embed/jesuswordsonly
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Wiki Activity
main
jesuswordsonly/recommendedreading/208-exaltation-that-turns-idolatrous.html

717 lines
90 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Normal View History

initial backup of github.com/jesuswordsonly/jesuswordsonly.github.io
2023-08-31 11:16:13 +00:00
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-gb" lang="en-gb" >
<head>
<base href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/208-exaltation-that-turns-idolatrous.html" />
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow" />
<meta name="keywords" content="trinity, trinitarianism" />
<meta name="title" content="Exaltation That Turns Idolatrous" />
<meta name="author" content="18ptTR" />
<meta name="description" content="Deity of Christ" />
<meta name="generator" content="Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Management" />
<title>Exaltation That Turns Idolatrous</title>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/media/system/js/mootools.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/media/system/js/caption.js"></script>
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/images/favicon.ico" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/templates/system/css/system.css" type="text/css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/templates/system/css/general.css" type="text/css" />
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/template_css.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/nav.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/style1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<!--[if IE]>
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/ie.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<![endif]-->
<!--[if IE]>
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/ie.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]>
<style type="text/css">
img { behavior: url(/templates/js_relevant/js/iepngfix.htc); }
</style>
<![endif]-->
</head>
<body>
<div id="main-wrapper">
<div id="header_graphic">
<div class="inside">
<div id="newsflash"> <div class="moduletable">
<table class="contentpaneopen">
<tr>
<td valign="top" ><div>The prophets divine lies...and strengthen the hands of the wicked, that he should not turn from his wicked way, by promising him life. (Ezekiel 13:8-23)</div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" >
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<h1><a href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/" title="Relevant">Relevant</a></h1>
<h2>A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us</h2>
</div>
</div>
<div class="menubar">
<div id="navmenu">
<script type="text/javascript" src="/templates/js_relevant/js/barmenu.js"></script>
<ul class="menu"><li><a href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/"><span>Home</span></a></li><li class="haschild"><a href="/books.html" class="haschild"><span>Books</span></a><ul><li><a href="/books/jesuswordsonly.html"><span>Jesus' Words Only</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/jesuswordssalvation.html"><span>Jesus' Words on Salvation</span></a></li><li class="haschild"><a href="/books/didcalvinmurderservetus.html" class="child"><span>Did Calvin Murder Servetus?</span></a><ul><li><a href="/books/didcalvinmurderservetus/background-material-did-calvin-murder-servetus.html"><span>Background Material</span></a></li></ul></li><li><a href="/books/hownottosudythebible.html"><span>How Not to Study the Bible</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/flawsofyoungearthscience.html"><span>Flaws of Young Earth Science</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/jesusorpaul.html"><span>Jesus or Paul</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/unintended-disservice.html"><span>Unintended Disservice</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/original-gospel-of-matthew.html"><span>Original Gospel of Matthew</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/commands-of-jesus.html"><span>Commands of Jesus</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/gospel-of-john.html"><span>Gospel of John</span></a></li></ul></li><li id="current" class="active"><a href="/recommendedreading.html"><span>Further Reading</span></a></li><li><a href="/media.html"><span>Media</span></a></li><li class="haschild"><a href="/reviews.html" class="haschild"><span>Reviews</span></a><ul><li><a href="/reviews/jwo-reviews.html"><span>Jesus Words Only</span></a></li><li><a href="/reviews/jwos-reviews.html"><span>Jesus Words on Salvation</span></a></li></ul></li><li><a href="/contactus.html"><span>Contact Us</span></a></li><li><a href="http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/753-bookstore.html"><span>Bookstore</span></a></li><li><a href="/topicindex.html"><span>Topic Index</span></a></li><li><a href="/aboutauthor.html"><span>About Author</span></a></li><li><a href="/newsletters.html"><span>Newsletters</span></a></li></ul>
</div>
</div>
<div id="mainbody">
<div id="showcasetop">&nbsp;</div>
<table width="940" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td id="leftcol" valign="top" width="200">
<div class="inside">
<div class="moduleS1">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h3>Search</h3>
<form action="index.php" method="post">
<div class="searchS1">
<input name="searchword" id="mod_search_searchword" maxlength="20" alt="Search" class="inputboxS1" type="text" size="20" value="search..." onblur="if(this.value=='') this.value='search...';" onfocus="if(this.value=='search...') this.value='';" /> </div>
<input type="hidden" name="task" value="search" />
<input type="hidden" name="option" value="com_search" />
<input type="hidden" name="Itemid" value="3" />
</form> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moduleS1">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h3>Questions?</h3>
Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"<br /><br />
<form name="s5_quick_contact" method="post" action="">
<input class="inputbox" id="namebox" onclick="s5_qc_clearname()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearname()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Name..." name="name"></input><br />
<input class="inputbox" id="emailbox" onclick="s5_qc_clearemail()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearemail()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Email..." name="email"></input><br />
<input class="inputbox" id="subjectbox" onclick="s5_qc_clearsubject()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearsubject()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Subject..." name="subject"></input><br />
<textarea id="messagebox" rows="" cols="" class="inputbox textarea" onclick="s5_qc_clearbody()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearbody()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; overflow:auto;width:80%; height:55px" name="message">Your Message...</textarea><br />
<input class="inputbox" id="spambox" onclick="s5_qc_clearspam()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearspam()" style="font-weight:bold; font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Enter The Code 4438" name="verif_box"></input><br />
<input id="email_address" type="hidden" value="" name="email_address"></input>
<input class="button" type="button" onclick="s5_qc_submit()" value="Send Message" ></input>
</form>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
// <![CDATA[
var s5_qc_spam_text = document.getElementById("spambox").value;
function s5_qc_clearbody() {
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value == "Your Message...") {
document.getElementById("messagebox").value="";
}
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
}
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
}
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
}
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
}
}
function s5_qc_clearname() {
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value == "Name...") {
document.getElementById("namebox").value="";
}
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
}
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
}
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
}
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
}
}
function s5_qc_clearemail() {
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value == "Email...") {
document.getElementById("emailbox").value="";
}
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
}
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
}
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
}
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
}
}
function s5_qc_clearsubject() {
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value == "Subject...") {
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value="";
}
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
}
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
}
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
}
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
}
}
function s5_qc_clearspam() {
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value == s5_qc_spam_text) {
document.getElementById("spambox").value="";
}
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
}
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
}
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
}
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
}
}
function s5_qc_isValidEmail(str_email) {
if (str_email.indexOf(".") > 2 && str_email.indexOf("@") > 0) {
alert('Your email is now being submitted - Thank you!');
document.s5_quick_contact.submit();
}
else {
alert('Your email address is not valid, please check again - Thank you!');
}
}
function s5_qc_submit() {
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value == s5_qc_spam_text || document.getElementById("subjectbox").value == "Subject..." || document.getElementById("namebox").value == "Name..." || document.getElementById("emailbox").value == "Email..." || document.getElementById("messagebox").value == "Your Message...") {
alert('All fields are required, please complete the form - Thank you!');
return false;
}
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value != "4438") {
alert('Your spam verification answer is incorrect.');
return false;
}
var s5_message_holder = document.getElementById("messagebox").value;
var s5_first_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(0);
var s5_second_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(1);
var s5_third_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(2);
var s5_fourth_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(3);
if (s5_first_message_char == "<") {
return false;
}
if (s5_first_message_char == "w" && s5_second_message_char == "w" && s5_third_message_char == "w") {
return false;
}
if (s5_first_message_char == "h" && s5_second_message_char == "t" && s5_third_message_char == "t") {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
return false;
}
else {
document.getElementById("email_address").value = "info@jesuswordsonly.com";
var email_str = document.getElementById("emailbox").value;
s5_qc_isValidEmail(email_str);
}
}
// ]]>
</script>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moduleS1">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h3>Recommendations</h3>
<p><a href="/recommendedreading/401-music-store-manager.html">Only Jesus</a> (great song by Big Daddy)</p>
<p><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/jwoogm-20?node=1&amp;page=2">What Did Jesus Say?</a> (2012) - 7 topics&nbsp;</p>
<p>None above affiliated with me</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="/books/jesuswordsonly.html"><img alt="JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall" src="/images/stories/JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall.jpg" width="116" height="117" /></a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="/books/jesuswordssalvation.html"><img alt="JesusWordsSalv-crop2" src="/images/stories/JesusWordsSalv-crop2.jpg" width="114" height="146" /></a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="/component/content/3-didcalvinmurderservetus/26-calvinfreebookonline.html"><img src="/images/stories/DidCalvinMurderServetusM.jpg" alt="DidCalvinMurderServetusM" height="NaN" width="120" /></a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
<td id="maincol" valign="top">
<div id="breadcrumbs">
<span class="breadcrumbs pathway">
<a href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/" class="pathway">Home</a> <img src="/templates/js_relevant/images/arrow.png" alt="" /> Further Reading</span>
</div>
<table class="contentpaneopen">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<h1><span style="font-size: 18pt; color: #0000ff;"><strong>An Exaltation That Went Too Far</strong></span></h1>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Tertullian in about 207 AD warned that Marcion in 144 AD had a frightening view of Jesus as God distinct from the Father. Tertullian said Marcion's view leads to an idolatrous version of Jesus's divinity. Instead of <strong>an indwelling of Jesus</strong> by God, as Jesus explained the connection to the Father (<a href="https://biblehub.com/john/14-10.htm">John 14:10</a>), Marcion made Jesus a separate and distinct God from the Creator-God. To this idea of Marcion, Tertullian in 207 AD leveled the charge of idolatry -- the violation of the first commandment:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">&ldquo;They either pretend that there is&nbsp;<strong>another god in opposition to the Creator</strong>, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one and only God, they treat him<strong> as a different being from what he is in truth</strong>. The consequence is that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense<strong> a sort of idolatry</strong>.&rdquo; (<strong>On Prescription Against Heretics</strong>, 40, quoted in <strong>Ante-Nicene Fathers</strong> (2007) at <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=lZ1EffC0auAC&amp;lpg=PA263&amp;dq=another%20god%20in%20opposition%20to%20the%20creator&amp;pg=PA263#v=onepage&amp;q=another%20god%20in%20opposition%20to%20the%20creator&amp;f=false">263</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">At the same time, against another heretic named Praxeas, Tertullian mocked any idea that Jesus as the Son was simultaneously also God. Here is cogent reasoning so easily forgotten:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">I bid you also observe, that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' If you want me to believe<strong> Him to be both the Father and the Son</strong> [<em>i.e.</em>, simultaneously two persons but each is God]&nbsp;show me some other passage where it is declared, '<strong>The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself</strong>;' or again, 'Before the morning did I <strong><em>beget </em></strong>myself;' and likewise, 'I the Lord possessed Myself in the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills, too, did<strong> I beget</strong> myself;' and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so? (Tertullian, <strong>Latin Christianity</strong> (Scaff ed.) Ch. <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xi.html">XI</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Nothing could be clearer than to make both Jesus (the Son) and Yahweh (the Father) both be God would be a violation of all Scripture. God never speaks to Himself as a begotten Son of Himself. Tertullian also took it as obvious you could never have two independent beings who are both God without violating the Scripture that there is only ONE God. This is why Tertullian defended Jesus was divine -- simply being <strong>indwelled fully</strong> by God the Father. Jesus thus had <strong>DIVINITY - a term Jews used for the presence of God at the Temple</strong>, not DEITY. Any other view, Tertullian said was IDOLATRY -- putting another god before God.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>The True Exalted Status of Jesus</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">By contrast to Marcion and Praxeas, the way Apostle John and Jesus invite us to see Jesus' nature -- a unique indwelling of God's Shekinah ("Divinity") in the man Jesus -- comports completely with that First Commandment. The same substance of God is&nbsp;<strong><em>in</em></strong> Jesus, a distinct and separate human being. 'The Word became flesh." (For our view of the correct Christology, see this <a href="/recommendedreading/189-correct-christology.html">webpage</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">John made it clear what Jesus's relationship was to God. After the crucifixion Jesus said: "Go instead to my brothers and tell them, I am returning<strong> to my Father</strong> and <strong>your Father</strong>, <strong>to my God and your God</strong>" (John <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020:17&amp;version=ASV">20:17</a> NIV).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Tertullian's true writings did not have our modern trinitarian conception where Jesus, the Son, was eternal God apart from the Father-God and before His incarnation. Such a view was idolatry, as Tertullian said in the quote above.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Over one hundred years after Tertullian's death, the term "Trinity" was turned around and defined exactly&nbsp;<strong>in the manner Tertullian warned against</strong>! Tertullian - the true Tertullian - believed Jesus was a man of true human flesh occupied by God including His Word -- the personified agency of His creation.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Tertullian said at conception from Mary, Jesus was "born&nbsp;<strong>man mixed</strong><em> </em>with God," as Osborn summarizes&nbsp;<em>Adversus Praexas</em> by Tertullian. (Eric Osborn, Tertullian,&nbsp;<strong>First Theologian of the West</strong> (Cambridge University Press, 2003) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZW7O0D9E4xQC&amp;lpg=PA121&amp;dq=tertullian%20trinity&amp;pg=PA122#v=onepage&amp;q=tertullian%20trinity&amp;f=false">122</a>-23.) The "father and son are no more identical than night and day" (Prax. 10). (<em>Id.</em>, at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZW7O0D9E4xQC&amp;lpg=PA121&amp;dq=tertullian%20trinity&amp;pg=PA127#v=onepage&amp;q=tertullian%20trinity&amp;f=false">127</a>.)&nbsp;Tertullian argues that "God's Son is also called Son from<strong> unity of substance</strong>."&nbsp;<em>Id.</em>, at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZW7O0D9E4xQC&amp;lpg=PA121&amp;dq=tertullian%20trinity&amp;pg=PA122#v=onepage&amp;q=tertullian%20trinity&amp;f=false">122</a>. This substance came from the <strong>indwelling</strong> of the Father.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">This matches Numbers <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2023:19&amp;version=ASV">23:19</a> which says "God is <strong>not a man</strong>." God can indwell a man but a man does not thereby<em> himself</em> become God.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">However, when the trinity was first adopted in 381 AD, it was&nbsp; returned to its pagan roots in Aristotle's conception.&nbsp;<span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 24px;">For the earlier pagan version of the Trinity, see Aristotle's discussion of the Trinity in&nbsp;Aristotle&nbsp;</span><strong style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 24px;">On the Heavens</strong><span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 24px;">,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Myg9f9dLmTUC&amp;lpg=PA3&amp;dq=we%20make%20further%20use%20of%20the%20number%20three%20in%20the%20worship%20of%20the%20Gods&amp;pg=PA3" style="color: #517291; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 24px;">Book I, 1</a>. In this trinity, there was a primary deity, and two subordinate deities.<span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 24px;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Now at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, Christianity advanced a trinity of<strong> three distinct eternal persons each with individual free will and the right of each to be called by us "God</strong>." Hence, by 381 AD, it was held that the Word (or Spirit) was a distinct being/person from the Father, and the Father was a distinct being/person from the Son, and the Son was not the Spirit or the Father but also was God, so that there were three&nbsp;<strong>co-equal<em> </em></strong>persons of independent free-will who each have the right to call themselves, and to be called by us, "God." To this Tertullian, the first&nbsp;<em>explicit </em>Trinitarian, would have said 'Pure idolatry!'</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Example of Modern Non-Monotheistic Consequence of Abandoning Correct Trinity Doctrine</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">This idolatry is best seen in an argument by a Protestant in our modern day. The most notorious example is Dennis F. Kinlaw,&nbsp;<strong>Let's Start With Jesus: A New Way of Doing Theology</strong> (Zondervan: 2005). Kinlaw, former president of Asbury College, claims that Christianity is "monotheistic" (<em>id.</em>, at 18), but if words have meaning, Kinlaw demonstrates an idolatrous view of Jesus - of another God distinct from the Creator God-the-Father.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Kinlaw admits at one point that "Understanding God as a Trinity of&nbsp;<strong>free persons</strong> gives us one of the most striking&nbsp;<strong>differences between the monotheism </strong>[?] of Christianity and the&nbsp;<strong>other monotheistic religions</strong>" which believe God "is a<strong> single being</strong>." In Christianity, God's will is "conditioned on the interrelatedness of love of the&nbsp;<strong>three persons</strong> who constitute the Godhead." (Kinlaw, at 33-34.) Kinlaw continues: "When Christians say that God is one, the oneness of which we speak is<strong> not the same as the oneness of which Jews and Muslims speak</strong>. It is not the unicity of a divine monad, of<strong> a single divine being</strong> who is simple in nature. Christians believe that within this oneness are&nbsp;<em><strong>personal </strong></em><strong>differentiations</strong>."&nbsp;<em>Id.</em>, 19.&nbsp;And Kinlaw sees multiple persons like the Father and Son each have the right to say they are God because they&nbsp;<strong>talk to one another</strong> as God: "the inner life of God [is] one person speaking to another...there are&nbsp;<strong>different persons</strong> in the Godhead.&rdquo; (<em>Id</em>., 32.)&nbsp;&nbsp;Early on he says that salvation is designed to bring each of us "into participation in the very communion that the&nbsp;<strong>three </strong>persons of the triune Godhead know between<strong> themselves</strong>." (<em>Id.</em>, at 13.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Hence, if each of the three persons has the right to say He is God, then how is God a single being any longer? Kinlaw admits he is contending that they are <strong>each different persons of free-will</strong>, yet he can somehow insist they are 'one' in some sense. But we are not to have any other gods before God!</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Kinlaw's defense of the modern trinity reflects an abandonment of the first usage of the term trinity by Tertullian. Kinlaw's version represents restructuring Jesus' identity as <strong>a God apart from the Father</strong> who is supposedly one with the Father by<strong> coordinated action</strong>. You can pretend you are saying there is one God because you say so. But saying it is so does not make it so.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">But Jesus taught something totally different. Jesus taught He had an indwelling presence of God.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Kinlaw went<strong> too far</strong>, and gives us a conception of Jesus that transgresses the<strong> First Commandment of God</strong>. We are all in favor of <strong>exalting Jesus as Son of Man</strong>, for God in Daniel 7:13-14 said the Son of Man coming with the Shekinah presence on clouds of glory is <strong>entitled to worship / homage as a coming king to rule the earth</strong>. But to try to exalt Jesus individually and in his being/person to be God apart from merely the Father's abiding presence in Him violates the First Commandment. We can not believe in trinity other than based soly on the Father indwelling Jesus, and Jesus was a man so-indwelled, rather than the horrifying way that Kinlaw proposes a <strong>de facto polytheistic</strong> trinity.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h1><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Why A Non-Monotheistic Version of 'Trinity' Replaced Tertullian's Monotheistic Version</strong></span></h1>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The trinity doctrine which Tertullian advanced in 200 AD was reformulated in about 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople to <strong><em>specifically refute monotheism</em></strong>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Gregory of Nyssa (born 335 A.D., died 385 A.D.) in 372 A.D. was appointed by&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Kl0YAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA254" target="_blank">his brother Basil </a>as the Catholic Bishop of Nyssa. After losing that post,&nbsp;Emperor Gratian reinstituted Gregory as bishop in 378. ("<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07016a.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">St. Gregory of Nyssa</a>,"&nbsp;<em>Catholic Encylopedia</em>.) In 379 A.D., Gregory was suddenly elevated to assist at the Council of Antioch. In 381, Gregory again assisted at the Council of Constantinople convened by Emperor Theodosius to "assert the faith of Nicea...to put an end to Arianism...." (<em>Id.</em>) Once again this Council "accepted the Nicene teaching."&nbsp;&nbsp;(George Herbert Dryer,&nbsp;<em>History of the Christian church</em> (1896) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=d1JbAAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA155" target="_blank">155</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">But the Council of Constantinople did more than that. What Gregory did at the Council of Constantinople is take the Nicean Creed that does not mention a trinity and this time the church would affirm three persons are each God<strong><em> separate and apart from another</em></strong>. Gregory explained in a treatise at the same time that his intent was <strong><em>to destroy the supposed myth of monotheism</em></strong>. These details are<strong><em> rarely recounted</em></strong>, so here they are from the most scholarly sources.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Gregory wrote the&nbsp;<em>Catechismal Treatise</em> which was retitled by his empirical benefactors as&nbsp;<em>The Great Catechism.</em> It was "the most significant dogmatic work of the fourth century." (George Herbert Dryer,&nbsp;<em>History of the Christian church</em> (1896) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=d1JbAAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA155" target="_blank">155</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Gregory in the first chapter of his book&nbsp;<em>The Great Catechism</em>, according to&nbsp;Schaff, teaches the "<strong>absurdity of Jewish monotheism</strong>."&nbsp;(<em>A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church</em> (edited by Philip Schaff, Henry Wace)(1893) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AIAXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20Great%20Catechism%20xxxv%20The%20Nicene%20and%20Post-Nicene%20Fathers&amp;pg=PA471" target="_blank">471</a>.)&nbsp;Gregory in the text alludes to monotheism as "the beliefs of the Jews" and then castigates that view as an "<strong><em>absurdity</em></strong>."&nbsp;<em>Id.</em>, at<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AIAXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20Great%20Catechism%20xxxv%20The%20Nicene%20and%20Post-Nicene%20Fathers&amp;pg=PA476" target="_blank"> 476 col. 2</a>.&nbsp;Schaff explains Gregory's text in a footnote snipes at monotheism again when Gregory says in effect "an argument against Dualism would only confirm the Jew in his stern&nbsp;<strong><em>monotheism</em></strong>." (<em>Id.</em>, at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AIAXAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20Great%20Catechism%20xxxv%20The%20Nicene%20and%20Post-Nicene%20Fathers&amp;pg=PA474" target="_blank">474 fn. 7</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">In chapter 3, Gregory acknowledged that "<strong><em>neither</em></strong> does the statement [of the Trinity] <strong><em>harmonize with the Jewish dogma</em></strong>" nor endorse multiple gods as it proposes a 'unity' instead. Yet, Gregory continues by saying that as a result of the Trinity doctrine as he formulated it, Jewish monotheism is ended: "the&nbsp;<strong><em>Jewish dogma is destroyed</em></strong> by the acceptance of the Word and by belief in the Spirit." He pointedly said "the&nbsp;<strong><em>number of the triad [</em></strong><em><strong>i.e.</strong></em><strong><em>, </em></strong><em><strong>three</strong></em><strong><em>]</em></strong> [is] a remedy in the case of those&nbsp;<em><strong>who are in error as to the One</strong></em>."&nbsp;(Gregory of Nyssa,&nbsp;<em>The Great Catechism</em>, ch. 3.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The full context makes clear that Gregory calls<strong><em> monotheism a heresy</em></strong> and is&nbsp;<strong><em>destroyed by the Trinity doctrine</em></strong>. Yet, Gregory insists incoherently that a trinity as he formulated it is not polytheistic. He imagines an in-between realm where you can have more than one being who is God (<em>i.e.</em>, you must&nbsp;reject monotheism) -- where some "others" who are "God" by nature are yet subservient to a "First cause" --- and yet somehow you still do not have polytheism. The truth is there is no third position between "one" and "many" despite these fine-sounding words -- clearly filched from Platonic philosophy and not the Bible. Gregory wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">And so one who severely studies the depths of the mystery, receives secretly in his spirit, indeed, a moderate amount of apprehension of the doctrine of God's nature, yet he is<strong><em> unable to explain</em></strong> clearly in words the ineffable depth of this mystery. As, for instance, how the same thing is&nbsp;<strong><em>capable of being numbered</em></strong> and yet rejects numeration, how it is observed with distinctions yet is apprehended as a monad, how it is&nbsp;<strong><em>separate as to personality</em></strong> yet is not divided as to subject matter. For, in personality, the Spirit is&nbsp;<strong><em>one thing</em></strong> and the Word&nbsp;<strong><em>another</em></strong>, and yet again that from which the Word and Spirit is,&nbsp;<strong><em>another</em></strong>. But when you have gained the conception of what the distinction is in these, the oneness, again, of the&nbsp;<strong><em>nature admits not division</em></strong>, so that the&nbsp;<strong><em>supremacy of the one First Cause</em></strong> is not split and cut up into differing Godships,&nbsp;<strong><em>neither does the statement harmonize with the Jewish dogma</em></strong> [<em>i.e.</em>, NOTE: He means Monotheism]&nbsp;but the truth passes in the&nbsp;<strong><em>mean between these two conceptions</em></strong>, destroying each heresy, and yet accepting what is useful to it from each. The&nbsp;<strong><em>Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word, and by the belief in the Spirit</em></strong>; while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the Nature abrogating this imagination of plurality. While yet again, of the Jewish conception, let the unity of the Nature stand; and of the Hellenistic, only the&nbsp;<em><strong>distinction as to persons</strong></em>; the remedy against a profane view being thus applied, as required, on either side. For it is as if the&nbsp;<em><strong>number of the triad were a remedy in the case of those who are in error as to the One</strong></em>, and the assertion of the unity for those whose beliefs are dispersed among a number of divinities.&nbsp;(Gregory of Nyssa,&nbsp;<em>The Great Catechism</em> ch. 3 in Schaff,&nbsp;<strong>Ante-Nicene,&nbsp;supra</strong>, at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AIAXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA477" target="_blank">477</a>.)</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">What did Gregory mean by a "First Cause" and others who are God by nature in this unity? Could Gregory really imagine created beings who are independent from the First Cause and are still each God?</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>The "Word" As A Distinct Being To Cement Refutation of Monotheism</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The editor of Gregory's&nbsp;<em>Great Catechism</em> in Greek ackowledges that when the Trinity prevents a "lapse into Judaism," Gregory means a "barren&nbsp;<strong><em>monotheism</em></strong>." (Saint Gregory (of Nyssa),&nbsp;<em>The Catechetical oration of Gregory of Nyssa</em> (1903) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=KqlKAAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA7" target="_blank">7 fn. 3</a>.) Instead of the Word being identical to God, Gregory taught "We cannot understand the Word without reference to some&nbsp;<em><strong>other Being</strong></em>." (Id., at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=KqlKAAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA11" target="_blank">11 fn.9</a>.) "The Word...is not the mere utterance of a voice. [It exists] after the manner of&nbsp;<strong><em>a real being</em></strong>." Id., at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=KqlKAAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA14" target="_blank">14 fn. 14</a>. "The Word and Spirit [are] personal&nbsp;<strong><em>self-subsistent powers</em></strong>." Id., at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=KqlKAAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA18" target="_blank">18 fn</a>. Scripture "teach[es] us to speak of a Word in&nbsp;<em><strong>actual being</strong></em>...." Id., at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=KqlKAAAAMAAJ&amp;dq=gregory%20nyssa%20the%20great%20catechism&amp;pg=PA19" target="_blank">19 fn. 14</a>. In Schaff, the heretical dualism of Gregory is clear: "the Word of God by its&nbsp;<strong><em>own self-subsistence</em></strong> is<strong> <em>distinct from Him</em></strong> from whom it <em><strong>has subsistence</strong></em>."&nbsp;<em>A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church </em>(edited by Philip Schaff, Henry Wace)(1893) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=AIAXAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA476" target="_blank">476</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Hence, according to Gregory, not only was the Word God but the Word was not identical to the Father. It was supposedly a distinct<strong><em> being separate and apart from the Father</em></strong>. (Jesus differs, saying the "Logos is not of myself...the Logos (Word) is not mine, but <strong><em>the Father's</em></strong> who sent me." John <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:10&amp;version=KJV">14:10</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:24&amp;version=KJV">24</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Again, all these conceptions were added to Tertullian's trinity doctrine, exploding Tertullian's idea into a completely idolatrous version which Tertullian warned against. And this was done with the deliberate scheme in mind of advancing an attack on monotheism. That is <strong><em>not conjecture</em></strong>, but <strong><em>a direct admission</em></strong> by the leader at the Council of Constantinople of 381 AD -- Gregory of Nyssa -- who first advanced the modern trinity doctrine in 381 AD.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Shema ("God is One") Banned In Reign of Justinian</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Because monotheism -- "the dogma of the Jews" -- was explicitly called a heresy by the leading voice from the Roman Church since 381 AD, it should come as no surprise that by 534 AD the Roman Empire under Justinian banned Jews reciting "The Lord Our God is One." (Deut. 6:4-9.) This is known as the Shema -- the most important prayer in Judaism.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">But Jesus in Mark <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2012:29&amp;version=ASV">12:29</a> quoted the Shema as the most important precept ("entolas") in all of Scripture. Jesus said it was the "<strong><em>first of all </em></strong><strong><em>entolas</em></strong><em>.</em>" The highest command.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">As explained in the <em>Cambridge History of Judaism</em>, the&nbsp;Justinian Codex of 534 A.D., in the interpretation of its section known as the Novella,&nbsp;issued in 538 A.D., the &ldquo;<strong><em>Shema Yisrael</em></strong>,&nbsp;sometimes considered the most important prayer in Judaism&nbsp;(&lsquo;Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one), <strong><em>was banned, as a denial of the&nbsp;Trinity</em></strong>." (&ldquo;Corpus Juris Civilis,&rdquo; <em>Wikipedia</em>. See also, Hyam Maccoby, <em>Antisemitism&nbsp;and Modernity</em> (Routledge, 2006) at 20 (&ldquo;Justinian... <strong><em>bann[ed] the Shema</em></strong>&nbsp;...&rdquo;)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Jewish historians relate that records from the Byzantine&nbsp;period (viz., Justinian) reveal that &ldquo;guards were sent to the&nbsp;synagogue to prevent recitation of the Shema because its proclamation&nbsp;of God&rsquo;s unity [<em>sic</em>, oneness] was thought to impugn, if only implicitly,&nbsp;the Christian notion of the Trinity."&nbsp;<em>See </em><em>The Cambridge History of Judaism</em> (contributors W. D. Davies, Louis Finkelstein)&nbsp;(Cambridge University Press, 1984) at 17. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Incidentally, the authors then note an&nbsp;unreliable myth developed that once the guards left, then the Shema would be&nbsp;recited at a point never done before (<em>i.e</em>., in the Musaf Kedusha portion of the&nbsp;service)&mdash;obviously because Gentile-police would not expect it there. But these&nbsp;authors think it is doubtful that this heroic subversion of the police&rsquo;s oversight&nbsp;really took place.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Hence, within two centuries from 381 AD, when the Trinity was explicitly refashioned to refute the "heresy of the Jewish dogma (monotheism)," the Roman government actually made it illegal to say "the Lord Our God is One" even though Jesus said this was the "most important precept" in all the Bible! (Mark <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2012:29&amp;version=ASV">12:29</a>.)</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>True Exalted Position of Jesus</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">We have pointed out that Daniel 7:13 shows the Son of Man returning on clouds of glory--signifying the presence of God is with Him. Divinity resides upon the Son of Man.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Similarly, Moses told us God's directions about a special prophet to come who indubitably is the same as the Son of Man in Daniel's prophecy:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><sup>17</sup> The LORD said to me: &ldquo;What they say is good.&nbsp;<sup>18</sup> I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and<em><strong> I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him</strong></em>.&nbsp;<sup>19</sup> I myself will <em><strong>call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name</strong></em>.&nbsp;(Deut. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+18&amp;version=NIV">18:17-19</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">We can also worship Jesus as a King.&nbsp; <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Chron.%2029.20" target="_blank" class="lbsBibleRef" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="1 Chron. 29.20">1 Chron. 29:20</a> says in the King James, "And David said to all the congregation, now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and <strong>worshipped</strong> the LORD, and <strong>the king<em>,</em></strong>" (KJV).</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>How Exaggerated Exaltation Denigrates God</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">By taking the truly exalted status of Jesus and exalting it idolatrously to compete with Yahweh, we see how in Jewish eyes we have placed God-the-Father in the background compared with our beloved Jesus. Hear the angst in this quote from a Jewish writer, Professor Louis Baeck, about what Christianity became, particularly at the hands of Paul (and our later purposeful anti-monotheism of 381 AD):</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">A turning point in the history of religion, of monotheism, is seen here [in 1 Cor. 1:4.] The old theocentric faith of Judaism is superseded by the new Christ-centered faith.<strong><em> The belief in God</em></strong>, the One, <strong>has receded before the belief in the Christ</strong>. Here is a parting of the ways in religion. It is true, the faithful would not think of the Messiah without being conscious of God; they would not lift up their minds toward the Son without at the same time being aware of the Father. But the human mind is such that an older belief is impaired by a new one, and the new belief commands the way of the future....<strong>God, as it were, was removed into the background</strong>....The bright light, the broad glory shines now around Christ. ("The Faith of Paul" by Prof. Louis Baeck,<em> Journal of Jewish Studies</em> (1952) Vol 3 Issue 3 at 93, 97.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Thus, the reason why Jews do not "listen to my words that the prophet [Jesus] speaks in my name," per Deut. 18:17-19, is because since 381 AD, we exalted Jesus to an independent godhood distinct from God-the-Father rather than teach what Christ Himself said: the Father "dwelled" in Jesus (John <a href="http://bible.cc/john/14-10.htm">14:10</a>); the "Logos is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." (John <a href="http://biblos.com/john/14-24.htm">14:24</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Hence, we Christians are to blame for laying a snare that caused those who believed in Yahweh not to trust Yahshua as their Messiah, and "listen to" Yahweh's "words" (Logos) dwelling in Yahshua / Yeshua/ Jesus. We hold <strong><em>the greater sin</em></strong> due to our idolatry blocking the Jew from hearing the Words that have life in them.</span></p>
<h2><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Conclusion</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Tertullian was correct. One's effort to exalt Christ by a Christology that goes too far can lead to idolatry. Idolatry means placing another god before God, the Father of Jesus. Th term "trinity" dangerously carries the explicit anti-monotheistic baggage of Gregory of Nyssa. It is shocking to consider but no less true that Gregory of Nyssa actually had an idolatrous goal -- the <strong>refutation of monotheism</strong> -- when he reformulated the trinity doctrine in 381 AD. By 538 AD, this purpose bore fruit because Roman law then even banned Jews saying 'God is One.'</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Instead, the truth is that Jesus/Yahshua was indwelled by the Shechinah/Shekinah presence of God. Jesus said so in John <a href="http://bible.cc/john/14-10.htm">14:10</a> and 14:24. The Shechinah presence is also known as "<strong>Divinity</strong> Abiding." This is the presence on the "clouds of glory" that Daniel in 7:13-14 prophesied the Son of Man (a human being) would arrive with when the Son of Man comes in triumph to become the ruler of all peoples.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>END</strong></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr />
<h2><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Further Study</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">There is nothing wrong worshipping at the feet of a man fully indwelled by God. When the Son of God comes with the glory of God, Daniel 7:13 says the world will worship Him. But is worshipping the man Himself apart from God's glory in Him -- <strong>treating the man as God Himself</strong> -- idolatry?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">For the analysis of others on this important question, read <a href="/recommendedreading/255-idolatry-worshipping-a-man.html">this page</a> where we collected various thoughts on this issue.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Is Grudem Correct Jesus Could Not Atone Unless He Was God Himself?</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Wayne Grudem in a silly and heretical argument says if Jesus was a created being and not fully God (in contrast to what Jesus actually says -- He was the unique begotten Son of Man indwelled fully by God the Father), then Jesus supposedly could not pay for atonement. Grudem argues:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">"If Jesus is merely a created being, and not fully God, &nbsp;then it is hard to see how he, a creature, could bear the full wrath of God against all our sins. Could<strong><em> any creature, no matter how great, really save us</em></strong>....Could we really depend on any creature fully for our salvation." (Wayne A. Grudem, Jeff Purswell,&nbsp;<em>Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith</em> (Zondervan, 1999) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Bi0jrhaviVgC&amp;lpg=PA115&amp;pg=PA115#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">115</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>What is wrong </strong>with that analysis? Why is it also <strong>extraordinarily heretical?</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">First, notice there is no biblical analysis by Grudem, unless Grudem is alluding to Paul's doctrine of original sin would taint Jesus if Jesus were truly a man .... a true creature.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Second, in the Bible, atonement is always by the blood of a <strong>living creature</strong>, whether a lamb or other living creature. It never says anything but blood can atone. In Leviticus<a href="http://bible.cc/leviticus/17-11.htm"> 17:11</a> it clearly states:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">For the life of a<strong><em> creature</em></strong> is in the<em><strong> blood</strong></em>, and I have given it to you to make&nbsp;<em><strong>atonement</strong></em> for yourselves on the altar; it is&nbsp;<em><strong>the blood that makes atonement for one's life</strong></em>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">But Grudem above says this is impossible. No creature can atone. But the Bible says the opposite.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The truth is Jesus was a <strong><em>man</em></strong> indwelled by God, as Jesus Himself says. Then His blood can fulfill the atonement. His act of sacrifice saves us by means of God's operative principle that an innocent lamb can pay for sins. Hence, Jesus is&nbsp;<strong><em>our Savior</em></strong> while God indwelling Him saves us and makes God our<em><strong> ultimate Savior by the agency of Jesus</strong></em>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">If Grudem is saying, as he seems to say, that Jesus only appeared to be a man, but was not, then Grudem's words fit Apostle John's warning that the message of the Anti-Christ is that Jesus did not truly come in the flesh.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Any way you look at it, Grudem's argument is highly unbiblical. In fact it clearly contradicts the Bible.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">When the Trinity doctrine is formulated correctly as Tertullian did there is no problem. But the way Grudem reformulates it, so that<strong><em> no creature's fleshly experience plays any role in our salvation</em></strong>, it feeds the&nbsp;docetic principle which John said was the message of the anti-Christ. John said the Word was "made flesh," but the false teachers say Jesus <strong><em>never</em></strong> came in "the flesh." The enemy says Jesus supposedly only appeared to be human.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Docetism is the doctrine which the Roman Catholic Church adopted in conjunction with the modern Trinity doctrine in the 300s to affirm Jesus and God were of one "substance." This principle that Jesus only appeared human is expressed in the writings of Hilary in the 390s, Jerome in the 400s and Aquinas in the 1200s. They each claim Jesus's flesh and blood only appeared to be human but were not truly human, and therefore Jesus suffered no pain at all on the cross. See our article <a href="/recommendedreading/206-marcionite-influence-on-rcc.html">"Marcion's Influence over Roman Catholic Church</a>."</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Hence, Grudem is an example of an exaggerated level of exaltation of Jesus that is grounded on contradictions of the Bible.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Where Did The Attitude of Exalting Jesus Over Yahweh Come From? Jesus? Or Paul?</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A9-11&amp;version=NIV">Philippians 2: 9-11</a>, Paul&nbsp;said,&nbsp;&ldquo;God&hellip;bestowed on Him (Jesus) the Name which is <strong>above every name</strong>, that at the<strong> Name of Jesus</strong> every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth, and&nbsp;under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the&nbsp;glory of God the Father.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Thus, Paul implicitly says Jesus's Name is above the Name of God, <em>i.e.</em>, Yahweh.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Contrast how Jesus says He lifted up Yahweh's name (not His own name apart from Yahweh):</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">&mdash;&ldquo;I have manifested <strong>Your Name</strong> to the men whom You gave Me out of&nbsp;the world&hellip;.&rdquo;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:%206&amp;version=NIV">John 17: 6</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">&mdash;&ldquo;&hellip;Holy Father, keep them in <strong>Your Name</strong>, the Name which you&nbsp;have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. While I was with them, I was&nbsp;keeping them in <strong>Your Name</strong> which you have given Me.&rdquo;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:%2011-12&amp;version=NIV">John 17: 11-12</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">&mdash;&ldquo;I have made <strong>Your Name</strong> known to them, and will make it known&hellip;.&rdquo;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:%2026&amp;version=NIV">John 17: 26</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">What name is Jesus exalting? His own or Yahweh's name? Here is the Name Jesus referenced:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">&ldquo;Say to the Israelites, &lsquo;<strong>Yahweh</strong>, the God of your fathers&mdash;the God of Abraham, the&nbsp;God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob&mdash;has sent me to you.&rsquo; This (Yahweh) is<strong> My&nbsp;Name forever</strong>, the Name by which I am to be remembered from generation to&nbsp;generation.&rdquo; (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:14&amp;version=NIV">Exodus 3:14</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">In the Our Father, Jesus prayed "Your Name" should be "hallowed" / "sanctified" <em>i.e.</em>, kept holy.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Do we keep God's Name Holy and in the position Jesus placed it if we follow Paul who put Jesus's name "above every name,' implicitly even the name of Yahweh?</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt; color: #0000ff;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">Tampering with Scripture to Elevate Jesus Further</span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Jesus said "all things are possible through God." &nbsp;Paul in Philippians 4:13 says in the oldest manuscripts, "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." Wouldn't you naturally think this is talking about God? Besides, Jesus told us to pray to the Father in Jesus' name, but Jesus did not say we could do all things through Jesus who strengthens us. Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit and the Father who strengthens us.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">But to avoid that result, Jesus is given God's role in Paul's words by a late alteration which the King James chose to follow:</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">I can do all things through <strong>Christ</strong> which strengtheneth me. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A13&amp;version=KJV">Philippians 4:13 KJV</a>)</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">Many versions follow the KJV. But the NIV reads:</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;"></span><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">I can do all this through him who gives me strength. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A13&amp;version=NIV">NIV</a>.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">But transcribers after Nicea - where Jesus was changed from son of God to God, the son, added "Christ" in place of "him."</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">through Christ which strengtheneth me&nbsp;&mdash; <em><strong>The oldest manuscripts omit &ldquo;Christ&rdquo;</strong></em>; then translate, &ldquo;In Him </span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">who&nbsp;giveth me power&rdquo;&nbsp;that is, by virtue of my living union and identification with Him, who is my </span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">strength (<a href="http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?q1=Galatians+2:20&amp;t1=en_nas" target="_blank" id="61" class="stL" style="color: #561649;">Galatians 2:20</a>). Compare&nbsp;<a href="http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?q1=1%20Timothy+1:12&amp;t1=en_nas" target="_blank" id="62" class="stL" style="color: #561649;">1 Timothy 1:12</a>, whence probably, &ldquo;Christ&rdquo; was inserted here by transcribers. (<a href="http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/view.cgi?book=php&amp;chapter=4&amp;verse=1">StudyLight.org</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">So be aware that anything you read that appears to elevate Jesus to God may be tampered with. Then consider that all copies of the NT were systematically corrected after Nicea. The only way to prove the original text is to find gaps in that systematic correction barrier after 325 AD, and find it in a text that can actually be dated reliably prior to 325 AD.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>'Ye Are gods' Statement by Jesus</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Some claim Jesus said He was God in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:34&amp;version=NIV">John 10:34</a>. He did not. Rather, He was accused of saying that, to which in reply, Jesus said He was "God's Son." Then Jesus quotes&nbsp;Psalm 82:6 where the word Elohim is spoken which in that context does not mean "God." However, the Greek text renders this word inaccurately as "God." In full context, the dialogue went at follows:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><sup>33</sup> &ldquo;We are not stoning you for any good work,&rdquo; they replied, &ldquo;but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><sup>34</sup> Jesus answered them,&nbsp;&ldquo;Is it not written in your Law, &lsquo;I have said<strong><em> you are &ldquo;gods&rdquo;</em></strong>&rsquo;<sup>[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10&amp;version=NIV#fen-NIV-26516d" title="See footnote d">d</a>]</sup>? <sup>35</sup> If he called them &lsquo;gods,&rsquo; to whom the word of God came&mdash;and Scripture cannot be set aside&mdash; <sup>36</sup> what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because <em><strong>I said, &lsquo;I am God&rsquo;s Son</strong></em>&rsquo;? <sup>37</sup> Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. <sup>38</sup>But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.&rdquo; <sup>39</sup> Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (John <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:33-39&amp;version=NIV">10:33-39</a>, NIV.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Thus, Jesus says here that all He previously said was "I am God's Son." This they understood to be claiming to be God if you listen to the Greek. But the word that the Jews used must have been the word "Elohim" because Jesus quotes a passage back saying "Elohim" from the Psalms. The Greek translator of John&rsquo;s words chose "gods" and "God" to convey the thought, but it mismatches the Scripture being quoted by Jesus.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Hence, more accurately, the Jews said "you claim to be Elohim" in verse 33, to which Jesus quotes back Psalm 82:6 'You are Elohim" to defend Himself. So was "Theos" the right translation of John's words? Was Jesus calling each member of His audience, including Himself, God? No if theos necessarily means God.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">So to understand, let's go study the word <em>Elohim </em>which is in the original Psalm Jesus is quoting, and is being translated as God and "gods" in Greek.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="color: #0000ff; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Elohim Word Study</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The word "Elohim" can sometimes refer to the true God, sometimes to Mighty men who act as God's agent and can also refer to gods, plural, who are not Yahweh and are false. Here is an example of both:</span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear YAHWEH</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><strong><em>thy Elohim</em></strong></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">[which KJV translated as "God"], and serve him, and shalt&nbsp;swear by his name.</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">Deu 6:14 Ye shall not go after other</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><em><strong>elohim</strong></em></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">, of the</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><em><strong>&nbsp;</strong></em></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">people which are round about you;</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">This acknowledges others are "elohim" too.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">In one verse, Abraham is called an<em> elohim</em>.</span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">Gen 23:5 And the sons of ??th answered Abraham, saying to him, 6&ldquo;Hear us, my master [adonai also translated LORD in KJV]: You are</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><strong><em> a Elohim</em></strong></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">[translated mighty in KJV but in other versions as GOD] prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us withholds from you his burial site, from burying your dead.&rdquo;</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Moses in another passage is called by God an Elohim to Aaron and Pharoah.</span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">Exo 4:16 &ldquo;And he shall speak for you to the people. And it shall be that he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be an</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><em><strong> elohim </strong></em></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">for him.Exo 7:1 And YAHWEH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><strong> elohim</strong></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">To Pharoah and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">God also promises to send us a Savior and an elohim:</span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness to Yahweh of hosts in the land of Mitsrayim. When they cry to Yahweh because of the oppressors,</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><em><strong>He sends them a Savior and an Elohim</strong></em></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">, and shall deliver them.</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Finally, God addresses men as also elohim in this passage which we shall see our Lord quotes:</span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><em><strong> elohim</strong></em></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">; and all of you are children of the most High.</ul>
</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Jesus references this passage which in Greek renders "elohim" spoken by Jesus as "gods."</span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">Joh 10:34 Yahushua answered them, Is it not written in your law, Isaid, Ye are Theos.</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><em> Theos</em></span></p>
<ul style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18px;">being the Greek word translated as &ldquo;God&rdquo;.&nbsp;</ul>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">We know that this is a quote of Psalm 82:6 and we know the Hebrew word&nbsp;was <em><strong>Elohim</strong></em>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">So was Jesus claiming to be God Almighty, or elohim in the sense used in Psalm 82:6 -- mighty men acting as God's agents, children of the most High?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">It seems clear Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 to make the latter point about Himself. As Isaiah 19:20 says, Yahweh will send a "Savior and <em><strong>an Elohim</strong></em>" to us. But it remains God acting in Jesus that makes Jesus an Elohim -- God's agent, just as was Moses and Abraham who were also Elohim.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">And because Jesus was answering their charge, we must conclude the accusation was that Jesus claimed to be ELOHIM -- a Mighty Agent of God. Jesus answered by saying in effect 'you are elohim' was spoken to the "children of the Most High" in Ps 82:6, and thus Elohim, if applied to Himself, would be true per Psalm 82:6. Thus 'why challenge me for saying 'I am the Son of God.'" Now it makes perfect sense. And Jesus did not say He was God, but He said "I am the Son of God" and as a "child of the Most High" the label Elohim is proper.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt; color: #0000ff;"><strong>What About Imagery of Jesus To Those Who Insist Jesus is God apart from the Father?</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Another proof that we have exalted Jesus improperly, and mistaken His divinity (<em>i.e.</em>, the Shekinah presence in Him) with Jesus being God Himself, is our use of images of Jesus would therefore violate the second commandment had the early church understood Jesus in this way.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Instead, as demonstrated here and elsewhere, Jesus, John and the early church viewed Jesus as divinely indwelled. An image of Jesus posed no violation of the second commandment against images of living beings to depict God. We read:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">&ldquo;You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them&rdquo; (Ex. 20:4-5).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">However, when in 381AD this changed, deliberately to refute monotheism, as Gregory said, we now had Jesus depicted as God, and lots of icons around which means the decision in 381 AD now implied that the church had sinfully been depicting God as a man. What about that?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">This incongruity was faced during the Reformation. Rather than reconsider the modern trinity doctrine, the divines at Westminster said that Exodus 20:4-5 means we must stop making pictures of Jesus. Specifically, the&nbsp;Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 109) includes the following among the things forbidden in the second commandment: &ldquo;the making any representation of God, of all or of<strong><em> any of the three persons</em></strong>, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever.&rdquo; (David VanDrunen, "<a href="http://www.amoskeagchurch.org/article/celebrating-jesus-birth-without-his-picture/">Celebrating Christ's Birthday -- Without His Picture</a>," Dec. 2006.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Even so, we have never stopped making many pictures of Jesus. Why? Probably because we are reading the Scripture, and we do really understand Jesus in John 14 says He is INDWELLED by God, not that He Himself is God. A big difference!</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Thus, if you are not convinced I am correct, then you better get rid of all those pictures, because you are committing idolatry in that way if what you believe about Jesus is true.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The correct solution is to follow Jesus's teachings about Himself, and no church doctrine.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="color: #0000ff;">Quotes Questioning Whether Proper to Make Jesus God Distinct from Fathe</span>r</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Hooker (1593):</strong> 'Our belief in the Trinity, the co-eternity of the Son of God with his Father, the proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, these with such other principal points are in Scripture nowhere to be found by express literal mention; only deduced they are out of Scripture by collection.'<a href="http://dawnchristadelphians.net/books/trin/trinch8.htm#N_13_"> </a> Hooker, Richard, <em>Ecclesiastical Polity, </em>Bk. i, para 14.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>John Milton (1608-1674):</strong> 'For my part I adhere to the Holy Scriptures alone, I follow no other heresy or sect. If, therefore, the Father be the God of Christ, and the same be our God, and if there be none other God but one, there can be no God beside the Father.' Quoted in Hugh&nbsp;Stannus, <em>History of the Origin of the Doctrine of the Triinity </em>(1899) at&nbsp;<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=u-wrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA29&amp;ots=apSwVd9Ns6&amp;dq=stannus%20john%20milton&amp;pg=PA29#v=onepage&amp;q=stannus%20john%20milton&amp;f=false">29</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Dr. Neander (1850):</strong> 'The Doctrine of the Trinity does not, it appears to me, belong strictly to the fundamentals of the Christian faith; as it appears from the fact that it is explicitly set forth in no one particular passage of the New Testament; for the only one in which this is done, the passage relating to the three that bear record (1 John 5) is undoubtedly spurious, and in its ungenuine shape testifies to the fact, how foreign such a collection is from the style of the New Testament writings. We find in the New Testament no other fundamental article besides that of which the apostle Paul says that other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, the preaching of Jesus Christ as the Messiah; and the foundation of His religion is designated by Christ himself as the faith in the only true God and in Jesus Christ whom He hath sent'. Neander, <em>History of Christian Religion</em>, vol. ii, p286</span></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>More Study Notes</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Hippolytus was the first to distinguish the Logos from the Father, as a distinct being. &ldquo;Hippolytus championed the Logos doctrine of the Greek Apologists, which distinguished the Father from the Logos (&lsquo;Word&rsquo;).&rdquo;&nbsp;&ldquo;Hippolytus of Rome,&rdquo; Wikipedia (2011)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">But Apostle John had said the one God sent Himself as the Word (&ldquo;the Word/Logos was God&rdquo;) to &ldquo;become flesh&rdquo; (John 1:14). Jesus made it very clear not to confuse Himself with the Logos. Jesus said: &ldquo;the<em><strong> Logos is not of myself</strong></em>...the <strong><em>Logos (Word) is not mine, but the Father&rsquo;s who sent me</em></strong>.&rdquo; John 14:10, 24. Jesus said it was the &ldquo;Father who dwells in me.&rdquo; John 14:10. Hence, the<strong><em> Father and the Word are identical</em></strong>! It is the Shekinah glory/presence of God that came into Jesus at His baptism. This is why Jesus is properly regarded as Divine.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">However, Hippolytus introduced the heretical view that the Word (God) could be non-identical to the Father (God) dwelling in Jesus. That makes Hippolytus a major cause of departure from monotheism in his failure to understand correctly the source of the divinity of Jesus: the Father dwelling in Jesus as Jesus Himself said and as Apostle John meant by saying the &ldquo;Word became flesh.&rdquo; (John 1:14; 14:10,24.)</span></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Isaiah 48:6 - Yahweh Has Sent Me With His Spirit</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Isaiah <a href="http://bible.cc/isaiah/48-16.htm">48:6 </a>(NIV) says:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">"Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign LORD [Yahweh] has sent me, with his Spirit."</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Origen from the 200 AD period interprets this passage to apply to Jesus while others claim it speaks solely of Isaiah himself or of Cyrus. (If the latter, the Bible contains dual prophecies of Cyrus and Jesus where the words apply to both identically.) Origen writes ( quoted in <a href="http://bible.cc/isaiah/48-16.htm">Clarke's commentary</a>):</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">"Who is it that saith in Isaiah, And now the Lord hath sent me and his Spirit? in which, as the expression is ambiguous, is it the Father and the Holy Spirit who have sent Jesus; or the <em><strong>Father, who hath sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit</strong></em>. The latter is the true interpretation." - Origen cont. Cels. lib. 1.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">What appears the correct reading is God / Yahweh sent "me" (Messiah) "with His spirit," <em>i.e.</em>, by giving the Spirit to Yahshua, God was sending forth Yashua / Jesus.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Some Theodosian-trinitarians cited Isaiah 48:6 as support for their views. (Stannus: <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=u-wrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA29&amp;ots=apSwVd9Ns6&amp;dq=stannus%20john%20milton&amp;pg=PA32#v=onepage&amp;q=stannus%20john%20milton&amp;f=false">32</a>.) But it stands against their view. Because clearly Isaiah disconnects Yahweh from "me" and connects only via the Spirit that was sent upon "me" Messiah. If Yahweh is identical to "me" then this is an incongruous way for Yahweh to speak about Himself.</span></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Stannus On Lack of Proof Texts of Theodosian-Trinity</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Stannus in 1899 wrote:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">We are not aware of any texts, except the above, which have been used as Bible proofs of the Trinity. Again we challenge anyone to find us one passage in the whole compass of the Bible where the doctrine of three persons in one God is stated or even hinted at. It is only "by inference" says one, "by collection" says another, "by the authority of the Church," says another, that we derive the doctrine of the Trinity. (Stannus, <em>supra</em>, at <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=u-wrAAAAYAAJ&amp;lpg=PA29&amp;ots=apSwVd9Ns6&amp;dq=stannus%20john%20milton&amp;pg=PA35#v=onepage&amp;q=stannus%20john%20milton&amp;f=false">35</a>.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Fore more quotes see, John Wilson, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=n_kUAAAAYAAJ&amp;dq=john+owen+divine+origin+of+the+scriptures&amp;source=gbs_navlinks_s">Concessions of Trinitarians</a> (1845).</span></p>
<h2><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">John 8:40 - Jesus Says He Is A Man in Communication with God</span></h2>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">But now ye seek to kill me, <em><strong>a man</strong></em> that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. John <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:40&amp;version=KJV">8:40 </a>KJV</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">"As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, <em><strong>a man</strong></em> who has told you the truth that <em><strong>I heard from God</strong></em>. Abraham did not do such things." (<a href="http://biblehub.com/john/8-40.htm">John 8:40 NIV</a>)</span></span></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Son of God Terminology</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Adam is called &ldquo;Son of God&rdquo;: <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%203:38&amp;version=KJV">Luke 3 :38 </a>(KJV)&hellip;Adam, who was son of God.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The Israelites are called &ldquo;Sons of God&rdquo;: Deuteronomy <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2014:1&amp;version=YLT">14 :1 </a>(YLT) "Sons ye [are] to Jehovah your God; ye do not cut yourselves, nor make baldness between your eyes for the dead;"</span></p>
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Savior Terminology</strong></span></h2>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">The simple fact that Jesus / Yahshua / Yeshua is called &ldquo;the Savior&rdquo; and that in the Bible, God is also called&nbsp;&ldquo;the Savior of Israel&rdquo; (Isaiah 60:16), is presented as an evidence that Jesus is God.&nbsp;But in Judges, men who were anointed by the Lord Yahweh to save Israel are also called&nbsp;&ldquo;saviors.&rdquo; Read for instance Judges 3:9 where the Hebrew term &ldquo;moshi'a&rdquo;=savior is applied&nbsp;to Otniel.&nbsp;The truth is Yahweh is Lord &amp; Savior, and he appoints men &ndash; Yahshua, the&nbsp;Judges etc. - who are (also) called saviors.</span></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Buzzard's Claim The Current Trinity of the Church Represents Idolatry</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Anthony Buzzard, a Unitarian Minister, wrote an excellent critique of modern Trinity doctrine. His work <em>The Doctrine of the Trinity</em>&nbsp;(1998) -- available from Amazon at this<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Doctrine-Trinity-Christianitys-Self-Inflicted/dp/1573093092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1355728131&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=buzzard%2C+the+doctrine+of+the+trinity"> link</a> -- is an excellent resource for Unitarian explanations of various passages used to defend the modern Trinity doctrine. In this work, Buzzard claims the current Trinity doctrine represents idolatry -- a violation of the First Commandment of the Ten with these words:</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">When Christianity adopted a godhead of more than one person, it <em><strong>unwittingly flirted with idolatry</strong></em>. It embarked on a course of <em><strong>lawlessness</strong></em> by embracing "another God" beside the only true God, the Father. Christianity thus broke the first commandment, and has continued on the same troubled path, unaware of the source of its intractable problems.&nbsp;<em>Id.</em>, at 308-309.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino;">[At one point] Christianity began to worship as God one who was created. The faith thus fell into idolatry. <em>Id.</em>, at page 312</span>.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Doug</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;">More Study Notes</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism -- <a href="http://www.elpenor.org/nyssa/great-catechism.asp?pg=51">online in a series of html pages</a>.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Gregory of Nyssa lived from 330-395 AD.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;">Schaff, Gregory of Nyssa - <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=6hJErYKLZiYC&amp;pg=PT1517&amp;lpg=PT1517&amp;dq=great+catechism+nyssa+written+date&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=BbvFWFCp_w&amp;sig=qigN48ggWV49b4MHRPH8G5wcoDA&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_aYzUcfRKqzWiALDpYGIDA&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwBzgK">Dogmatic Treatises</a> -- online ebook available for $2.51 from books.google.com</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'book antiqua', palatino; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></p> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<span class="article_separator">&nbsp;</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="bottom_top"></div>
<div id="bottom">
</div>
</div>
<div id="footer"><strong>Content View Hits</strong> : 19460720<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var pv = new Array(1,0,0,0,1);
var trdlname = "/downloads";
//<![CDATA[
var regex = /\.(?:doc|eps|jpg|png|svg|xls|ppt|pdf|xls|zip|txt|vsd|vxd|js|css|rar|exe|wma|mov|avi|wmv|mp3)($|\&|\?)/;
//]]>
var trlkname = "/external/";
var trmlname = "/mailto/";
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://jesuswordsonly.com/modules/mod_analytics/gatr.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-3747914");
pageTracker._initData();
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}
</script>
</div>
<div class="copyright"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink