all!
  Rather these verses are about GOD's word. All things came into existence by GOD's word. The ONE GOD spoke all things into existence (cp. Psalm 33.6,9).
  It is not until John 1.14, that GOD's word is made flesh resulting in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
  
  
• Then the video states that the word "Lord" is KURIOS ... it is a special word ... it means "GOD"
  
  This is simply not true! Yes indeed, KURIOS, is used in ref. to GOD; but the word itselfdoes not mean GOD! It simply means 'lord, master, owner, Sir'
  Not only is this word used in ref. to Jesus; it is also used in ref. to
  Pilate (Matt 27.63); Philip (John 12.21); Abraham (1 Peter 3.6); are these men therefore GOD!!
  [Likewise, this Greek word is used in ref. to Abraham, Moses, David, etc. throughout the Greek OT i.e. the Septuagint LXX; seeing that it is the Greek word for 'lord/master']
  
  
• The video then quotes Roman 9.5.
  It is a known fact that this verse ought to be punctuated differently. Paul habituallypraises Almighty GOD as being "blessed forever" e.g. 2 Cor. 11.31, Rom 1.25. Thus a period (.) ought to follow the word 'flesh' so that the rest of the verse becomes (rightly), a doxology to the Father;
  as in the NAB, TEV, NEB, RSV, etc.
  For example:
  RSV Romans 9.5: to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
  NEB: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.

2) Did Jesus claim to be God?

To suggest this, the video quotes

• John 14.8-9.
  But funnily enough, does not quote:
  John 14:10-11 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
  
  Now I ask you, does John 14.8-11 read together, suggest that Jesus is the Father i.e. that Jesus is GOD? No! Rather, Jesus is in the Father & the Father is in him.
  Seeing then that Jesus is the image of the invisible GOD [Col 1.15, 2 Cor. 4.4]; to see Jesus in action is to see the ONE GOD the Father in action through His Son; because GOD was working through him -
  Jesus being GOD's image, GOD's ultimate representative.
  
  
• The video then quotes John 10.30.
  Now does being 'one' with the Father; make someone, Almighty GOD?
  Not according to Jesus! Because he prayed in John 17.11,21-22; that his disciples be one even as we [the Father & the Son] are one!
  So does that then, make the disciples, Almighty GOD? NO!
  The same goes for Jesus. Jesus is one with the Father, in will and purpose.
  That is the meaning of John 10.30.

• Then the video quotes both Psalm 23:1 & John 10.11. Seeing that both GOD and the Messiah are called 'shepherd' in these verses; the video thereby suggests that they are both equally GOD!?!
  Well Peter was commanded by Christ to feed the sheep, thus making Peter a shepherd, does that therefore mean he is also GOD??
  No! Just because someone shares a title that GOD has, being GOD's representative; doesn't make that person, GOD!
  But rather, authorizes that person to be GOD's agent; and Jesus the Messiah is indeed GOD's ultimate agent/representative.
  See also The Attribute Association Farce

The video then asks ...

3) Does anyone in the Bible claim that Jesus is God or that Jesus claimed to be God?

The video then quotes John 10.33, which are the words of Jesus' accusers!
Jesus did not claim to be GOD at all in John 10.30ff but rather claimed:

John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Then the video quotes John 20.28. In answer to this point,
please see: Jesus is God.

The video then asks ...

4) Did Jesus receive worship and allow himself to be worshiped as God?

It then quotes Matthew 28.9, 28.16-17, Luke 24.51-52, John 9.37.

Let's look at John 9.37. Why was Jesus worshiped?
Answer: John 9:35-36 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

Did you get that? The man who was blind, now realizes & believes
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God?

And what does that mean?

John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him,
Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Do you get it?

Son of GOD = King of Israel (cp. Luke 1.32-33, 2 Sam. 7.13-14)

So yes Jesus was indeed worshiped. But he was not worshiped as GOD; rather throughout the NT he was worshiped as a man of God, as a prophet, (in this case) as king, as Messiah. This applies to all the aforementioned verses.

That was the custom in biblical times.
Such worship (Hebrew shachah, Greek proskuneo) was used of both GOD & (the majority of the case), man.

Thus Men are scripturally worshiped - civil worship -
e.g. Abraham, Moses, king David, etc.
They were worshiped i.e. obeisance was made to them as dignitaries, prophets, kings, etc.
Jesus the Messiah is therefore, the ultimate Dignitary, Prophet & King; therefore he received worship/obeisance in like manner.
Bible translators obscure this fact by translating the corresponding words as 'worship' when used of Jesus; and 'did/made obeisance' when used of other men.

For more details please see:

The Worship of Christ &

Defining the Term "Worship"

The video then asks ONE MORE QUESTION

5) What does the OT say about Jesus being God?

The video then quotes Isaiah 9.6.

Yes, Jesus is called el in this verse. Does that make him, Almighty GOD? Because Nebuchadnezzar was also called el in Ezekiel 31.11!

Also the title el gibbor used in Isaiah 9.6 is used in plural in Ezek 32.21 depicting mighty warriors.
Thus this title is indeed fits the Messiah, whom GOD Almighty has appointed to be a mighty warrior/one and to rule the Kingdom, upon the throne of David. [Isaiah 9.7]

The Messiah is also given the title: 'father of the age to come.'

For more details please see: Concerning Isaiah 9:6.

The video closes with this statement:

"Jesus died on a cross for our sins and rose from the grave to prove that he is God ... the Lord of Life. ..."

Well firstly, GOD CANNOT DIE! He alone has immortality.

[1 Timothy 6.16]

So the very fact that Jesus died for our sins is enough proof that he is not Almighty GOD! Andhe alone, Jesus alone, has been raised from the dead by the ONE Almighty GOD, the Father; glorified and immortalized:

Acts 17:29-31 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31Because he [GOD] hath appointed a day, in the which he [GOD] will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he [GOD] hath ordained; whereof he [GOD] hath given assurance unto all men , in that he [GOD] hath raised him from the dead.

Almighty GOD alone has raised Jesus alone from the dead and made him alone, 'Lord' to his [GOD's] glory.

[Acts 2.36, Phil 2.11]

Jesus has life because GOD Almighty has given him life!
[John 5.26, 1 John 5.11]

No one else has this honor except the Lord Jesus Christ, whom has been given this honor and glory by GOD Almighty, the ONE GOD, his Father. Therefore:

1 Timothy 2:5

For there is one God,

and one mediator between God and men,

the man Christ Jesus;

In closing, I will leave you with a link to a video which in contrast, asks

5 most pertinent questions to those who believe 'Jesus is Almighty God'.
(Taken from www.christianmonotheism.com)

Enjoy!

Hebrews 1:10 and the Age to Come

Hebrews 1:10 and the Age to Come

By Anthony Buzzard

On the recent radio discussions with Drs. James White and Michael Brown we learned how Trinitarians hope to persuade us.
They turn to Hebrews 1:10. Here in a catena (chain) of proof texts, the Hebrews writer seeks to prove that Jesus, the Son of God, is superior to angels. This approach ought really to show immediately that the writer did not think Jesus was [Yahweh]! You don't need 7 verses to prove that Jesus is better than all angels or better than Moses, if you believe that Jesus is God Himself. All you have to say is "Jesus is God."
That would be the end of the argument. And one really ought not to imagine that Jesus was ever an angel, after reading Hebrews 1!
The whole point of the argument is that Jesus is not and never was or will be an angel! The whole point is missed if we do not grasp that Jesus is the begotten Son of God as predicted by the overarchingly important Ps. 2:7.

Hebrews 1:10 says of the Son of God that he "laid the foundation of the heaven and the earth."

There are three "proof texts" addressed to the Son in Hebrews 1:8-13. These three make the same important point about how the Son began. There is no hint in the text that they refer to someone other than the Son. Verse 8 begins,
"But of the Son He [God] says ... "(Heb. 1:8) Then follow three different corroborating quotes. The series ends in verse 13 with a final proof that Jesus was not an angel:

"But to which of the angels did He [God] ever say ... "

Psalm 110:1 is then quoted as referring to the Son, Jesus. That Son is the adoni of Psalm 110:1 who is not Yahweh. Psalm 110: 1 frames the whole discussion and shows that Jesus cannot be Yahweh
(though Jesus is of course His agent - see Anthony Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, and James McGrath, Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism and James Dunn, Did The First Christians Worship Jesus? (2010) )

Much of chapter 1 of Hebrews compares the Son of God with angels, showing that the Son was never an angel and is superior to them. This proves that the Son cannot be God! It is not necessary to prove God superior to the angels. It is obvious. Equally clear is the fact that the Son cannot be an angel or archangel as maintained by Jehovah's Witnesses. Both angels and archangels (chief angels) are angels!  (Heb. 5:1). And holy angels are immortal (Luke 20:36), which would make the death of Jesus the Son of God impossible. The Son of God came into existence in Mary (Luke 1:35), his origin(genesis) is described in Matt. 1:18, 20. He was begotten, not just conceived, as stated in the Greek of Matt. 1:20. No angels were begotten in that way!

What then of Hebrews 1:10? In what sense is the Son the founder of the heavens and earth? How can this be since Jesus nowhere claimed to be the Creator and it was not Jesus,
but God who rested on the seventh day (Heb. 4:4)? Did Jesus do all the work and yet not rest on the seventh day?

"God [not Jesus] made them male and female"(Mark 10:6) and "The Lord God [not Jesus] formed man of dust from the ground"(Gen. 2:7). Fifty texts say that God, the Father, created the heavens and the earth.
Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18, 20 and 1 John 5:18 (not KJV) say that the Son did not exist until he was created/begotten in Mary. Heb. 1:1-2 tell us that God did not speak in a Son during OT times. This is because the Son did not yet exist.

Was Jesus both six months younger than John the Baptist and billions of years older? Was Jesus 30 years old when he began his public ministry and yet really billions plus 30 years old? What part of Jesus was 30 and what part was billions of years old?

Jesus cannot be so divided up, split in two. Mary bore a human being. She did not bear an angel. She did not bear GOD. She did not bear "impersonal human nature," as Trinitarian theory says. She did not take in a person from the outside. She conceived and bore a baby. Mary bore a lineal, biological son of David. Otherwise Jesus does not qualify to be the Messiah. Romans 1:1-4 says that God's Son was a descendant of David, and he was later installed as
Son of God with power at the resurrection, but he was not Son of God for the first time when resurrected. He was begotten as predicted by Ps. 2:7, in time, today, not in eternity.

God cannot be begotten, and the Son of God was begotten. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls speak of an expected time when God will beget (bring into existence) the Son of God. They too used 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7 to indicate the beginning of the expected Messiah. The immortal God (1 Tim. 6:16) cannot die. The Son of God died (Rom. 5:10).God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), yet the Son of God was tempted. Not to observe these category differences is to throw away precious biblical instruction.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God did not speak through a Son in the Old Testament times. Verse 2 also says that God made the ages through Jesus. This could refer to the ages of the new creation which Jesus introduced or it may refer to Jesus, as Wisdom, being the reason for God's creation of everything. Hebrews 1:5, quoting the prophecy of Psalm 2:7, speaks of the coming into existence of Jesus, the Son:

"Today I have begotten you"
(so also the LXX of Ps. 110:3 and many Hebrew manuscripts).

The same first chapter of Hebrews speaks of 2 Samuel 7:14's marvelous promise, given a thousand years before Jesus' birth, that God "will be a father to him and he will be a son." That promise was given to David and it referred to the Messiah who was to come. The beginning of Messiah's existence is the moment when God becomes the Father of the Messiah. Acts 13:33 refers also to the beginning of Jesus' existence, his "raising up" (not "raising up again" as wrongly translated in the KJV), and verse 34, by contrast, to his resurrection. The same beginning of the Son is exactly what we find in Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20 ("that which is begotten in her is from the holy spirit").

Isaiah 44:24 says that God, unaccompanied, unaided, created the Genesis heavens and earth. He was entirely alone. "Who was with me?" At the time of the Genesis creation there was no Son with Him (cf. Heb. 1:1-2).

God spoke first in a Son in the New Testament. So then who said, "Let there be light"? It would be a flat contradiction of Hebrews 1:1-2 to say it was the Son. The God of the Old Testament is quite distinct from His unique Son.
The latter had his genesis in Matthew 1:18 ("The origin of Jesus the Messiah was like this", TNIV).

The Bible becomes a book of incomprehensible riddles if God can have a Son literally before He brings him into existence! Luke 1:35 describes how the Son of God came to exist. He was begotten. To beget in the Bible and in English is a word which of all words denotes a before and after. Therefore the Son had a beginning. There was a time before he was begotten, before he was. If he already existed, these testimonies in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 are nonsense. Mary bore a human being, not God or an angel. Human mothers bear humans. Mary certainly did not just bear "human nature," and "human nature" as Mary's son would not be the descendant of David and thus not the Messiah. (The creeds try to frighten us away from this beginning of the Son, telling us that if we say "there was a time when the Son did not exist" we are heretics and anathematized - see the anathemas at Nicea, 325 AD. No one wants to be cursed by the Church).

The notion that the Son of God was in fact God would strongly reduce the meaning of his whole struggle in obedience to God and on our behalf as Savior and model. The whole point of a High Priest is that he must be "selected from among men" (Heb. 5:1). He is the "man Messiah Jesus" in contrast to his Father (1 Tim. 2:5). The Father in John 17:3 is "the only one who is God," as distinct from His Son who is excluded from that category.
If God is the only one who is God; no one else is God except the Father, which is exactly what Paul declared when rehearsing the creed in 1 Corinthians 8:

"There is no God except the one God the Father"
(combining vv. 4 and 6).

He added, not "splitting the Shema" or expanding it as Tom Wright and others say; that Jesus is the one Lord Messiah!
All that had been well said by Luke, who agreed with Paul when he spoke of the Lord Messiah (Luke 2:11) who is "the Lord's Messiah"(Luke 2:26).

If the Son were God, there would be two Gods. To call Jesus God and the Father God is not strict monotheism, however much the label may be applied. The Bible nowhere uses "God" to mean a triune or biune God.

In Hebrews 1:10, there is a complication (requiring detailed study) due to the fact that the writer quotes Psalm 102 from the Greek version (LXX) and not the Hebrew version.
The LXX (Septuagint) has a different sense entirely in Psalm 102:23-25. The LXX reads differently from the Hebrew text. LXX gives us God's reply to the suppliant. The LXX, quoted in Hebrews 1:10, says:

"He [God] answered him [the suppliant] ... Tell me [God speaking to the suppliant] ... Thou, lord [God addressing someone else called 'lord'].

But the Hebrew text has:

"He [God] weakened me ... I [the suppliant] say, 'O my God ... '"

Thus the LXX speaks of a second "lord" who is addressed by God:

"At the beginning you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (v. 25).

The writer to the Hebrews had open before him the LXX and not the Hebrew (rather as today someone might quote the NIV instead of the KJV).
The New Testament often cites the LXX Greek. F.F. Bruce in the New International Commentary on Hebrews explains:

"In the Septuagint text the person to whom these words ["of old you laid the foundation of the earth"] are spoken is addressed explicitly as "Lord,"and it is God who addresses him thus. Whereas in the Hebrew text the suppliant is the speaker from the beginning to the end of the psalm, in the Greek text his prayer comes to an end with v. 22, and the next words read as follows:

"He [God] answered him [the suppliant] in the way of his strength:

'Declare to Me the shortness of My days: Bring Me not up in the midst of My days. Thy [the suppliant's] years are throughout all generations. Thou, lord [the suppliant, viewed here as the Messiah by Hebrews], in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.' "

This is God's answer to the suppliant; He bids him acknowledge the shortness of God's set time (for the restoration of Jerusalem, as in v. 13) and not summon Him [God] to act when that set time has only half expired, while He [God] assures him [the suppliant, called lord by God] that he and his servants' children will be preserved forever.

(Bacon suggested that the Hebrew, as well as the Greek, text of this psalm formed a basis for messianic [i.e. future Kingdom] eschatology, especially its reference to the "shortness" of God's days, i.e., of the period destined to elapse before the consummation of His purpose [the arrival of the yet future Messianic Kingdom on earth]; he found here the OT background of Matt. 24:22, Mark 13:20 and
Ep. Barn. 4.3 ("as Enoch says, 'For to this end the Master [God] has cut short the times and the days, that his Beloved [Jesus] should make haste and come to his inheritance' ").

But to whom (a Christian reader of the Septuagint might well ask) could God speak in words like these? And whom would God himself address as "Lord,"as the maker [or founder] of earth and heaven?

Reading the LXX the Hebrews writer sees an obvious reference to the new heavens and earth of the future Kingdom and he sees God addressing the Messianic Lord in connection with the prophecies of the rest of Psalm 102 which speak of "the generation to come" (v. 18) and of the set time for Yahweh to build up Zion and appear in His glory [the Parousia].
The fact that the One YHVH addresses another "lord"proves that the second lord cannot be YHVH.

The important article by B.W. Bacon (alluded to by Bruce above) stresses the fact that "The word 'lord' is wholly absent from the Hebrew [and English] text of Psalm 102:25." But it appears in the LXX cited by Hebrews.
Yahweh addresses another, who is not Yahweh, but another lord, in this case the Messiah. "He [Yahweh] answered him, ... at the start you, lord, laid the foundation ... "(LXX Ps. 101:24; Heb. Ps. 102):

[With the translation in the LXX "he answered him"] the whole passage down to the end of the psalm becomes the answer of Yahweh to the suppliant who accordingly appears to be addressed as kurie [lord] and creator of heaven and earth...Instead of understanding the verse as a complaint of the psalmist at the shortness of his days which are cut off in the midst, LXX and the Vulgate understand the utterance to be Yahweh's answer to the psalmist's plea that he will intervene to save Zion, because "it is time to have pity on her, yea, the set time is come"(v.13). He is bidden acknowledge (or prescribe?) the shortness of Yahweh's set time, and not to summon Him when it is but half expired. On the other hand he [the Messianic lord] is promised that his own endurance shall be perpetual with the children of his servants.

This is exactly the point, and it can only be made clear when we see that ...

1) the Hebrews writer is reading the LXX, not the Hebrew text, and finding in the second half of the psalm a wonderful prophecy of the age to come
(Kingdom, restoration of Israel, new creation) which fits his context in Hebrews 1 exactly, and that...

2) there is a Messianic Lord addressed by Yahweh and invited to initiate a founding of the heaven and earth, the new political order in Palestine, exactly as said in Isaiah 51:16. This is precisely the message the Hebrews writer wants to convey about the superiority of Jesus over angels. Jesus is the founder of that coming new Kingdom order. The Hebrews writer in 2:5 tells us expressly that it is about "the inhabited earth of the future that we are speaking." (See also Isa. 65:17ff., 66:22, new world-order. Restored Israel, with the church by then immortalized will enjoy the new system, cp. Isa. 65:9, Ps. 69:35, 36: "For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah, that they may dwell there and possess it. The descendants of His servants will inherit it [cp. Matt. 5:5], and those who love His name will dwell in it"(so also Ps. 37:9, 11, 18, 22, 29, 34).

The important points are these:

1) Psalm 102 is about the new creation and the "generation to come." It is a Kingdom psalm and points to the great Messianic future. The psalm speaks of the time coming to build up Zion, when the nations will fear God's name, and when God's glory will appear, what we know as the Parousia of Jesus, God's agent. Verse 19 of the LXX ofPs.102 speaks of a new generation, and a people who are going to be created. This is all about the new creation in Christ, of which we are now already a part. That new creation began with the ministry of the historical Jesus, who announced it and died to inaugurate the new covenant, to do with the new creation.

All this is really not so difficult when this difference in the LXX is explained. Both Psalm 102 and Hebrews 2:5 and indeed the whole of Hebrews 1 refer to the new order of things initiated by Jesus and it would not matter whether we think of the new order as initiated at the ascension ("All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me," Matt. 28:18), or at the second coming.

The best option is that new creation began when Jesus ministered the Gospel of the Kingdom. Thus the new creation was initiated by Jesus even in this present age and it will of course be brought to a new stage of perfection in the coming age of the millennium, which is the first stage of the manifested, worldwide Kingdom of God.

Psalm 102 is all about the coming age of the Kingdom and the restoration of Jerusalem in the millennium (see vv. 13-22). The writer looks forward to the restoration of the city when God appears in His glory (v. 16). The Psalm is written for the "generation to come"(v. 18) and a newly created people of the future Kingdom on earth. Hebrews 1-2 is speaking not of the Genesis creation but the "economy to come"(2:5).

Hebrews 2:5: "The Economy, World to Come about Which We Are Speaking."

The Oxford Bible Commentary (2000) is helpful when it notes that right up to Hebrews 2:5 the topic is the new creation in Christ. Hebrews 1:10 is included in that main subject: The writer should be allowed to tell us what he is talking about. It is not the Genesis creation but the new creation and covenant in Christ. Ps. 102 is also about the new creation.

"The text at the center of Heb. 2:5ff. is Ps. 8:4-6 and it exhibits thematic connections to the scriptural catena [chain] of the first chapter [i.e. Heb. 1:10 is all part of the same reference to the new creation] ...
Heb. 2:5 ["the inhabited earth to come of which we speak"] is an introductory comment continuing the contrast between the Son and angels.
Its reference to the "world to come"reinforces the notions of imminent judgment and cosmic transformation intimated by Ps. 102, cited at 1:10-12."

Isaiah 51:16 confirms this explanation. It speaks of an agent of God in whom God puts His words and whom He uses "to plant the heavens and earth." The Word Biblical Commentary says:

"Yahweh introduces Himself again, but this time in terms of His control of the raging sea. Headdresses the one He is using to put His words into his mouth and protecting him very carefully. The purpose of this care is to allow him to plant heavens and earth. That makes no sense if it refers to the original [Genesis] creation. It uses the word NaTaH [Jer. 10:12 + 10 times], stretch out, while the verb here is NaTA, plant [establish people]. In the other instances God acts alone, using no agent [Isa. 44:24]. Here the one he has hidden in the shadow of his hand is his agent. Heavens and land here must refer metaphorically to the totality of order in Palestine, heavens meaning the broader overarching structure of the Empire, while land is the political order in Palestine itself. The assignment is then focused more precisely: to say to Zion, you are my people."

Thus both in Psalm 102 (LXX) and in Isaiah 51 the Messiah is the agent whom God will use to establish the new political order of the age to come. Hebrews 1:10 is a prophecy, written in the past tense (as customarily prophecies are), but referring to the "inhabited earth of the future about which we are speaking"(Heb. 2:5). That is the concern in Hebrews 1:10. Jesus is the "father of the age to come" (Isa. 9.6) Finally, in Hebrews 9:11 the writer speaks of "the good things to come"as the things "not of this creation."By this he means that the things to come are of the new, future creation (see Heb. 2:5, the new creation). That creation is under way since Jesus appeared as the minister of the new covenant. Jesus as exalted (Ps 110:1 is now co-creator, under the Father, of the new creation, and has "all authority in heaven and earth"(Matt. 28:18). Even the millennial age of the future will be replaced by a further renewed heaven and earth (Rev. 20:11; 21:1). The present system will be "changed"(Heb. 1:10) but the Messiah will continue forever. Revelation 21:1 speaks of the heavens and earth as undergoing a further and presumably final change.

It is interesting that the writer of Hebrews, when mentioning "the age to come"(2:5 and 9:11) connects it with the new creation, i.e not this present Genesis creation. Heb. 1:10 is placed within that context. 9:11 reads:

"When Christ appeared as the High Priest of the good things to come (or the good things which have come), he entered in through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is not of this creation" - but of the new creation.

The book of Hebrews is all about the exalted Christ as head of the new creation and the writers speaks constantly of the "covenant of the coming age" (aionios) ...

"...salvation of the coming age, judgment of the coming age, High Priest for the age, redemption of the coming age, spirit of the coming age, inheritance of the coming age."

The Son is heir of this new creation (Heb 1:2-3).

Once again, eschatology is the great factor in revealing the truth. The Gospel of salvation is based on eschatology, what God has done and is doing and is yet going to do in Christ and in the saints of all the ages, the new community of the New Covenant, addressed as those who go by the canon of love, "the Israel of God" of Galatians 6:16. In this community there are no differences in nationality but all are "one in Christ."God has a new creation in Jesus and we are to be new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). We are to join the one "new man"of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12-13). The presently unconverted Israel will itself be renewed, at least a remnant (Mic. 2:12; Rom. 11), through the great tribulation and Jesus' deliverance at his post-tribulation Parousia (Matt. 24:29-31).

The saints of all the ages will be immortalized at the resurrection after the end of the Great Tribulation which is still ahead.

There is of course no pre-tribulation gathering. Nor has the Great Tribulation been going on continuously since AD 70. The Great Tribulation is a future short period of agony just before the return of the Messiah to the earth.
This event is not a drive-by episode. Jesus is coming back to the earth where as son of David he belongs installed on the throne of David.

...

The world is going to be reborn and it will come under the supervision of Jesus and his followers (Matt. 19:28, Rev. 5:10; I Cor. 6:2, Dan. 7:14, 18, 22, 27, etc.)

We must resist the temptation to be looking backwards to Genesis when the whole book of Hebrews bids us look forward to the "inhabited earth of the future"(Heb. 2:5).

We have noted that in several places Hebrews speaks of the eternal redemption, inheritance, covenant, judgment, salvation and spirit "of the age [to come]" (aionios). Aionios refers to the Kingdom age to come and not just to eternity. Christians receive now the "holy spirit of the promise"(Eph. 1:13, NJB). We are to experience something of the future Kingdom age even now in the midst of trials and in a hostile world. ...
The church will inherit the land (Matt. 5:5; Rom. 4:13) and those who bless "the seed of Abraham"(Gen. 12) are those who bless the believers.

"If you belong to Christ [and only then] you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"(Gal. 3:19).

What a heritage is in store for those who endure to the end.

Meanwhile should we not have a heart for the billions of human beings who have not been exposed to the great truths about God and the Messiah and the Kingdom in process of restoration?

Matthew 24:14 is most relevant.

 

 

---

 

The above article was taken from:
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/11/hebrews-110-and-age-to-come-reload.html
Slightly edited.