The Divinity of Messiah, The Tri-Unity of YHVH...

[Paddy by Grace]

The Divinity of Messiah, The Tri-Unity of YHVH Elohim….

It has been stated, by either the ignorant or the deceived, that Messiah is not Divine, that He is not YHVH/Elohim/God; and some also state that it isn’t important that we know specifically Who Messiah is, as long as we simply know He is the Messiah.-And they further incorrectly state that in Biblical times the children of Israel weren’t expecting Messiah to be Divine. - But these false notions are contrary to what Scripture and Messiah Himself says: We are not only to just have a simple knowledge that He is the Messiah, or only know generically about Him as being “The Lamb”; but rather we are to have a deep personal relationship with Him in our heart and life, even as the Bride with the Groom…And also that He reveals the Father to us in our spirit by the Ruach HaKodesh (The Holy Spirit) of YHVH. So we see then: In Tanakh [The O.T.]; and in Judaic literature-(mainly Targumim, Midrashim and Judaic commentary from Yeshua’s time and back before His birth); and also in the writings of the Qumran community of the Dead Sea Scrolls; in verses in the Brit HaChadashah [N.T.]; and 1st to pre-4th century AD/(b.c.e.) writings, both historical and from early Believers in Yeshua Messiah, that it is NOT the case that in early Biblical times Judaism wasn’t expecting a Messiah Who was Divine; but rather the idea that HaMashiach/The-Messiah would be Divine is well established in early Biblical Messianic Judaism. – Following are some articles and excerpts, some were written quite some time back and are from a Messianic Believer perspective, some by Christian scholars, but there a lot of very good information in them – and more than enough, for one who is willing to study it out, to come to the obvious conclusion that the Tanakh [Old Testament], Brit HaChadashah [New Testament] and early Judaism during Biblical times held that Messiah would be Divine – a part of the Tri-Unity of YHVH Elohim/God.



NOTE: Just for your information: In some of the articles below, HaShem in Hebrew means: “The-Name”refers to YHVH; and in some places a * or a – is used in place of vowels when typing LORD, Lord, Adonai, or God, as is the practice in Orthodox Judaism to show respect for The Name and Titles of YHVH, when spoken or written outside Scripture. – While we as Messianic Believers get our Doctrine from the Written Word of God the Bible, and not from Rabbinic Judaism, yet the following will show that the idea of the Tri-Unity of YHVH and the Divinity of Messiah is not a Christian/Catholic invention. You may not agree with what or how everything below is written, but if one is teachable and looks at all the facts presented, the conclusion that Yeshua/Jesus Messiah is YHVH Elohim, a part of the Tri-Unity of YHVH Elohim, is undeniable! - This is simply an introduction to this subject, there is much more in support that just these articles below, and there are many more verses in the Bible that show this than are outlined in the articles below. -- If you are deceived, don’t let the enemy deceive you any longer!...Pray for discernment and deliverance from the doctrines of demons and teaching of men. If you are ignorant – learn, and pray for protection from the heresy and apostasy and deception that is ever increasing in the world today….




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Messiah is The Word/Davar of Elohim YHVH, the Creator who came to His creation as The Son Yeshua, to draw mankind back to Himself from a lost world that was even as a page of the Heavenly Torah Scroll that had fallen away, so that we could once again not just walk with Him as in the Garden of Eden as the Word of Elohim walked with Adam and Eve – but that we might now walk with Him for eternity in the garden of the hearts of those who Know Him….




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Messiah would be the LORD God – www.jesusplusnothing.com/messiah/messiah.htm

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

This verse points out the inescapable fact that the Messiah is God Almighty appearing in human form. That this passage was considered Messianic is evident from the fact that verse7 says that the Child would sit on the throne of David forever, a description which only fits the Messiah.

In the Targum of Isaiah we read: "His name has been called from old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed One (Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us."

Pereq Shalom: R. Yose the Galilean said: "The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Midrash Mishle, S. Buber edition: The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Pele ["Miracle"], Yo'etz ["Counselor"], Mashiah ["Messiah"], El ["God"], Gibbor ["Hero"], and Avi 'Ad Shalom ["Eternal Father of Peace"]


Whoever this Child is one thing remains certain - This Child must shine forth from Galilee according to Isaiah 9:1:
'Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past He humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali but in the future He will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea along the Jordan...'

NOTE: In an attempt to avoid the impact of this passage’s significance to the divinity of the Messiah, certain Jewish Publications have translated it in a way as to suggest that the divine titles are not messianic in nature. Rather, they are descriptions of God:
For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of peace]. (This appears as Isaiah 9:5 in the Stone Edition Tanakh, Arts Scroll Series, published by Mesorah Publications Ltd.; Brooklyn, NY, 1998)

The great rabbi Ibn Ezra responds: There are some interpreters who say that ‘wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father’ are the names of God, and that only ‘prince of peace’ is the name of the child. But according to my view, the right interpretation is that they are all the names of the child. (Walter Riggans, Yeshua Ben David [Wowborough, East Sussex; MARC, 1995], p. 370)

Jeremiah 23:5-6 'The days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'When I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a king who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In His days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which He will be called; The Lord our Righteousness (YHVH Tseidkeynu).'

The Targums concluded that this passage was speaking of Messiah.

For instance, the great Rabbi David Kimchi wrote in reference to this verse, 'By the righteous Branch is meant Messiah.' The compilers of the Targum agreed with Kimchi since they introduced Messiah by name in this passage. (David Baron, Rays of Messiah’s Glory: Christ in the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1886], p. 78)

Hebrew scholar Alfred Edersheim quotes other Rabbinic writings in reference to this passage:
On Jer. xxiii, 5, 6 the Targum has it: ‘And I will raise up for David the Messiah the just.’ This is one of the passages from which, according to Rabbinic views, one of the names of the Messiah is derived, viz.: Jehovah our Righteousness. So in the Talmud (Babha Bathra 75b), in the Midrash on Ps. xxii.1, Prov.xix.21, and in that on Lamentations I 16. (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1972], pt. 2, p. 731).



Hence, we find the Hebrew Scriptures testifying to the fact that Messiah would be the Lord Himself. (Hebrew YHVH / Adonai)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Tri-Unity of YHVH Elohim - APOLOGIA III



All Rights Reserved @ 1988/1993

[The Messianic Jewish & Gentile Believing community only, is hereby

given permission to re-print and distribute this file as is on a non-

profit basis only, or to quote from it if need be in secondary tracts

/responses as long as the sources are identified.]



The following are replies from the Observant Messianic Jewish community

to *the Gentile Christian Community, and also to those outside of

Conservative Christianity that hold to NON-Orthodox-Christian views

concerning the nature of HaShem. This article is given to defend our

stance, beliefs, and faith. Material for this file has resulted from

public discussions on *Computer Bulletin Board systems on this

particular subject. This should not necessarily be considered the

"final word" on this subject, as this is a very brief over-view of

these matters, and not an indepth study.

This file is only meant to introduce these subjects.



*(The wording of this file is so geared to present these ideas to the

Gentile Believing community. For a more Judaic approach to this

subject, or if you'd like to see additional information on this topic,

please either see the file: APOLOGIA.TX1 @ Article III, or at the end

of this file in PART IV, where parts from this are given.)



*(Reading back through Parts 1 through 3 of this file, they appear

somewhat disjointed in thought in a few places. This is due in part to

this file originally having been composed in response to on-going

discussion on this topic on Computer BBS systems, and so most of the

parties were already familiar with certain criteria that may/may-not be

immediately obvious to those of you reading this, {without the benefit

of having seen the other 'sides' discussion that led to this file}.

Rather than completely re-write this file, I have decided to leave it

in more or less the same form that it was first uploaded to the BBS

echo in. With that in mind, it is still my hope that this will provide

some information you will find of value.)



This is the *printed-tract, hand-out version, also suitable for

computer distribution, (per guidelines above); as available on:

MIDRASH BBS @ 9600 baud (303)-289-6864.



[In this file, the Orthodox Judaic practice of substituting for the

transliterated vowels of the Hebrew Names of L-rd and G*d, & also the

substitution of vowels in their English equivalents, (except when

quoting or directly referring to Scripture), has been followed, - in

remembrance of the Mitzvah: Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD

thy God in vain. Zohar quotations in this file are often taken from

the Amsterdam version. The quotations from Tanakh/(The Older Covenant)

will sometimes vary a verse or two in location in certain translations

from what is given, depending on which version you are using.]



+================================================================+

| /\ |

| ____/_ \____ |

| \ ___\ \ / |

| !!!!!!! \/ / \/ / !!!!!!! |

| ||||||| / /\__/_/\ ||||||| |

| ||||||| /__\ \_____\ ||||||| |

| | ***W*** \ / ***W*** | |

| _-_ T \/ T _-_ |

| | |----------------------------------------------| | |

| | | Sh'ma Yisrael Y-H-V-H ELOHEINU Y-H-V-H Echad | | |

| | | V'ahata et Y-H-V-H Elohekha b'khol l'vavcha | | |

| | | oovkhol nafsh'kha ovvkhol me'odekha | | |

| | |----------------------------------------------| | |

| -_- -_- |

| | | |

+================================================================+

PART I

THE TRI-UNITY OF Y-H-V-H EL*HIM

{Various modern Trinity formulas, or Modalism?

-(or)-

Is there a road between these two ditches}



There are two main ideas expressed in "Christian" understanding on the

nature of Y-H-V-H EL*HIM {(the) L-RD G*D} today: Trinity -The idea that

there are Three absolutely distinct Persons which together are the One

G*d; and Modalism: - The idea that the One G*d is an absolute

singularity Who manifests to mankind as either the Father, the Son, or

the Holy Spirit, but that because G*d is a singularity, then Each is

actually the Other, and that the Son while on earth was all Three.

It is my contention both of these ideas have "some" truth, & as a

result, can both be argued from a Scriptural viewpoint. There IS ONLY

One G*d/El*him! And yet the One G*d/El*him shows Himself to mankind as

the Father, the Son/Messiah, and the Ruach HaKodesh/Holy Spirit, -{not

assuming these three "modes" one at a time, but expressing Himself to

mankind, and from eternity, as Three}. This idea is called the Unity,

or the Tri-Unity of HaShem/Y-H-V-H, and I believe it is closer to the

Biblical understanding, and perhaps is closer to what the original idea

of the Trinity was, before it digressed into a type of 'polytheism'

expressed by certain of the more modern understandings of the G*dhead.

First, let me try to illustrate all three of these ideas by a

physical illustration - {noting that the physical is a poor

representation, (at best), of the Spiritual}.



TRINITY: {Modern}: Three separate candle-holders with three candles in

them burning, and together understood as representing G*d. {Ancient}:

The ancient idea, I believe, was closer to the idea of one menorah/

candle-holder with three branches, holding three burning candles, and

so, was closer to the idea of the Tri-Unity of HaShem, as follows:



TRI-UNITY: One candle-holder, holding three candles braided into one

candle; or else: one candle with three wicks burning with one flame.



MODALISM: One three branched candle-holder, with one candle that moves

back and forth between the three branches.



First, before I go on, we should establish some things expressed in

Scripture that all three of these ideas hold. First: Yeshua/(Jesus)

is G*d! The Father is G*d, and the Holy Spirit is G*d. This is a

given understanding in all three of these viewpoints above, but it is

also where the similarity ceases. As one who holds to the Tri-Unity

stance: I believe that Yeshua Messiah's Divine nature IS TOTALLY G*d/

El*him; but NOT THE TOTALITY of El*him, (which is NOT in conflict with

Scripture that states Yeshua/(Jesus) is the fullness of the G*dhead

bodily!) Also I believe this concerning the Father and Ruach HaKodesh/

(The Holy Spirit), - that Each is El*him; yet: Each is not, (neither in

specific nor in absolute reality), completely and totally the Other,

(as would be expressed by the Hebrew word yacheed: an absolute singular

one). Rather I hold that the Hebrew word which is used Biblically,

Echad - (a composite/Unity One - as in evening/morning echad/one day;

man and wife echad/one flesh; Hear O Israel Y-H-V-H ELOHEINU Y-H-V-H

Echad/One.), provides a correct understanding of the Tri-Unity. And as

a result, each One is never apart from the Other, - {as that would be a

wrong idea of three absolute singular/(yacheed) beings, that

collectively are called the Echad/(One) G*d/El*him.}

I will attempt to show this from a Biblical, ancient Rabbinic, and

historical stance. Let's start at Genesis -{in Hebrew: Beresheet = (In

the beginning). A good place to start <grin>}.

Gen.1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the

surface of the waters. And the Ruach/Spirit of Elohim moved over the

surface of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was

light...

In the beginning Elohim... No one really has a problem in under-

standing here that Elohim includes the Father, {some would say that God

here is only the Father}. Then we see ...the Spirit of God moved...,

which is held by some to be the Holy Spirit, by others the Spirit of

King Messiah - {the ancient Rabbinic stance is that this Spirit is none

other than the Spirit of King Messiah}. Then we see: ...And God

SAID... - and many would agree that included in this "SAID" is the idea

of the Word/Davar/Memra of El*him, the pre-Incarnate Word of El*him,

Who became Yeshua the Messiah. But whatever viewpoint is adopted, it

is clear that the idea of the "Spirit of Elohim", is a distinct

Manifestation of El*him, not expressing the totality of El*him, but yet

His Spirit. This passage is paralleled in John 1- In the beginning was

the Davar/Word/Memra, and the Davar was with Elohim, and the Davar was

Elohim. The Same was in the beginning with Elohim. ...All things were

made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made....

First of all, we know that El*him/G*d alone is the Creator, and

so relating back to the idea in Gen. of: ...And God said:..., we see

from a physical illustration, that once you as a person speak, your

words are both you, and with you. -[in other words: you couldn't hear

your own words, nor could the person you are speaking to, unless your

words, (which are a part of you), were external to yourself!] Man is

created in the image of G*d, and you illustrate the idea of the Davar/

Memra/Word of G*d, (in a very limited sense of course), every time you

speak! Your words are both with you, and are you, yet they are

external to you, as they are heard by your own ears!

It has been said: The Father spoke, and the Word is the Messiah,

and the breath that carries the Word is the Ruach HaKodesh/The Holy

Spirit.

But, here we must state that no 'part' of El*him, should ever be

stated as being "dumb/non-intelligent"; rather: the Word, and the

Breath of El*him are not simply "active forces", (as the Holy Spirit is

stated to be by Jehovah witnesses), but instead, are Each: expressive,

conscious, and communicative. -[Who would say that a part of El*him is

non-conscious, or only a force?! Any Manifestation of the True G*d/

El*him must of Itself hold the nature of the True G*d/El*him: all

knowledge, wisdom and understanding!]

We are created in the "image" of Elohim/God, and this "image" can

show forth, (in part), the state of the Creator; but since we are

fallen from His "likeness" we are not able to understand His nature

from the natural man. {Spiritual things are Spiritually discerned}.



+================================================================+

|It has been said: The Father spoke, and the Word is Messiah, and|

| the breath that carries the Word is the |

| Ruach HaKodesh-(Holy Spirit). |

+================================================================+

PART II

THE TRI-UNITY OF Y-H-V-H EL*HIM

{Various modern Trinity formulas, or Modalism?

-(or)-

Is there a road between these two ditches}



In this second part, we'll continue by looking at both early

quotes from Believers which show the idea of the Tri-Unity, as well as

ancient Rabbinic writings which shows this, in connection with

Scripture from Tanach [the Old(er) Covenant].

The verse in Genesis 1:26a-27: Then God said, Let Us make man in

Our image, according to Our likeness, ... So God created man in His Own

image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created

them; -has always been one that is disputed with theological gymnastics

by those who deny the Tri-Unity of HaShem/Y'hovah El*him - {Y-H-V-H

G*d}. Saying all sorts of things, such as: G*d is talking in the

"royal we" tense, - [fine for King's English, but no cigar in Hebrew

tenses :-) ]; or that G*d was in some way consulting the angels in this

discussion, hence "let us". But, due to the construct of the passage,

G*d would then be including the angels in the creation itself, which

flies in the face of Scripture! This verse was a difficult ones for

the Rabbi's as well, as we see in the following:

Rabbis Samuel bar-Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan

said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah,

writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this

verse which says, 'And Elohim said, let Us make man in

Our image after Our likeness,' Moses said, Master of

the Universe why do You give herewith an excuse to the

sectarians -(who believe in the Tri-Unity of G*d), G*d

answered Moses, You write and whoever wants to err let

him err.

Here we see, that, {in this case}, the Rabbi's, (while disagreeing with

the Messianic Jews / {Natzratim} over the issue of the Tri-Unity), can

offer no direct rebuttal to their stance, and rather has Moses himself

questioning G*d concerning it, & him stating that it is: "an excuse" to

believe this! While this does not absolutely 'prove' anything, it does

show that the Rabbi's were having difficulty disproving the stance of

the Tri-Unity based upon the construct of this verse, and were in an

off-hand way agreeing with the Natzratim understanding of the language

used here, by not directly refuting it.

A side note on this verse, we are created in the 'image' of

Elohim. It is obvious from various verses of Scripture, that we are a

three-fold being, soul/spirit/body; - yet we are only one person, but

capable of expressing ourselves from all three aspects of our being

at the same time. Should one doubt this, consider the state of your

soul in dreams when you body is unconscious. Or even better, praying

in the Spirit/spirit, while feeling joy in your soul as you hold your

small child in your arms, while speaking out loud in the flesh. (...I

will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding.

I will sing with the spirit, & I will also sing with the understanding

- 1Cor.14:15b; ...the mind controlled by the Spirit/spirit is life and

peace.; etc., etc...). But all these illustrations, showing in what

ways we are similar to G*d, (in us being created in His image), do not

do justice to the nature of El*him, - we being only but a small image

after all.

Let's take a look at another passage:

In the Soncino Chumash on portion Wayyera Beresheet/(Genesis) Chapter

18, we find some very interesting commentary...



V.1 "And HaShem/Y-H-V-H appeared unto him..."

Rashbam, in the commentary on verse 1, does comment that the usage

of HaShem is connected to the rest of the story, -relating to the three

angels in verse 2; yet while this is not the only Rabbinic thought,

(others thinking that it is a separate occurrence), at least one

Rabbinic thought is that it is connected and not a separate appearance.



V.2 three men...One to bring the tidings that Sarah would give birth

to a son, the second to overthrow Sodom, and the third to heal Avraham;

the last also went on from there to save Lot (R, E). (This commentary

by Abraham Ibn Ezra & Rashi, will come into play later, as we see the

identity of the angel according to the Text later).



V.3 my Lord*. First we have the one of the traditional understandings

that Avraham addressed the chief angel,(so some say he's not signifying

G*d; another one puts it, a word* in Torah is profain), HOWEVER, if we

look at another commentary, from the Chumash, we see Another

interpretation: He spoke to G*d, praying Him to wait until he had

attended to his quests (R). {Again by Rashi, we see that according to

him,the usage of Adonai here is not profain, but rather is then Avraham

talking to G*d! - (Although he doesn't mean it as in person toward the

angels, but in a vision if you will, HOWEVER....) The next commentary

states: He recognized that they were angels, and therefore called them

by their Master's Name, L-rd (N). Here Nachmanides throws the hat back

in the ring, stating that Avraham did address the angels, and intended

to use Ad*nai when speaking to them! Now of course, the Messianic

interpretation would be that all three are correct! That Avraham

addressed the Chief Angel, that He spoke to G*d, (or more specific, to

HaMemra shel El*him / the Metatron / HaTzimtzim/ The Angel of the

Covenant), and that in fact he wanted to address Him, (not with a

profane scribal error*, but:), with the word Ad*nai!



V.10 ...and He said: I will certainly return unto thee. According to R

the subject of "said" is the angel who spoke as G*d's messanger; hence

the "I" refers to G*d. N observes that R construes I as G*d, because we

do not find that the angel returned the following year. The fulfilment

of the promise can only be lie in the statement: The Lord remembered

Sarah as He said (xxxi. I). Now it gets even more interesting, let's

look at the speech of this Angel starting in verse 13.... (side note:

of course no conflict here if the Angel is HaMemra, as then the visit

would have been b'Ruach shel El*him, and would have been the Angel,

HaTzimtzim, - being a Ruach/Spirit being; but not just a mere angel.)



V.13 the LORD/HaShem. i.e. the chief angel (Sh). Well... not too much

question here as to Rashbam counts this as, of course, he is not taking

a direct relationship here between the Angel and HaShem, right?! But

let us look at the passage itself: "...vaiyomer HA-SHEM el-Avraham",

Now this is quite clear who is speaking here folks, and in light of the

above commentary and the various Rabbinic quotations on this passage

following, it is very plain to see. "And HaShem said unto Avraham:

Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall {...} V.14 Is any thing too

hard for HaShem?", (please look at the word construct closely here). To

continue...



[BTW...notice also in commentary on verse 15. Sforno states...Avraham

knew that G*D'S rebuke was well founded and could therefore deny her

statement. {S}. (But remember, the rebuke was from the angel?!)].



V.16 the men rose up. Two of them went on to Sodom, but the Chief

remained with Abraham to inform him of Sodom's destruction. In the

conversation that follows it is he who spoke (Sh; [...] {Now here we

have Rashbam clearly stating who is speaking, even though he [Sh]

doesn't agree that it is HaShem, look at how this Angel speaks...



Again the Angel speaks in V.17 as... And the LORD/Y-H-V-H/HaShem said:

Again the Angel speaks in V.20 as... And the LORD/Y-H-V-H/HaShem said:

(Still speaking in verse 21): ...I will go down now, and see whether

they have [...], which is come unto Me {CAPPED in the Chumash}; (now,

the two are just leaving, prior to this they had been looking out

toward Sodom and listening to the Angel Who speaks as HaShem) 22.

And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Avraham

stood yet before Y-H-V-H, (already identified in Rashbam's commentary

as here being the Angel who remained) {At this point please note:

Avraham talks directly to the angel, asking HIM to spare Sodom, now...

all through the verses 23-25, the discussion continues with Him, all

referrences to the One addressed in the passage by Avraham, (Capital!);

then we come to 25b...that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all

the earth do justly? (still addressed directly to the Angel) -the Angel

replies 26: And HaShem said: {...} then I will forgive... (NOTE:

Avraham's reply to the Angel...) 27. And Avraham answered and said:

'Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, who am but

dust and ashes..., and continues to address the Angel as HaShem till

verse 33, which ends it with: ...v'ai'aelek Y-H-V-H / And HaShem went

His way, as soon as He had left off speaking to Avraham; and Avraham

returned unto his place.



Well folks if you don't see how we get this interpretation by now!



Now to conclude with Rabbinic Commentary on the nature of this 'Angel'

Who is called the Angel of the Covenant, (and appears again as the

Angel of the Lord, or the Angel of the Covenant when Avraham was to

offer up Yitzchak), we read in the Zohar, - (which is one of the

writings used by many of the very Orthodox Jews today, and is stated to

have it's origins in 1st century Rabbinic writings):

Tikoone Zohar, Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, Chap.67 p.130:

There is a perfect Man, if a man He is, Who is an Angel. This Angel is

Metatron, the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy

One, blessed be He, Who is an Emanation from Him (from G*d); yea, He

(the Metatron) is Jehovah/Y-H-V-H; of Him cannot be said, He is

created, formed, or made; but He is the Emanation from El*him/G*d!

- The Great Mystery, R. Tzvi Nassi, Nathanael's journey Division 4 @2

This is the Tzimtzim that is spoken of in Rabbinic lit. as being

the angel Metatron, who according to Jewish theology, discoursed with

Moses, and the Angel in whom G*d placed His Name. It is interesting

to note, that the ancient understanding of the Tzimtzim, was one of

a 'part' of G*d, {"...Who is an Emanation from Him..."}, and considered

G*d, but never thought of as the totality of El*him/G*d. This idea

is expressed somewhat as well in the Aramaic understanding of the

Memra, - (along with the dual meaning of the Hebrew word Davar/Word),

and is treated quite fully in Edershiem's: The Life And Times Of Jesus

The Messiah, so I will not go into more depth on it here.

I think that by now, it should become somewhat clear that all is

not as it is often presented, when one starts to dig into this subject!

Let's look at a couple of other Judaic statements:

"He has no difficulty as the Jewish Encyclopedia also says, (Vol.12,

page 261): 'The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its

fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity,

since by its speculations regarding the Father, the Son, and the

Spirit, it evolved a new trinity....'" As the Zohar says: How can

Three be One? Are they verily One because we call them One? How can

Three be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy

Spirit - (Zohar, vol.2. p,43, versa,p.22)/Forward in The Great Mystery,

How Can Three Be One? by Rabbi Tzvi Nassi/Hirsch Prinz.

This is an EXCELLENT BOOK! And in my opinion proves once and for

all that the Tri-Unity stance is the correct one. Another good book

that gets into this subject is: Messiah - A Rabbinic And Scriptural

Viewpoint, by Burt Yellin. But I chose this ref., since you'll note:

...even a non-Rabbinic Judaic source, {The Jewish Encyclopedia}, shows

that the idea of a 'Trinity' in certain Judaic thought is valid.

Before moving on, let's look at two more quotes from the Zohar,

(Amsterdam Version), showing this idea:



ZOHAR [TO DEUT.6:4]: Hear O Israel, Y-H-V-H our God Y-H-V-H is One. Why

is there a need of mentioning the Name of G*d three times in this

verse? The First HaShem is the Father above. The Second is the Stem

of Jesse, the Messiah Who is to come from the family of Jesse through

David. And the Third One is the Way which is below (meaning the Holy

Spirit Who shows us the way) and These Three are One.



[Zohar vol.III]: The Ancient and Holy One is revealed and described as

being Three; it is because the Other Lights are Two complete Ones, yet

is the Ancient and Holy One described and complete as One, & He is One,

positively One; thus are the Other Lights united and glorified in One,

because They are One...[Rabbi Simeon further states]...Thus are the

Three Lights united in One. The Spirit which is downward, Who is called

the Holy Spirit, the Spirit which is the Middle Pillar, Who is called

the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, also called the Spirit below.

The Upper Spirit is hidden in secret; in Him are existing all the Holy

Spirits (the Holy Spirit and the Spirit that is the middle pillar), and

all that is light."



Also, here are a few (of many such) quotes that are from various

ancient Rabbinic & Judaic sources showing various aspects of this idea:



Tikoone Zohar, Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, on Genesis:

"Let Us make man". To whom did the Highest say this?

- The Highest said it to Y-H-V-H!

- The Great Mystery, R. Tzvi Nassi, Nathanael's journey Part II @11.



MIDRASH MISHLE [10:21]: Rab Huna counted amongst the seven Names of

Messiah also: HaShem/(Y-H-V-H Zidkenu), [Referring to Jer.23:6].



R.JOSEPH ALBO OF TOLEDO[SEPHER IKKARIM 28:54] The Scripture calleth the

Names of Messiah also: LORD Zidkenu, because He is the Mediator through

Whom we shall get the righteousness of the L-RD.



[Midrash Ecah (1:51)]: ...What is the Name of King

Messiah? To this answered Rabbi Abba bar Kahana:

Y-H-V-H is His Name, for it is written (Jer.23:6):

'This is the Name whereby He shall be called: 'YHVH

Zidkenu'. As Rabbi Levi said, "Happy is the country

that it's name is the name of its King, and its King

the same as its G*d. Happy is the country that it's

name is the same as it's King as it says: 'And the

name of the city from that day shall be, YHVH is

there (Ez. 48:35)'. The Name of the King is as the

Name of it's G*d as it says, 'And this is the Name

you shall call Him: YHVH Zidkenu.'



[On Is. 9:6; R. Aben Ezra]: ...There are some interpreters who say that

'Wonderful, Everlasting Father' are Names of G*d and only 'Prince of

Peace' is the Name of the Child; but according to my view the

interpretation is right (which says): all are the Names of the Child.



[Rabbi T. Nassi on Rosh HaShannah] ...the three-fold sound of the ram's

horn which is sounded on Rosh Hashanah, is an emblem of the Three-fold

nature of G*d.



Sefer Yezirah pp.49-50, MantuaEd.~R.Moses Butarili; pp.50 MantuaEd:

Blessed be the Name of the living El*him, of Him who

lives for ever. By Voice, Wind and Speech (is

revealed) Ruach HaKodesh. ... Ruach of Ruach, by Whom

He (G*d) created and hewed out the world.

"Ruach of Ruach".Explanation: Ruach of Ruach HaKodesh

by which the author of S. Yezirah means to say: The

Ruach Who proceeds from the Ruach, the living El*him.

This is the Second Ruach, through Whom were created

the heaven and the earth. (Lit., that which is above

and that which is below, and the four winds.)

- The Great Mystery, R. Tzvi Nassi, Nathanael's journey Part IV @2.



R. Moses Butarili on Sefer Yezirah, p.85, Col.1 Mantua Ed.ch.5 @ 1:

The Cabalists call the second Sephira Metatron, the

Keeper, which is an inferior name to His Name the Son

of El*him. (Joshua 5:13-15): Art thou for us, or for

our adversaries? He said, Nay, as a Prince of the

host of the L-rd, I am come. etc. Metatron appeared

unto Joshua, etc.

- The Great Mystery, R. Tzvi Nassi, Nathanael's journey Division 3 @8



Tanakh Malachi 3:1 (Lesser trans.) & Rabbinic commentary @ loc:

Behold, I will send my messenger, and He shall clear

out the way before me: and suddenly will come to His

Temple the L-rd Whom ye seek; and the Messenger of

the Covenant Whom ye desire, for behold He is coming

saith the L-RD of hosts. - Malachi 3:1/Lesser's

The L-rd is the King Messiah; He is also the

Angel of the Covenant. -Kimchi

The L-rd is both the Divine Majesty, and the

Angel of the Covenant, for the sentence is doubled.

-Ibn Ezra

The L-rd may be explained of the King Messiah.

- Mashmiah Jeshua, fol.76

The Most Holy is the Messiah, for He is more

holy than the sons of David. - R. Nachman

Our Rabbis expound this in a Midrash of the King

Messiah saying, He shall be higher than Abraham

exalted above Moses and loftier than the ministering

angels. - R. Sa'adyah Ibn Danan / Midrash Tanchuma



For to us a Son is born, to us a Son is given: and He

shall receive the Law upon Him to keep it; and His Name

is called from of old, Wonderful, Counselor, ELOHA, The

Mighty, Abiding to Eternity, The Messiah, because peace

shall be multiplied on us in His days.

- Isaiah 9:6 Targum Jonathan



For those who cannot look upon the Son Himself, behold

Him in His reflected light, even thus do they regard the

image of G*d, Who is His Angel, the Word [Logos], as G*d

Himself. - (De Plant Noe) Philo Judeaus



There are it seemeth two Temples of G*d. The one in this

world, in which also there is a High Priest, His First

Begotten Divine Word [Logos]. - Philo Judeaus



[Ps.2:12 Heb. 'Bar' = 202] ...Thou art the Son, the faithful shepherd;

of Thee it is said, 'Kiss the Son'. {note: this has different wording

in the English of many modern Jewish Tanach translations, yet not all

of them, but it is there in the Hebrew!, and indeed we find it *here

as well (below)} Thou art the Governor of the Universe, the Head of

Israel, the L-rd of ministering angels, the Son of the Highest, the

Son of the Holy and Blessed One, yea the very Shechinah. (Note: The

Shechinah is the VERY HOLY SPIRIT OF HA-SHEM!).

*This is the faithful Shepherd; Of Thee it is said, "Kiss

the Son," Thou art the Prince of the Israelites, the L-rd

of the earth ... The Son of the Most High, the Son of The

Holy G*d ... and the gracious Shekinah.

-Zohar (Gen.fol.88, c.348) [ref.Ps.2]

Our Doctors expound the Psalm of the Messiah.

- (Jarchi (Maas) [ref.Ps.2]



It is well known that in the coming of the Messiah is

(included) the coming of the Blessed G*d into the world.

- R. Alschech



Philo Judeaus (De Plant Noe): For those who cannot look upon the Son

Himself, behold Him in His reflected light, even thus do they regard

the image of G*d, Who is His Angel, the Word [Logos], as G*d Himself.



Of course, one could go on and on; but I hope I've showed that this

idea is not foreign to ancient Judaism. One more quotation before

leaving this aspect of the discussion:



The Dead Sea Scrolls/The Melchizedek Scroll.

page 188

...According to the fragment, Melchizedek is the eschatological judge;

'it is written of him in the songs of David, who said: "God [Elohim]

has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods

He will hold judgement"'. Melchizedek is here called God [Elohim]...

The author of the text, to clarify his idea, quotes [in lines 10-11] a

further verse from the Psalms as referring to Melchizedek: 'For their

sakes, return on high, the Lord will judge the nations' [Ps. 7:7-8].

This Last Judgement will, therefore, take place on high, and on that

occasion--as we learn from lines 9 and 14--Melchizedek will be assisted

by all the celestial powers. 'Belial, and the spirits of his lot',

will then be judged, 'and Melchizedek will vindicate G*d's judgments'

[1,12]. He will thus not only pass judgment but also execute it. If

the editor of the text has reconstructed line 8 correctly, this will be

the time 'for the atonement of all children of light and those who

belong to the lot of Melchizedek'; in any case, line 5 mentions 'the

heritage of Melchizedek'. During the last judgment, therefore,

Melchizedek will separate the righteous, who are his lot and heritage,

from the wicked, among them Belial and the spirits of his lot,...on

whom he will wreck vengeance for transgressing G*d's judgment.

Melchizedek thus appears here as very similar to the Son of Man of the

Book of Enoch and of the Gospels: 'When the Son of Man comes in His

glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on his glorious

throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations, and he will

separate them one from the other as a shepherd separates the sheep from

the goats, and He will place the sheep at His right hand, but the goats

at His left...' [Matt. 25:31-46]

page 190

The story of the miraculous birth of Melchizedek is based upon a

difficult verse of Psalms 110 [verse 3]. The Hebrew text has '...'.

The LXX translates, 'From the womb, before the morning star, I have

begotten thee.' The rendering 'I have begotten thee' is based upon the

spelling '...'. If one begins with the assumption that, in Psalms 110,

God addresses Himself to Melchizedek, the text from which the LXX

translated almost compels the conclusion that 'the Word of G*d has

created' Melchizedek in the womb of his mother [as in the 'Book of the

Secrets of Enoch', page 81]....

It is clear, however, that they believed--like the author of Hebrews--

that Melchizedek was immortal as Enoch and Elijah were. Only on that

premise is it possible to explain their view that Melchizedek will be

judge in the Last Judgment....



This is only part of discussion in this chapter on recent published

material from the Qumran find of The Melchizedek Scroll, showing that

in 1st century Israel, even amongst this ancient community, this idea

was not outside of ancient Judaic thought, (though admittedly, one will

not hear of it in modern Judaism, except for 'some' of the very

Orthodox Jewish folks, -if you could get them to talk to you about it!)



Before we move on to part III, with discussion of the Tri-Unity from

other passages in Tanach as well as in the New Covenant; let's look at

two more ancient quotes from Believers around the 1st/2nd century, as

found in the Apostolic Fathers [Lightfoot] The Reliques of the Elders,

Perserved in Irenaeus:

In the same way also did that older talmid/disciple of the

Emissaries/Apostles reason about the two Testaments: declaring that

both are indeed from One and the same G*d; and that there is no other

G*d, besides Him who made and formed us, nor any strength in their

argument, who say that this world of ours was made either by angels,

or by any kind of power, or by some other god.

For since by wood we lost Him, by wood again He was made manifest

unto all, showing forth the length and height and depth and breadth in

Himself; and as one of those who have gone before said, by the Divine

extention of His hands, gathering the two peoples together unto One

G*d.

While these two quotes don't in and of themselves address the

issue of: Tri-Unity vs. modalism; they do address the Arian heresy as

is it is held by the Jehovah witnesses, - by showing instead the Divine

nature of the Son, as Him being El*him. This from an ancient Believer

historian, quoting even more ancient Believers. There are a great deal

of other quotations from early writers around the 1st/2nd century

period, {& ABSOLUTELY prior to the 4th cent.}, that show that the idea

of the Tri-Unity is NOT a 325 AD/Ce invention!



*Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians about 80 AD:

"The Apostles received the Good-News for us from the L-rd Yeshua

Messiah; and Yeshua Messiah was sent from G*d ... Receiving their

instructions and being full of confidence on account of the

resurrection of our L-rd Yeshua Messiah, and confirmed in faith by the

word of G*d, they went forth in the complete assurance of the Holy

Spirit... Do we not have one G*d, one Messiah, and one Holy Spirit

poured out upon us? ... Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing

to regret. For as G*d lives, and as the L-rd Yeshua Messiah lives, and

the Holy Spirit..."



*Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch, hearer of the disciple John, martyred

in the arena by Emperor Trajan (c 110 AD). He wrote 7 authenticated

letters during his journey to Rome. The following in his Letter to the

Ephesians:

"There is one Physician, who is both flesh and Spirit, born and not

born, who is G*d in man, true life in death, broth from Mary and from

G*d, first able to suffer and then unable to suffer, Yeshua Messiah our

L-rd. ... I have learned, however, that certain persons from

elsewhere, who have evil doctrine, have stayed with you; but you did

not allow them to sow it among you, and you stopped your ears so that

you would not receive what they sow. You are like stones for a temple

of G*d, prepared for the edifice of G*d the Father, hoisted to the

heights by the crane of Yeshua Messiah, which is the cross, using for a

rope the Holy Spirit."



*Apologia of Aristides the Athenian, to the Emperor Antoninus Pius,

{mid-2nd century, usually ascribed to ca 140 AD):

"Christians trace their origin to the L-rd Yeshua Messiah. He that

came down from Heaven in the Holy Spirit for the salvation of men is

confessed to be the Son of the Most High G*d. He was born of a holy

Virgin without seed of man, and took flesh without defilement; and He

appeared among men so that He might recall them from the error of

polytheism. When He had accomplished His wonderful design, by His own

free will and for a mighty purpose He tasted of death on the cross.

After three days, however, He came to life again and went up into the

Heavens. ... It is possible for you, O king, to learn to know the

report of His coming in the holy Good-News writing, as it is called by

us -- should you chance to come upon a copy. He had 12 disciples...

These are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the

truth; for they acknowledge G*d, the Creator and Maker of all things,

in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit.... Other than Him, no

god do they worship..."



*175 AD Athenagoras, a Greek Christian, to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius:

"...I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we

acknowledge one G*d, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being

acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded ...We recognize also the Son of

G*d. Let no one think it laughable that G*d should have a Son. For we

do not conceive of either G*d the Father or G*d the Son as do the

poets, who, in their myth-making, represent the gods as no better than

men. The Son of G*d is the Word of the Father ... By Him & through Him

all things were made, the Father and Son being one. Since the Son is

in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of

the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of G*d. And

if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what

is meant by 'the Son' I will tell you briefly: He is the First-

begotten of the Father, not as having been produced...but as coming

forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things,

which were like a nature without attributes..., ...The Holy Spirit

also...we regard as an effluence of G*d, flowing out and returning like

a ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those

called atheists, who speak of G*d the Father and of G*d the Son and of

the Holy Spirit, and who proclaim Their power in Union and Their

distinction in order?..."



Let me leave you with an observation:

The early Apostolic father historians deal with two groups of Believing

Jews: the Natzratim and the Evionim/(Ebionites: a group that broke off

from the Natzratim/Nazarene Jewish Believers, and followed Evion the

Apostate). By all accounts, the Evionim were a development AFTER the

Natzratim, - (who held to an orthodox understanding of the Divinity of

Yeshua, that He was El*him in the flesh at conception). Considering

this, we are shown an ancient, - but LATER Arian doctrine developing, &

NOT the other way around, - (as the Jehovah witnesses would have you

believe).

Add to this, that the early, - (shown to be early by the times the

various Rabbi's spoken of lived), stories of the Rabbinic Jews talking

with the Messianic/Natzratim Jews in Talmud, are all discussion with

Natzratim Jews who held to the idea of the Tri-Unity, (when this

subject in Talmud comes up, of course), we are left with the obvious

conclusion, even from this source, (and indeed from all available

sources), that the Arian stance was LATER than the Natzratim stance!



/\

____/_ \____

\ ___\ \ /

/\ \/ / \/ / /\

____/_ \__/_/\__/_/\__/_ \____

\ ___\ \___\ \___\ \___\ \ /

\/ / \/ / \ / \/ / \/ /

/ /\__/_/\ \/ / /\__/_/\

/__\ \_____\ /__\ \_____\

\ / \ /

\/ \/

PART III

THE TRI-UNITY OF Y-H-V-H EL*HIM

{Various modern Trinity formulas, or Modalism?

-(or)-

Is there a road between these two ditches}



The best illustration of the Tri-Unity of HaShem by natural means

I believe is shown by the ancient understanding from the equilateral

triangle:



/\

a/d \b

------

c

First, please note: there is only ONE triangle!

'a' is directly connected to both 'b' & 'c'; while 'b' is connected to

both 'a' & 'c'; as well as 'c' directly connected to both 'a' & 'b'.

Neither a, b, nor c is the other, yet each is never apart from the

other. Collectively a, b & c are d, yet each apart from the others

would not be d, - they are inseparable! - But each are a part of d!

One triangle, 'd', having three equal manifestations: a, b, c;

-each one with the other, and yet: - each not the other; and also: each

not apart from the other!

.

Simple geometry! So..., what's the problem?! If we who hold to the

Tri-Unity of HaShem want to take a literal Biblical understanding of:

And Elohim said, let Us... {and again}: Y-H-V-H Eloheinu/(plural form

of more than two) Y-H-V-H Echad/(composite Unity), [as well as various

other Biblical applications]; according to the above understanding, why

are we faulted for believing in our heart that this is true, since we

have Biblical evidence to back it up! Think about it! And consider

this in the rest of this study, as we examine other verses in Tanach/

[O.T.] as well as in the New Covenant following; and see if the above

model aligns with the understanding of ALL of the viewpoints on the

Nature of El*him/G*d. We have already discussed many verses from

Tanach, so I will use only a few more, (out of various remaining

examples), to show this idea further:

Come near unto me, hear this: I have not spoken in

secret from the beginning; from the time that it was,

there am I; and now the Lord God, and His Spirit, hath

sent me. (Isaiah 48:16)

Here Yesha'yahu/(Isaiah) speaks of being sent, not just from the

Lord God, but also from His Spirit. If They were absolutely in

all ways the same, why did he chose to list "His Spirit" again?

Behold, I will send My messenger, and He shall clear out

the way before Me: and suddenly will come to His Temple

the Lord Whom ye seek; and the Messenger of the Covenant

Whom ye desire, for behold He is coming saith the Lord

of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)

Here Mal'akhi/(Malachi) directly quotes Y-H-V-H as saying that His

messenger, "the Adon Whom you seek", He shall come. Ask yourself a

simple question: Would Y-H-V-H, L-RD of all, call another Adonai if He

wasn't a part of Himself?! If you answer: no He wouldn't; GOOD! Now

ask yourself one more question, why would He say: ...for behold He is

coming saith the Lord of hosts; - if they were both actually & totally

the same?! This should remind us as well of:

Tehillim/(Psalms) 110:1 The Y-H-V-H said to my Adonai, Sit at My

right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool. And again, with

Psalms 45:6-7(7-8) we see El*him speaking concerning the Son {See: also

Hebrews 1:8-9}: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of

righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness

and hate wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the

oil of gladness more than Your companions.

Here we see Elohim speaking, and talking about One as God, and yet

as having God over Him! Ask yourself a question: Would G*d call

another G*d?! If you answer: no He wouldn't. GOOD! Now, ask yourself

one last question, then why would He say: Your throne O God; - (with

Himself doing the speaking), -if they were actually the same?!



Now let's turn to only a few of the many verses from the New Covenant

that make the reasons for this even more clear:



The Good News According To

MATTITYAHU {Matthew}

Literal MNV from the Greek |Ancient Hebrew trans. from Shem Tov

CHAPTER 3 -GR. | CHAPTER 3 -Heb.

3 For this is he spoken of by the |3. To complete what was said by

prophet Yesha'yahu, saying, A voice|Yesha'yahu the prophet: A voice of

of (one) crying in the wilderness, |one crying in the desert, prepare

Prepare the way of HaShem/Y-H-V-H, |the way of HaShem, make straight in

make His paths straight. |the wilderness a path for our God.

11 I indeed immerse you in water |11.[ST> & Lk.3:16] And Yochanan

unto repentance: but He coming |answered all of them, Behold in

after me is stronger than I, whose |truth I immerse you in the days of

sandals I am not worthy to bear: He|repentance, and another comes after

shall immerse you in (the) Ruach |me, stronger than I, the thong of

HaKodesh/Holy Spirit, {and fire}: |whose sandal I am not worthy to

|unfasten. And He shall immerse you

|in (the) fire (of) Ruach HaKodesh.

16 And Yeshua, being immersed, |16. And immediately when He came up

went up at once from the water: |from the water, were opened to Him

and, behold, the Heavens were |the Heavens and 'He saw (the) Ruach

opened unto Him, and He saw the |(of) Elohim descending-[the entire

Ruach/Spirit of Elohim/God |fountain of Ruach HaKodesh

descending as a dove, and alighting|descended]' as a dove, and It dwelt

upon Him: |-[abode] upon Him. [+> And said to

|Him:]

-----------------------------------'-----------------------------------

*RABBINIC: The ideal King to whom Isaiah looks forward will be a

scion of the stock of Jesse (The Messiah) on whom will rest the

Spirit of G*d.... [also Is.9:1-6] -Jewish Encyl.vol.8 pg.506,c1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17 And behold! A voice out of the |17. And behold a voice from the

Heavens, saying, This My Son the |Heavens was saying, This is My Son,

Beloved, in whom I have found |My Beloved, He is loved very very

delight. |much, and My pleasure is in Him.

CHAPTER 4 -Gr. | CHAPTER 4 -Heb.

1 Then was Yeshua led up by the |1. Then Yeshua was taken by 'Ruach

Spirit into the wilderness to be |HaKodesh/the Holy Spirit' into the

tested/tempted by the Accuser |desert [+> of Y'hudah] to be

-<Traducer>. |tested/tempted from haSatan.

(cont.)

[Paddy by Grace]

One of the first things to note is where it says: And He saw the

Ruach/Spirit of Elohim/God descending as a dove.... Since this is a

visible Manifestation of the Ruach HaKodesh/(The Holy Spirit), it

right away addresses the false Arian notion that He is simply some type

of "active force", in His taking on a visible Manifestation and being

addressed as the Ruach/Spirit of Elohim. Interesting to note that

Yeshua SAW the Ruach of Elohim as a Dove, if they are one in the same,

as Modalism holds, then how did Yeshua/(Jesus) behold Himself? Along

with this, the Voice was heard from the Heavens saying: This is My Son

.... Was G*d trying to trick mankind, being totally in Yeshua, yet

speaking at the same time as the Father, and the Spirit of Elohim as a

Dove, AT THE SAME TIME?! NO! - Rather the Three ways that the One G*d

/El*him has shown Himself to mankind, as spoken of in Scripture, were

revealed at His mikvah/immersion! NOT 'three gods'. ONE G*D! Yet NOT

individual here-again there-again 'modes', that each held the totality

of each other; but: Three distinct visible/audible eternal conscious

Expressions of the One True G*d/El*him. - Spoken of time, and time,

and time again in Scripture as the Abba/(Father), HaMashiach/(The

Messiah) Yeshua the Son, and the Ruach HaKodesh-(The Holy Spirit)!

{Also interesting to note is the Hebrew in Genesis 1, where it says

the Ruach/Spirit of Elohim "brooded/hovered" over the face of the

water; with: the Ruach of Elohim who appeared as a Dove and alighted/

dwelt on Yeshua Messiah in the water}.

Tri-Unity states this from a LITERAL reading of Scripture. The

other 'methods' of explaining the nature of El*him, require

translational gymnastics to skirt the obvious sense of these various

passages. There is much more that could be said, and this is only a

brief overview of this subject, and we've looked at only a few of the

many verses that clearly show the idea of the Tri-Unity of Y-H-V-H

El*him.



1Cor.12:3b ...and no man can say that Yeshua/{Jesus} is (Y-H-V-H)/LORD,

except by Ruach HaKodesh/The Holy Spirit.



_______________________________________________________________________





Models illustrating different views of the revealed nature of HaShem.

(These should not of course be looked upon as images of The-Almighty,

blessed be He!):

.

* * * *

*** | | |

||| || || ||

(|) || || ||

(|) || || ||

(|) || || ||

(|) \\ || //

(|) \\||//

=== ====

Ancient/modern Tri-Unity stance. Ancient/(some)-modern Trinity

Three braided candles burning with One three-branch menorah

one flame/echad

Either of the above can be shown Biblically as correct.

.

* * * *

| | | | *** *** ***

|| || || || || || ||| ||| |||

||~||~|| || || || ||| ||| |||

|| || || || || || ||| ||| |||

||~||~|| || || || ||| ||| |||

|| || || || || || ||| ||| |||

||~||~|| ==~==~== ||| ||| |||

(Some) modern Trinity Modalism (Some) modern Trinity

Three separate candles Three separate, or Three separate candles

collectively considered three connected candles each made up of three

one. the flame jumps back and separate candles

forth between them

None of these are supported by the Biblical examples.

.

* * *

| | | *

| | | | ~ || | *

| | | | ~ * || || |

| | | | ~ | || || ||

| | | | ~ || || || ||

| | | | ~ || || || ||

| | | | ~ || || || ||

Modern Judaic & Islamic Jehovah witness & Arian Mormon

One candle, absolute One candle, absolute Three totally

singularity/yacheed singularity that emits separate candles

an active force that is each having attained

separate from itself, and different degrees of

a 'lesser candle' that is height

only one in purpose with

the singularity, but not

part of it at all.

Also none of these are supported by the Biblical examples.



Here is another model however that can be supported Biblically:

A

*---------* A does not equal B nor C; yet B C & A are

\ / one with each other. A & C & B by them-

B \ 1 / C selves are not the totality of 1, but are

\ / each of 1, and collectively are 1. And

\ / that all three must exist together in

* order for there to be the 1.



!! Yochanan 1; MNV composite Harmony, ancient Aramaic @90 Ce/AD: !!

||-------------------------------------------------------------------||

|| BERESHEET ~ In The Beginning was The Word (&) He was ||

|| "==== The Davar. And He, The Word, was with El*him; and He, \\ \\ ||

|| // || The Word, was El*him. A Voice who was the Memra \\/ `||

|| \\ || and also Mashiach (who) is the Memra and (the) Speech //\\ ||

||_// || of HaShem. This One was In The Beginning with El*him \| \\ ||

|| -(thus)- from the beginning with His Father He was. ||

||-------------------------------------------------------------------||

!! Targum haB'sorah haTovah Portion 1a par.d !!



PART IV

The following is taken from the file APOLOGIA.TX1 @ Article III, and is

discussing this subject from somewhat more of a Judaic perspective...



The statement is often made in Rabbinic Judaism, that "it" has

never held to any idea of the Tri-Unity of HaShem throughout it's

course of history. However, when one looks closely at all the

available evidence, if one is honest with themselves and circumspect,

one is forced to conclude that the idea has indeed found expression in

various groups founded in Judaism throughout the last 20 centuries or

so.

Due to the recent release of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see that

the Qumran community had developed a Messianic outlook on the nature

of Messiah that in many ways was parallel to the Natzratim/M'shacheeym

[M.J.'s] outlook, and that it was developed/developing at a time period

up to at least two centuries before the 'Common era' Ce/AD, [PAM43.236,

Eisenman & Robinson, facsimile ed. #1272; PAM 43.587-588, #1534-1535;

The MelekTzedek Scroll; (BAR V18 #6) etc...].

So that brings us up to the Natzratim/M'shacheeym: Here we have a

movement that is sprung from 2nd Temple period Judaism, that likewise

hold to the *Tri-Unity of HaShem from the 1st until the 7th Cent.Ce/AD,

(when they were either persecuted by the "Church" into non-existence

outside of Israel, or killed off during the advance of the Arabs in

the 7th century). *[eg: Discussions {2} in Talmud on the passage in

Beresheet - "God said: let US make...," etc; Targum haB'sorah haTovah

Portion 1a par.d {composite from John 1} - (from 90 Ce/AD and later)].

Next we come to the time of Cabalistic Judaism with the

introduction of Shabbateanism and their expansion of Lurianic Kabbalah.

This has been admitted to be a new "type" of a 'trinity' developed by

this group, via Nathan of Gaza (Encyclopedia Judaica Vol. 2 pg 897,

Vol. 14 of Gaza; Jewish Encycl. Vol. 12, page 261; note also the

Amsterdam version of Zohar in various places). This might at first be

dismissed as only a "fluke" - EXCEPT for one notable fact - this

movement encompassed a LARGE portion of the Orthodox Jewish population

on three continents, sometimes entire communities and many of the

Orthodox Rabbis, (Encyclopedia Judaica Vol. 2 pg 897, Vol. 14 pg

1239, 1241, etc. under related subjects). This of course dwindled

after the death of Shabbetai Zevi; but was later picked up by the

Frankists. However, the Frankists did later join the Church to also

explore their ideas of the Trinity; but they entered into many perverse

practices, and they were kicked out of the Church after a short time,

(Ency. Dictionary of Judaica subject: Frank/Frankists), and they never

reached the heights of the earlier Shabbatean movement.

During modern times, this idea is not only held by the Natzratim/

M'shacheeym Jews [Messianics]; but by the movement that was begun

by Dr. Paul Levertoff a Cabalistic Orthodox Jew who also assisted

in the English translation of the Zohar into English.

There is one thing in common though between these diverse groups,

they all appealed to a similar penutsta [simple understanding] on the

same "Messianic passages" of Tanakh, and had a well developed concept,

(though somewhat different in specifics), on the nature of Messiah.

[Further subjects of research: The unity of the Metatron with

Y-H-V-H, (eg: Tikoone Zohar, R. Simeon ben-Jochai, Ch. 67 p. 130); & a

concept of parts of a "Tri-Unity" understanding, such as in: Sefer

Yezirah pp.49-50, MantuaEd.~R.Moses Butarili; pp.50 Mantua Ed; R. Moses

Butarili on Sefer Yezirah, p.85, Col.1 Mantua Ed.ch.5 @ 1; Midrash Ecah

(1:51) - (and various Midrashim on the "Messianic" portions of Tanakh);

The various Targumim, (especially Jonathan and Yerushalayim), on their

expression of the Memra; etc..., for starters. Also interesting to

note: Philo Judeaus in various places on the Logos; The Sibylline

Oracles; Book of the Secrets of Enoch, @ page 81. See also: Messiah,

A Rabbinic And Scriptural Viewpoint, Burt Yellin, Published by:

Congregation Roeh Israel 8556 E. Warren Ave. Denver Co. 80231.

(303)-337-6254; "The Great Mystery, How Can Three Be One?" by Rabbi

Tzvi Nassi / Hirsch Prinz. - (available at the same address.)



-!!Book review on THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT by Risto Santala!!-

{SOURCE}:

From: [e-mail] (Laura Johanna M{...})

Date: 9 Jan 93 02:22:07 GMT

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>



THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT written by Risto Santala.

Keren Ahvah Meshihit P.O.Box 10382 Jerusalem, Israel

{...} The book was first written in Hebrew, then translated into

Finnish, and now it has been translated into English. {...}

3. The Messiah, the Memra or 'Word' of G*d

When looking at the Proto-Evangel we saw how the serpent of bronze

which Moses raised up in the wilderness was, according to the Wisdom of

Solomon, a "sign of salvation". The Targum Jonathan Ben Uzziel says

here that "He who turns his heart to the L-RD's Memra will be spared".

Professor Gottlieb Klein identified Metatron, used as an epithet for

the Messiah, with Yahweh's Memra or 'Word'. In Klein's opinion it was

precisely this Aramaic word which gave the grounds to the belief that

Christ is "the Word or Logos of God become flesh".

The Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived about the same time as

Jesus, considered the Logos to be G*d' s delegate, his emissary and

angel who "prays as High Priest before G*d on behalf of the world". [1]

The Memra concept associated with G*d and his manifestations appear 596

times in the Targums -- but not once in the Talmud. [2] Targum Onqelos

uses the word 179 times, Targum Yerushalmi 99 times, and Targum

Jonathan 321 times. Over half of these references to the Memra approach

it as if it were "personified". [3] The absence of 'Memra' from the

Talmud may be a reaction to the first Christians' interpretation of it

as indicating Jesus. But are there really grounds for understanding

'Memra' to mean the same as the New Testament's 'Logos'?

In answering this question there is good reason to appeal to the

Rabbis' way of grading the old writings according to their source

value: "The Old Testament leads to the Targums, the Targums lead to the

Mishna, the Mishna to the Talmud, and so on." [4] Proceeding in this

way the Targums give earlier information on the Rabbis' exegesis than

even the Mishna, the oldest part of the Talmud. Therefore, from the

point of view of our subject, it is worthwhile familiarizing ourselves

with these roots of our Christian faith which are concealed in the

Targums.

The Memra appears in the Targums in the following contexts, among

others: On the creation of man in Gen. 1:27 the Targum says: "And the

L-RD's Memra created man" (Targum Yerushalmi); in Gen. 16:13 Hagar

speaks with the "angel of the L-RD" and "calls him the L-RD's Memra"

(Yer.); in Gen. 22, where Abraham speaks with the angel of the L-RD,

who is given the name "the L-RD's Memra", and in v.8 "the L-RD's Memra

himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering" (Yer.); in Gen.

28:20 Jacob makes a vow and says, "If the L-RD's Memra will be with

me... then the L-RD's Memra will be my G*d" (Onqelos); Gen. 15:6 in

interpreted by the Targum as follows: "Abraham believed in the L-RD's

Memra, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Onq.); Along with

the giving of the Law in Ex. 20:1 the Targum reads, "And the L-RD's

Memra spoke all these words" (Yer.).....

[1] Gottlieb Klein's Sex foeredrag, p88

[2] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I,

pp46-48

[3] Ibid vol II pp659-664

[4] Sifrei Shoftim, piska 160a



-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-



A Messianic Homily:



As I was on a journey, I was blest by the Holy One - praised

be He! - to hear the sages discuss a Great Mystery:

Of HaShem in Tanakh it is said:

Unto thee is was shown, that thou mightest know that YHVH, He

is Elohim; and there in none beside Him. - Deut. 4:35. There is

none holy as YHVH; for there is none beside Thee; neither is

there any rock like our God. - 1Sam.2:2.

Yet, behold, the Midrashim declare:

...What is the Name of King Messiah? To this answered Rabbi

Abba bar Kahana: HaShem is His Name... - Midrash Echa 1:51.

Not merely a 'form or part' of the Divine Name, but the

very Divine Name - and that followed by His attribute.

Tanakh further declares:

I Am Y-H-V-H, that is My Name; and My Glory will I not give to

another, - Is. 42:8a.

But come and see, the Midrashim tell us:

Rabbi Hann in the name of Rabbi Aha, continues the thought: G*d

will bestow a portion of His supernatural Glory on Messiah....

- Midrash Tehillim on Ps.21:3.

For the Sages declared that this Righteous Branch is

HaMashiach. And as a branch is part of the whole, but not

the totality of the whole - so This Branch is Part of the

Whole, but not the totality of the Whole. And again Tanakh

declares HaShem brought forth Salvation (Yeshua) by His own

Right Arm; and as the Targumim and Midrashim declare: The Arm

of HaShem is HaMashiach. And as the arm of man is part of man,

but not the totality of a man; so the Arm of HaShem is Part of

HaShem, but not the totality of HaShem. And The L-RD sent

forth His Arm as Salvation to mankind - yet the Tanakh declares

that there is Salvation in none other than HaShem?; so we see

that it was as in a glove, to veil the Sh'khinah from the eyes

of men who could not bear it; even as Moshe veiled his face

from the children of Israel.

But how can this be? Thus we continue to read of

El*him Echad:

How can Three be One? Are they verily One because we call them

One? How can Three be One, can only be known through the

revelation of the Holy Spirit. - Zohar, vol.2.p,43, versa,p.22.



!! Tanakh Proverbs 30:4 / Lesser's Translation. !!

||-------------------------------------------------------------------||

|| Who was it that ascended into heaven, and came down ||

|| "==== again? Who gathered the wind in His fists? Who \\ \\ ||

|| // || bound the waters in a garment? Who set up all the \\/ `||

|| \\ || ends of the earth? What is His Name, and what is //\\ ||

||_// || His Son's Name, if thou knowest it? \| \\ ||

||-------------------------------------------------------------------||

!! !!



B'rasheet haya HaDavar vHaDavar haya et HaEl*him vEl*him haya HaDavar




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A detailed scholarship study on the Divine Nature of Messiah in The Apostolic Scripture….



GRANVILLE SHARP'S RULE: TITUS 2:13, 2 PETER 1:1



Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns,

which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are

describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and

the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns

are referring to the same person. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the

words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the

article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not

have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person,

Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on

theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real

grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted

to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in

favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from

the text itself.



Granville Sharp's rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:



"When the copulative "kai" connects two nouns of the same case

[viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of

personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or

connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if

the article "ho", or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said

nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or

participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is

expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it

denotes a farther description of the first named person."[4]



Kenneth Wuest in his Expanded Translation brings out the Sharp

constructions in a number of other instances. For example, 2 Thessalonians

1:12 reads, "in accordance with the grace of our God, even the Lord Jesus

Christ." 1 Timothy 5:21: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of our God,

even Jesus Christ,..." and 2 Timothy 4:1: "I solemnly charge you as one who

is living in the presence of our God, even Christ Jesus,..." All these

demonstrate further examples of Sharp's rule. Not all examples, of course,

deal with the fact of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians

3:2 reads, "ton adelphon hemon kai sunergon," "our brother and

fellow-worker," in reference to Timothy. Philemon 1 contains a similar

reference, and Hebrews 3:1 is yet another example. One of the most often

repeated examples has to do with the idiom, "God and Father." Pure Sharp

constructions occur at 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 5:20,

Philippians 4:20, and 1 Thessalonians 3:11. Finally, other examples of Sharp

constructions occur at 1 Corinthians 5:10, 7:8, 7:34, Ephesians 5:5,

Philippians 2:25, and Colossians 4:7. There are, of course, others outside

the writings of the Apostle Paul.



4. Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in

the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the

Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common

English Version, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p. 3.

Generally, the

Pauline epistles are dated anywhere from the late 40's to the late 60's of

the first century. The majority of scholarship sees Paul's writings preceding

John's by quite some time, and there is general agreement concerning the

order of Paul's letters and their place in history.[3] The question of the

exact date of John's gospel, however, is not so easily resolved. Merril C.

Tenney[4] notes that modern estimates range from 45 to beyond 100 A.D. Part

of the problem can be found in the fact that during what might be called the

"hyper-critical" period of the last century, it became quite popular to deny

the Johanine authorship of the Gospel of John, and, due to its high

Christology (which the rationalists assumed had to be a mythological

invention of the early Church) place it at least into the second century.

Modern textual finds (such as the famous P[75]) have demolished any ideas of

a second-century date for John, and today the dates normally fall between

A.D. 85 and 95.[5] What is very important to notice about the fact of the

early (i.e., non-second century dating) is that the Christology of John is,

therefore, no different than that of the early Church as the book was written

during the same time period! Indeed, there is no way for there to have been

sufficient time for such "myths" to have evolved, and, it is not logical to

think that John would have written about certain events that could be proven

false by living witnesses! With these facts in mind, we can move on to the

actual exegesis of these passages.



Exegesis of Principal Passages

The Prologue of John (1:1-18) is unique in Biblical literature. It is clear

that the main point of John is not the person of God. His emphasis is the

identity of the Word. The Logos is the central figure of the work, and the

teaching of the passage is that the Logos is intricately involved with the

creation of the universe. The pre- existence of the Logos is clearly stated

and assumed throughout the prologue.

Much has been said concerning the origin of the term logos. Philo[6] used

the term, yet the logos of Philo is simply an impersonal manifestation of the

Wisdom of God. John's usage of the term may indeed borrow from Philo

(especially if John wrote the Gospel while in Ephesus, as the Greeks would be

able to understand the term), but he goes far beyond anything Philo dreamed

of. Rather than a pantheistic, impersonal divine emanation, the Logos of

John is a personal, eternal being who is not simply a part of creation, but

is rather the Creator himself. The first verse itself must be examined to be

understood. Transliterated into Greek the verse reads: En arche en ho logos,

kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos. The verse breaks down

into three clauses, each being vital to the whole. The first thing to notice

is the fact that the imperfect form of eimi is used throughout the prologue

in reference to the Logos. This tense, attached to the phrase "en arche" is

timeless - i.e, as far back as one wishes to push the "beginning" the Word is

already in existence. This is seen, for example, in the translation of the

New English Bible which renders it, "When all things began, the Word already

was." Today's English Version puts it, "Before the world was created, the

Word already existed..." Hence, the first phrase clearly presents the

eternality of the Word and hence his pre-existence.



The second phrase presents the inter-personal relationship of the

Logos and God. The Greek phrase pros, translated "with," refers to the

existence of communication and fellowship between the Logos and theos.[7] The

word was used to describe being "face to face" with another. Now, unless

John had added the final phrase ("and the Word was God") there would have

been a problem here, as the first phrase clearly presents the Logos as

eternal, while the second demonstrates his distinct personality. This would

create polytheism without the final phrase's emendation. At the same time,

this second clause ends any chance of Sabellianism's success.

The final phrase, kai theos en ho logos, presents a syntactical arrangement

in which the term theos is emphasized. At the same time, the sentence is

copulative, and the presence of the article with logos simply sets it out as

the subject of the sentence. Much has been said concerning the lack of the

article with theos[8] but that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

Basically, the construction 1) avoids modalism (i.e., the Word is not said

to be completely co-extensive with theos) and 2) teaches that the Word has

the same nature as God (a point that Paul will reiterate in Philippians).

Verse 3 links the eternality of the Word with creatorship. "Through him all

things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John

here is intent on separating the Logos from the realm of the created - he

started in the very first phrase by asserting his timeless existence and

continues here by attributing to the Logos all of creation, an item that will

reappear in Colossians. The only possible way to interpret these verses is

to see the Logos as an eternal being who created all things.

The prologue continues by identifying the Logos with the person of Jesus

Christ in 1:14. It is interesting to note that John very carefully

differentiates between the Word in his absolute nature and all other things.

When the eternal Word is in view, John uses en. When created things are

being discussed (such as John in 1:6), the aorist egeneto is found. However,

when we come to the time event of 1:14 (i.e., the incarnation), John switches

from the timeless en to the aorist egeneto - the Word became flesh at a

point in time in history. Finally, in 1:18,[9] John seals the case by

calling Jesus the "only-begotten God," or, more accurately, the "unique

God"[10] who reveals the Father, who "exegetes"[11] God to man. These

verses with which John begins his gospel are meant, in my opinion, to form an

"interpretive window" through which the reader is meant to look at the words

that follow. One must constantly keep the Logos in the back of the mind when

interpreting the words and actions of Jesus.[12] Much of what Christ says

must be understood in this light to even make much sense! His unique

relationship with the Father is intelligible only in the light of his eternal

pre-existence with him. Equally significant are Jesus' own "I am" sayings

found in John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19 and 18:5-6. Though there is some discussion

concerning the use of the phrase ego eimi in this absolute sense,[13] these

passages clearly show an intentional aspect to Christ's words relevant to his

identity. In both 8:58 and 18:5-6, John takes pains to make sure the reader

understands the impact of Christ's words on his hearers. In 13:19 we find an

extremely close parallel to the LXX rendering of Isaiah 43:10, here applied

to Christ by himself. One can hardly escape the significance of the Hebrew

term ani hu as used by Isaiah, and its Greek translation as ego eimi. Since

Christ purposefully utilized these phrases of himself, it is safe to say that

he was claiming for himself the title of the "I Am" - the eternal one, YHWH.

The other two texts fall outside of the realm of the Gospels, though they

must reflect very early teaching of the Church, and therefore are just as

important as the Johanine passages in determining the Scriptural basis of the

doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ. Both Pauline passages are vital,

and both come from very different contexts. The first to be examined

(Colossians 1:15-17) comes from a book that seems to contain within it a

polemic against gnosticism (or, possibly, "proto-gnosticism"), while the

second (Philippians 2:5-7) comes from a book that is conspicuous for its lack

of polemic. Colossians 1:15-17 is considered by some to be an early

Christian hymn.[14] Its structure most definitely resembles the poetic style

of a song, and one can find it easy to see how Paul would utilize song to

teach doctrine in the churches. The principal verses relevant to our

discussion of pre-existence form the first half of this passage - the second

discusses the pre-eminence of Christ in redemption and in the Church.

In vs. 15 the pre-existent Christ is styled the "eikon tou theou tou

aoratou" - the express image of the invisible God. One can easily see the

parallel between this and John's description of Christ as the unique God who

"exegetes" the Father (1:18). In Christ the invisible God became visible to

man. Attendant to this, Paul describes Christ as the prototokos - the

firstborn.[15] The main meaning of "firstborn" is the one who has

pre-eminence, and indeed, the Hebrew term which prototokos translates in the

LXX (bekhor) is not connected with either the ideas of protos or tokos.[16]

Hence, the pre-eminence of Christ is the point of prototokos, and, as the

following verses will make very clear, there is no temporal idea of

generation or creation found in this passage relevant to Christ.

Verses 16 and 17 exhaust the Greek mind in their rush to include all of

creation in the realm of the power of Christ. Nothing is left out by Paul at

this point. His use of the phrase ta panta is absolute, and to make sure

that everyone realizes this, he lists the elements that make up the panta.

J. B. Lightfoot[17] well comments:



"All the laws and purposes which guide the creation and government of

the Universe reside in Him, the Eternal Word, as their meeting-point.

The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal

Word as holding the same relation to the Universe which the Incarnate

Christ holds to the Church. He is the source of its life, the centre

of all its developments, the mainspring of all its motions...The

Judeo-Alexandrian teachers represented the Logos, which in their view

was nothing more than the Divine mind energizing, as the topos where

the eternal ideas...have their abode...The Apostolic teaching is an

enlargement of this conception, inasmuch as the Logos is no longer a

philosophical abstraction but a Divine Person..."



In this divine person all things "hold together" or consist. This divine

person is said to be "before ta panta - all things." There is no clearer

passage in the Bible concerning the fact that Jesus Christ, the eternal Word,

created all things. There is no room here for the gnostic pleroma in which

Christ is but a part - no, here Christ is seen as the Creator Himself who

holds the universe together by his own power. The pre- existent Christ

shines brightly in Paul's mind, and forms the basis for his teaching of the

relationship between Christ and the Church. Note also the harmony between

Paul and John on this point.[18] The third passage to be examined comes from

Paul's letter to the church at Philippi. It, too, is hymnic in structure,

and is set off as such by the New International Version. The major section

comprises what is actually a sermon illustration of Paul's in reference to

his admonition to the Philippians to act in humility of mind toward one

another. To support this point, Paul points to the person of Jesus Christ as

the ultimate example of this attitude. Indeed, it is vital to understand the

immediately preceding context when some phrases within the passage are

encountered, as we shall see. The first phrase of verse 6 sets the tone for

the theological discussion to follow. Paul says that Christ was "existing"

(huparchon) in the "form of God" (morphe tou theou). What does this mean?

The participle huparchon is again "timeless" in that it does not point to any

moment when Jesus "started" to exist in the form of God - Christ has always

been in the form of God. And what is the morphe? It is that quality or

characteristic which makes something what it is rather than what it is not.

God is known by his morphe, and no other being has his form. The NIV picks

this up by translating the phrase, "who being in very nature God..."

Paul is here looking back before the incarnation to the pre- existent state

of the Lord, and says that in that state the Lord Jesus shared with the

Father the form of God. Not only this, but he goes on to say that the Lord

had "equality with God" and yet did not regard that equality something to be

"grasped." Much has been written on just how to take the term harpagmon.[19]

After plowing through a large portion of the material representing various

views, the interpretation given by Chrysostom[20] and followed by

Lightfoot[21] seems to be the only logical outcome and is the one that best

fits the context of the passage. Basically, this view sees the word harpagmon

referring to the fact that Christ, though already equal with the Father, did

not regard that equality something to be held on to at all cost, but, as the

ultimate example of humility, laid his privileges aside for our sakes and

"made himself nothing." This fits the context of the passage, that of

walking in "humility of mind" for how can it be an example of humility for

Christ to not desire equality with God if he did not already have it? Not

trying to become equal with God is not humility - it is simply not committing

blasphemy.[22]

We have now seen three passages that clearly present the Lord Jesus as

having had a personal, distinct existence before his incarnation and earthly

life. This existence is seen to be personal, and to be connected with

distinctive acts such as creation and intimate fellowship with the Father.

His pre-incarnation life is also seen to have been eternal, and not temporal

as that of a creation. Given this fact, how did the early Christian Fathers

view this doctrine? To this we now turn.



Patristic Interpretation

As we have seen, the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is explicitly

stated in the New Testament documents, and is implicit in much of the story

of Jesus as well as the teaching of the Church about his person. J.N.D.

Kelly[23] notes this, and given all of this data, it seems incredible that

anyone today could still maintain that the doctrine is based on the

reflection of the Church. Such "mythologizing" takes more time than the

documents now allow.

The Apostolic Fathers do not give us a great deal of information on

Christology proper. Hence, the information to be found on this particular

aspect of the doctrine of Christ will also be scant. There are still,

however, some interesting facts. Ignatius gives us one of the most eloquent

statements concerning the early Church's view of Christ in his letter to the

Ephesians, 7:2:



"There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and

ingenerate (gennetos kai agennetos) God in man (en anthropo theos),

true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and

then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord."



The duality of the Lord's nature (God/man) is clearly seen in Ignatius, and

is repeated in his letter to Polycarp, 3:2:



"Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible,

who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who

suffered for our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake."



Pre-existence is not just implied but clearly stated in this passage,

attributing to Christ eternality, and seeing the incarnation as the point in

time at which God broke into human history for the sake of man. It is

significant that Ignatius calls Jesus Christ "God" 14 times in his letters.

[Paddy by Grace]

Discussion of John 1, Colossians 1 and Philippians 2 was fairly

limited in the early Fathers' writings, most probably due to the fact that

the Arian controversy was still future, and the church's main enemy at that

time was gnosticism and docetism, neither of which would require a strong

statement of the pre-existence of Christ, at least by itself. Paul is

attacking gnostic ideas in Colossians, but even the gnostics believed in some

kind of pre-existence for Christ. Irenaeus exegeted John 1:1 against the

gnostics in Book V of Against Heresies, chapter 18,[24] and did as Paul did

and pointed out that Jesus is the Creator not a part of the creation.

The introduction of Arianism drew the attention of the Church back to the

Person of Christ and his relationship with the Father. Origen's synthesis of

Greek philosophy and its idea of the Divine Wisdom with Christian doctrine

had laid the groundwork for Arius' denial of the absolute deity of Christ

and, thereby, the denial of the eternal pre- existence of the Lord Jesus.

John's filling of the eternal Logos with personality was reversed somewhat,

and the timeless en of John 1:1 seemingly was lost in the shuffle.

It is no surprise, then, that the Church Fathers after Nicea spend much

more time on John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, and Philippians 2:5-7. The Nicene

Creed had clearly stated the Deity of Christ as well as his

pre-existence.[25] The six decades that followed saw a resurgence of

Arianism and, after great struggle, the victory of the Nicene faith. During

that time the great Athanasius wrote volumes in defense of the deity of the

Son. Chalcedon reaffirmed Nicea and went farther in attempting to answer the

questions concerning the relationship of the divine and the human in

Christ.[26]

The body of writing of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers is large indeed.

The series edited by Schaff takes up 28 large volumes alone. Hence, to

overview all of this literature would be far beyond the scope of this paper.

Therefore, the three main exegetes of the century after Nicea - Chrysostom,

Athanasius, and Augustine - will be examined, briefly, to determine how they

understood the focal passages listed above.



Chrysostom:

Of the three Fathers I have chosen to look at, Chrysostom (345- 407)

expressed the clearest if not the most in-depth understanding of the doctrine

of the pre-existence of Christ. Chrysostom was called the "golden-mouthed,"

and this passage[27] on John 1:1 should explain why:



"For the intellect, having ascended to `the beginning,' enquires what

`beginning': and then finding the `was' always outstripping its

imagination, has no point at which to stay its thought; but looking

intently onwards, and being unable to cease at any point, it becomes

wearied out, and turns back to things below. For this, `was in the

beginning,' is nothing else than expressive of ever being and being

infinitely."



Chrysostom's point is the same as made previously on the basis of the

imperfect en in 1:1 - it is timeless. A little later he adds, "...(the)

first `was,' applied to `the Word,' is only indicative of His eternal

Being..." In the same manner, he keys on the term pros as well, saying "For

he does not say, was `in God,' but was `with God': declaring to us His

eternity as to person. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed

it, by adding, that this `Word' also `was God.'"[28] The eternality of the

Word was one of Chrysostom's main ideas in his exegesis of John 1, and he

repeatedly stressed the concept.[29]



Nor did Colossians 1:15-17 escape Chrysostom's notice. Keying on verses

16-17, he attacked the gnostic concept of the creation and its duality by

pressing the list of things created by Christ, claiming that obviously Paul

was including all of creation under the Son's reign.



"...the subsistence of all things depends on Him. Not only did He

Himself bring them out of nothing into being, but Himself sustains

them now, so that were they dissevered from His Providence, they were

at once undone and destroyed."[30]



Most importantly, Chrysostom contributed greatly to the understanding of

Philippians 2:5-11. He wrote:



"What does Paul wish to establish by this example? Surely, to lead

the Philippians to humility. To what purpose then did he bring

forward this example? For no one who would exhort to humility speaks

thus; `Be thou humble, and think less of thyself than of thine equals

in honor, for such an one who is a slave has not risen against his

master; do thou imitate him.' This, any one would say, is not

humility, but arrogance!...If he were exhorting servants to obey the

free, to what purpose could he bring forward the subjection of a

servant to a master? of a lesser to a greater?"[31]



The point has already been made (in the exegesis section) that the

understanding of Paul's exhortation to humility is, in this writer's opinion,

the key to understanding the passage, and here Chrysostom makes this point

quite well.



Athanasius:

Rightly called the great defender of the Nicene faith, Athanasius possessed

a keen insight into the central doctrines of Christianity. Like Augustine

after him, Athanasius saw Philippians 2:5-7 in close connection with John

1:1. In his "Four Discourses Against the Arians", Discourse II,[32] he

ties John 1:1, 14 together with Philippians 2:6 as his main Scriptural

support of the deity of Christ. To Athanasius, John's eternal Word existing

"with" God and being God is the same as Paul's pre-existent Christ eternally

existing in God's form and being equal with him.



Similarly, Athanasius quotes all of the Carmen Christi and then

says, "Can anything be plainer than this? He was not from a lower state

promoted; but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in

taking it, was not promoted but humbled Himself."[33] This view of the

eternally existing Christ is found also in his "Statement of Faith"[34] in

which he says,



"All things to wit were made through the Son; but He Himself is not

a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: `In Him were all things

created, and He is before All' (Col. 1:16). Now He says not, `was

created' before all things, but `is' before all things. To be

created, namely, is applicable to all things, but `is before all'

applies to the Son only."



One final quote from Athanasius should be sufficient to represent his

interpretation of this doctrine:



"Therefore if the Word be creature, He would not be first or

beginning of the rest; yet if He be before all, as indeed He is, and

is Himself alone First and Son, it does not follow that He is

beginning of all things as to His Essence, for what is the beginning

of all is in the number of all. And if He is not such a beginning,

then neither is He a creature, but it is very plain that He differs

in essence and nature from the creatures, and is other than they, and

is Likeness and Image of the sole and true God, being Himself sole

also. Hence He is not classed with creatures in Scripture..."[35]



Augustine:

Augustine wrote a great deal on John 1:1 and Philippians 2:5-7, but very

little on Colossians 1:15-17. Quite frequently the two passages are quoted

together. Augustine's "Homilies on the Gospel of John" provides plenty of

information on his views of the pre-existence of Christ as revealed in John

1.[36] However, we will look more at the doctrinal sections of Augustine's

writings. In his "Enchiridion" he wrote:[37]



"Wherefore Christ Jesus, the Son of God, is both God and man; God

before all worlds; man in our world: God, because the Word of God

(for`the Word was God'); and man, because in His one person the Word

was joined with a body and a rational soul. Wherefore, so far as He

is God, He and the Father are one; so far as He is man, the Father is

greater than He. For when He was the only Son of God, not by grace,

but by nature, that He might be full of grace, He became the Son of

man; and He Himself unites both natures in His own identity, and both

natures constitute on Christ; because, `being in the form of God, He

thought it not robbery to be,' what He was by nature, `equal with

God.' But He made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself

the form of a servant, not losing or lessening the form of God. And,

accordingly, He was both made less and remained equal, being both in

one, as has been said: but He was one of these as Word, and the other

as man. As Word, He is equal with the Father; as man, less than the

Father. One Son of God, and at the same time Son of man; one Son of

man, and at the same time Son of God; not two Sons of God, God and

man, but one Son of God; God without beginning; man with a beginning,

our Lord Jesus Christ."



This passage is one of many[38] that could be cited, but it admirably sums

up Augustine's view-point for our purposes.



A Modern Viewpoint: The Westminster Confession The Westminster Confession

is hailed by many as the greatest theological creed since the Reformation

era, and so it is. A lengthy discussion need not be put forth to demonsrate

the harmony between Westminster and the Scriptures, creeds, and Fathers

already cited. The Confession itself, Chapter VIII "Of Christ the Mediator,"

sections I-III should be sufficient to demonstrate the acceptance of the

doctrine:



"I. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain

the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God

and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King; the Head and Saviour of his

Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world; unto whom he

did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed, and to be by

him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

"II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very

and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did,

when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with

all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet

without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the

womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole,

perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were

inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion,

composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man,

yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine,

was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure;

having in him all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it

pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell;..."[39]



The greatest of the Protestant creeds clearly bases its high view of the

Lord Jesus Christ on the fact of the Scriptural revelation of his eternal

pre-existence with the Father, in the very form of God. This writer sees any

movement away from the clear stance of Westminster (reflecting Biblical

teaching) as a move away from truth.



Conclusion

We have seen above that the New Testament writers John and Paul both

clearly presented the fact of the pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not only did Christ exist before his birth in Bethlehem, but he existed

eternally pros ton theon (with God) and in the very nature of God (morphe tou

theou). These are high words and concepts, to be sure; but no less true. We

have seen that the early church fathers understood this concept (Ignatius)

and made it a part of their teaching. The council of Nicea reaffirmed the

faith of the Apostles, and the great Church fathers Chrysostom, Athanasius

and Augustine were in harmony with those who came before. Finally, we saw

that the great creed of the Protestant faith, Westminster, continues the

millenia-old understanding of Christians everywhere that the Lord of Glory,

Jesus Christ, has eternally been God.



References:

1) 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21.

2) This writer sees the following passages as directly ascribing to Jesus

Christ the term God: Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew: Elohim) John 1:1 (Greek: theos),

1:18, 20:28, Acts 20:28 (depending on text), Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews

1:8, 2 Peter 1:1 and (possibly) 1 John 5:20. Interestingly, in reference to

Titus 2:13 (and 2 Peter 1:1 - both similar syntactical constructions)

Chrysostom ("Homily IV on Philippians in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

volume 13, pg. 207) clearly understood the implications of the syntax of

Titus 2:13, and bases part of his polemic against the Arians on the

application of theos to Christ. See also A. T. Robertson, The Minister and

His Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pgs. 61-68.

3) F. F. Bruce Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1977) p. 475) places the epistles of Paul in

the following order: Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians,

Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus

with Galatians at 48 A.D., Colossians and Philippians in 60-62 A.D., and

Paul's death in approximately 65 A.D. This is almost identical to A. T.

Robertson's ("Paul the Apostle" in The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1956) vol.

3:2265-2266) order of writing, with the exception of Galatians, which

Robertson places just before Romans. See also Ralph Martin, "Colossians and

Philemon" in The New Century Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) pg. 30 on the dating of Colossians.

4) Merril C. Tenney, "John" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981) vol. 9, pp. 9-10. 5) Philip Schaff,

History of the Christian Church , (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman's Publishing

Company, 1985) vol. 1:721-724 gives a good argument for Johanine authorship,

and dates it before 100 A.D. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New

Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932) vol. 5:1 dates John at A.D.

90. James Iverach, "John the Apostle" in The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1956) vol.

3:1721-1722 also dates John at end of first century.

6) G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, (London:SPCK, 1952), pp. 124,

141. Ralph Martin, "Colossians and Philemon" in The New Century Bible

Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1973) pg. 58.

7) A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of

Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) pp. 625f. See

discussion in A. T. Robertson, The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John

(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1976) pp. 34-46. 8) See F. F. Bruce, The Gospel

of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) p. 31, or

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's

Publishing Company, 1971) pg. 77 for a discussion of some of the issues

involved in the translation of this phrase. Most noteably, the New World

Translation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society mistranslates the

phrase as "the Word was a god." 9) On the text of John 1:18 and the

superiority of the reading theos over huios, see Bruce Metzger, A Textual

Commentary on the New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) p.

198, A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 5:17. For citation

of manuscripts, see the UBS text, 3rd ed. corrected, p. 322.

10) For the true meaning of monogenes see J.H. Moulton and George Milligan,

The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman's

Publishing Company, 1935) pp. 416-417. 11) Greek: exegesato, to lead out,

bring forth, make known, explain. 12) For an interesting discussion of the

relationship of the Prologue to the rest of John, see John A. T. Robinson,

Twelve More New Testament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1984) pp. 65-76. 13)

Philip B. Harner, The I Am Sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John, (Fortress

Press, 1970).

14) Ralph Martin, "Colossians and Philemon" pp. 55-57; F. F. Bruce, Paul

Apostle of the Heart Set Free pp. 418ff. For further information on the

passage as well as exegesis, see John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries vol.

21:151-152.

15) See Wilhelm Michaelis, "Prototokos" in Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1982) vol.

6:872ff.

16) See M. Tsevat, "Bekhor" in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1975) vol. 2:121ff. On

prototokos see entry in Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature edited by Gingrich and Danker,

2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 726.

17) J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon,

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959) pp. 150-151. See also pp.

151-153 on the extent of ta panta.

18) For other views and discussion on Colossians 1:15-17 in a theological

setting, see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Inter-Varsity Press:

USA, 1981) pp. 344-352; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament,

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1974) pp. 419-421.

19) Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology pp. 342-352; George Eldon Ladd, A

Theology of the New Testament pp. 419-421; Henry Alford, New Testament for

English Readers, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983) pp. 1262-1264;

Kenneth Wuest, "Philippians" in Word Studies in the Greek New Testament

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1981) pp. 62-65; J. B.

Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1953) p. 137. 20) See discussion under patristic

interpretation. 21) Ibid.

22) Both the Authorized Version and the New International Version see that

the term kenosis is always used metaphorically by Paul - hence, the

translation "to make of no repute" or to "make himself nothing." It is never

used by Paul of a literal "emptying." 23) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian

Doctrines (New York: Longman Inc., 1981) pp. 87, 91..cw 9

24) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1981) vol. 1:546. 25) For

the text of the Nicene Creed, see J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, (New

York: Longman Inc., 1981), pp. 215-216 and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of

Christendom, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) vol. 1:27-28.

26) Schaff, Creeds of Christendom vol 1:30. 27) John Chrysostom, "Homilies

on St. John" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1980) vol. 14:8.

28) Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 14:12. 29) Chrysostom, Nicene

and Post-Nicene Fathers 14:18. His entire exegesis found in pages 10-19 is

excellent. 30) Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 13:271. 31)

Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 13:207-208. 32) Athanasius, "Four

Discourses Against the Arians" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (series

II) ed. by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company,

1980) vol. 5:409. 33) Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4:329.

34) Athanasius, "Statement of Faith" in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.

5:85.

35) Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5:375. See also 5:382.

36) Augustine, "Homilies on the Gospel of John" in The Nicene and

Post-Nicene Fathers series I, edited by Philip Schaff, vol. 7:7-13.

Augustine also connected the idea of pre-existence with the absolute usage of

e go eimi at John 8:21-25; in vol. 7:218-219. 37) Augustine, "Enchiridion,"

in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol. 3:249.



38) See also Augustine, "On Faith and Creed" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fath ers vol 3:322-323, 329.

39) Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3:619-620.



Researched and written by:

James White, B.A., M.A.



... The True God is Sovereign (Psalm 135:6)



--- via The Blue Wave v1.06

* Origin: Pros Apologian--Defending the Faith [phone] (1:114/105.0)



Message #7234 "Open Bible"

Date: 12-Mar-91 10:04

From: James White

To: Terry Blount

Subj: The Trinity

Previous Reply is Message #6743.



Terry:



Here is a post I wrote a few years back--a basic definition of the Trinity.

A more in-depth study should be up by tomorrow, and it is really meant both

for you, as well as Walter Copes.



I know that one of the most oft-repeated questions given to me as a

teacher is, "how does one explain, or even understand, the doctrine of

the Trinity?" Indeed, few topics are made such a football by various

groups that, normally, claim to be the "only" real religion, and who prey

upon Christians as "convert fodder." Be that as it may, when the Christian

is faced with a question regarding the Trinity, how might it best be

explained?

For me, I know that simplifying the doctrine to its most basic

elements has been very important and very useful. When we reduce the

discussion to the three clear Biblical teachings that underlie the

Trinity, we can move our discussion from the abstract to the concrete

Biblical data, and can help those involved in false religions to

recognize which of the Biblical teachings it is denying.

We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the

Trinity is in the first place - hence, accuracy in definition will be

very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one

eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is

shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and

the Spirit. It is good here to distinguish between the terms "being" and

"person." It would be a contradict- ion, obviously, to say that there are

three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what

is the difference?

We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every

day. We recognize *what* something is, yet we also recognize individuals

within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man -

human being. A rock has "being" - the being of a rock, as does a cat, a

dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings -

God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion,

will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of

themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of

"catkind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being

of God, shared fully and completely by three personal self-distinctions,

Father, Son and Spirit. NOTE: We are *not* saying that the Father is the

Son, or the Son the Spirit, or the Spirit the Father. It is very common

for people to misunderstand the doctrine as to mean that we are saying

Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way say

this!

The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that

is the Trinity are as follows: 1) There is one and only one God,

eternal, immutible. 2) There are three eternal Persons described in

Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never

identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated

as Persons. 3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as

being fully deity - that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the

Deity of the Holy Spirit.

One could possibly represent this as follows:



Polytheism

/\

Full Equality - / \ - Three Persons

/ \

/ \

Oneness /________________\ Subordinationism

|

One God



The three sides of the triangle represent the three Biblical

doctrines, as labeled. When one denies any of these three teachings, the

other two sides point to the result. Hence, if one denies that there are

Three Persons, one is left with the two sides of Full Equality and One

God, resulting in the "Oneness" teaching of the United Pentecostal Church

and others. If one denies Fully Equality, one is left with Three Persons

and One God, resulting in "subordin- ationism" as seen in Jehovah's

Witnesses, the Way International, etc. (though to be perfectly accurate the

Witnesses deny *all three* of the sides in some way - they deny Full

Equality (i.e., Jesus is Michael the Archangel), Three Persons (the Holy

Spirit is an imper- sonal, active "force" like electricity) and One God

(they say Jesus is "a god" - a lesser divinity than Yahweh; hence they are

in reality not monotheists but henotheists). And, if one denies One God, one

is left with polytheism, the belief in many gods, as seen clearly in the

Mormon Church, the most polytheistic religion I have encountered.

Hopefully these brief thoughts will be of help to you as you "grow

in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."



James>>>



... The Bible is God's Word



--- via The Blue Wave v1.06

* Origin: Pros Apologian--Defending the Faith [phone] (1:114/105.0)



Message #7236 "Open Bible"

Date: 12-Mar-91 13:10

From: James White

To: Walter Copes

Subj: Chalcedon #1

[Paddy by Grace]

The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology



I. Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity requires a balanced view of Scripture. That

is, since the doctrine itself is derived from more than one stream of

evidence, it requires that all the evidence be weighed and given authority.

If any of the foundational pillars of the doctrine (monotheism, the deity of

Christ, the person of the Holy Spirit, etc.) be ignored or even rejected, the

resulting doctrinal system will differ markedly from the orthodox position,

and will lose its claim to be called "biblical."

For centuries various small groups have rejected the doctrine of the

Trinity. In modern times these groups have frequently attracted quite a

following; Jehovah's Witnesses as the modern heirs of Arius have over 3

million people actively engaged in their work; the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are heirs of ancient polytheism and mystery

religions, and nearly 6.5 million adhere to their teachings. A smaller

number of people, however, cling to the third-century position of modalism -

the teachings of men such as Sabellius or Praxeas or Noetus. Though fewer in

number, it is this position, popularly called the "Oneness" teaching, that

prompts this paper's clarification of the Biblical position regarding the

doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ.

Oneness writers strongly deny the doctrine of the Trinity. In the

words of David K. Bernard,



"The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity, and

trinitarianism actually contradicts the Bible. It does not add any

positive benefit to the Christian message....the doctrine of the

trinity does detract from the important biblical themes of the

oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ."[1]



The attack on the Trinity launched by Oneness writers can be divided

into two camps. There are some writers who know what the doctrine is and

disagree with it; unfortunately, many others don't know what it is and attack

it anyway, normally misrepresenting the doctrine in quite obvious ways. For

example, one writer, while ridiculing the use of the term "mystery" in

reference to the Trinity said, "When asked to explain how God could be one

and three persons at the same time the answer is, "It's a mystery." "[2] Of

course, the doctrine of the Trinity does not say God is one person and three

persons or one being and three beings, but that within the one being of God

there exists eternally three persons. It is easy to see why many find the

doctrine unintelligible, especially when they trust writers who are not

careful in their research.

This Oneness teaching is quite attractive to the person who wishes, for

whatever personal reason, to "purge" the faith of what they might consider to

be "man's philosophies." There are a number of Oneness groups in the United

States, located primarily in the South and Midwest. The United Pentecostal

Church is the largest of the Oneness groups in the U.S.; others include the

Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, the Pentecostal Assemblies of the

World, and the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith. Each

of these groups has thousands of followers, many of whom are quite

evangelistic in spreading their faith. Given that many of the issues that

Oneness addresses are not familiar ground for most Christians, it is good to

examine these issues in the light of Biblical revelation and theology so that

the orthodox Christian will be able to "give a reason" for the hope that is

within us.

This survey will be broken into four sections. First, the important

aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity relevant to the Oneness position will

be examined. These would include the Christian definition of monotheism, the

existence of three persons, the pre-existence of the Son and the internal

operations of the Trinity. Secondly, vital issues relevant to Christology

will be addressed, such as the Chalcedonian definition, the unipersonality of

Christ, and the relationship of the Father and the Son. Thirdly, the Oneness

position will be defined and presented, and finally that position will be

critiqued.



II. Trinitarian Concepts

The very word "Trinity" is made up of two terms - "tri" and "unity."

The doctrine travels the middle road between the two, and neither can be

allowed to predominate the other. Trinitarians have but one God - the charge

of polytheism or tritheism leveled at the orthodox position ignores the very

real emphasis, drawn from the Biblical witness to one God, on monotheism.

This can be seen, for example, in the definition of the Trinity given by

Berkhof:



A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia,

essentia).

B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual

subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the

three persons.

D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine

Being is marked by a certain definite order.

E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons

are distinguished.

F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the

comprehension of man.[3]



Twice the emphasis is made that the essence or being of God is indivisible.

There is but one being that is God. The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards

this further by asserting that "the whole undivided essence of God belongs

equally to each of the three persons." This follows logically on the heels

of asserting the indivisibility of the being of God, for if three Persons

share that one being, they must share all of that being. The Father is not

just 1/3 of God - he is fully Deity, just as the Son and the Spirit.



The Biblical evidence for monotheism is legion, and it is not within

the scope of this paper to review all those passages. The Shema might be

sufficient to demonstrate the point, for this recital begins at Deuteronomy

6:4 with the words, "Hear, O Israel; Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one." This

concept of monotheism separates Judaism (and Christianity) from any kind of

polytheistic religion.

Given monotheism as a basis, it must be stressed that the bald

statement of monotheism does not imply nor denote unitarianism. When the

Bible says God is one, this does not mean that God is unitarian (i.e.,

uni-personal) in his mode of existence. Frequently individual writers will

quote from the many passages that teach that there is one God and will infer

from this a denial of the tri-personality of God. This is going beyond what

is written. It is vital, if justice is to be done to the Biblical teaching,

that all of the witness of Scripture be given due consideration. If the

Bible presents more data that clarifies the meaning of God's "oneness," then

this information must be taken into account.

Does, then, the Bible indicate the existence of more than one Person in

the divine nature? It most certainly does. John Calvin expressed the proper

balance well in the Institutes:



"Again, Scripture sets forth a distinction of the Father from the

Word, and of the Word from the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the

mystery warns us how much reverence and sobriety we ought to use in

investigating this. And that passage in Gregory of Nazianus vastly

delights me:

" "I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by

the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being

straightway carried back to the one." Let us not, then, be led to

imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and

does not at once lead them back to that unity. Indeed, the words

"Father," "Son," and "Spirit" imply a real distinction - let no one

think that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his

works, are empty - but a distinction, not a division."[4]



Before looking at the particular Biblical data, it is good to make the

same emphasis as made by Gregory via Calvin - though this paper will

emphasize the triunity of God, this is only because of the object of

clarification, that being the Oneness teaching. Balance demands that both

elements - the existence of three persons as well as the absolute claim of

monotheism - be maintained.

The Christian church maintains that the terms Father, Son and Holy

Spirit refer to actual Persons, not simply modes of existence. As the

popular, short definition goes, "There is within the one being that is God

three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit." The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is

not the Father, etc. Each is eternal - the Father has always been, the Son

has always been, and the Spirit has always been. No person precedes the

other, no follows another. Charles Hodge said in reflecting on the early

church councils,



"These Councils decided that the terms Father, Son, and Spirit, were

not expressive merely of relations ad extra, analogous to the terms,

Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor. This was the doctrine known as

Sabellianism, which assumed that the Supreme Being is not only one in

essence, but one in person. The Church doctrine asserts that Father,

Son, and Spirit express internal, necessary, and eternal relations in

the Godhead; that they are personal designations, so that the Father

is one person, the Son another person, and the Spirit another person.

They differ not as allo kai allo, but as allos kai allos; each says

I, and each says Thou, to either of the others. The word used in the

Greek Church to express this fact was first prosopon, and afterwards,

and by general consent, hupostasis; in the Latin Church, "persona,"

and in English, person. The idea expressed by the word in its

application to the distinctions in the Godhead, is just as clear and

definite as in its application to men."[5]



Some Oneness writers have gone so far as to say, "To say that God is

three persons and find substantiation for it in the Scripture is a work in

futility. There is literally nothing in the Bible that supports God being

three persons."[6] However, as the Church throughout the ages has seen fit

to reject the modalistic presentation, there must obviously be some reason

for this. Such reason is found in the teaching of Scripture itself. The

Bible presents a number of categories of evidence that demonstrates the

existence of three Persons all sharing the one being that is God. First, the

Persons are described as personal; that is, the attributes of personhood and

personal existence are ascribed to the three. Secondly, clear distinctions

are made between the Persons, so that it is impossible to confound or confuse

the three. The second Person, the Son, is described as being eternal (as is

the Spirit, but in this context, given the denial of the eternal nature of

the Son by the Oneness position, and the acceptance of the eternality of the

Spirit by the same group, this point is more tangent to the issue) and is

differentiated in this pre-existence from the Father. Finally, we see real

and eternal relationships between the Persons (the opera ad intra.)

One of the characteristics of personal existence is will. Few would

argue the point in relationship to the Father, as He obviously has a will.

So too, the Son has a will, for he says to the Father in the Garden, "not as

I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) The ascription of will to the

Persons indicates the ability to reason, to think, to act, to desire - all

those things we associate with self-consciousness. As we shall see later,

there is a difference between nature and person, and one of those differences

is the will. Inanimate objects do not will; neither do animals. Part of the

imago dei is the will itself.



Another aspect of personhood seen to exist with each of the Persons is

the ability to love. In John 3:35 we read that "the Father loves the Son..."

This is repeated in John 5:20. In John 15:9 the Father loves the Son, and

the Son in return loves those who are His own. In Jesus' prayer to the

Father in John 17, we are again reminded of the Father's love for Jesus in

17:23, and in verse 24 we are told that this love between Father and Son has

existed from all eternity. That love marks every word of Jesus concerning

the Father is beyond dispute, and is it not fair to say that the giving of

the Holy Spirit to the Church is an act of love as well? Hence we see that

the persons described in these passages (and in many others) are capable of

love, a personal attribute.

It might be argued that these personal attributes are simply applied to

the three manifestations of God, but that this does not necessarily mean that

there are three Persons. However, the Bible clearly differentiates between

the three Persons, as the brief survey to follow demonstrates.

One of the more well-known examples of the existence of three Persons

is the baptism of Jesus recorded in Matthew 3:16-17. Here the Father speaks

from heaven, the Son is being baptized (and is again described as being the

object of the Father's love, paralleling the Johannine usage), and the Spirit

is descending as a dove.[7] Jesus is not speaking to himself here (as many

non-Christian groups tend to accuse the Trinitarians of making Jesus a

ventriloquist), but is spoken to by the Father. There is no confusing of the

Persons at the baptism.

The transfiguration of Jesus in Matthew 17:1-9 again demonstrates the

separate personhood of the Father and the Son. The Son's true pre- existent

glory is unveiled for an instant in the presence of the Father in the cloud.

Communication again takes place, marked with the familiar love of the Father

for the Son. Both the deity and the separate personhood of the Son is

clearly presented in this passage. The Father spoke to the Son at another

time, recorded in John 12:28. Again, the distinction of person of the Father

and the Son is clearly maintained.

Some of the most obvious passages relevant to the Father and the Son

are found in the prayers of Jesus Christ. These are no mock prayers - Jesus

is not speaking to Himself (nor, as the Oneness writer would put it, is

Jesus' humanity speaking to His deity) - He is clearly communicating with

another Person, that being the Person of the Father. Transcendent heights are

reached in the lengthiest prayer we have, that of John 17. No one can miss

the fact of the communication of one Person (the Son) with another (the

Father) presented in this prayer. The usage of personal pronouns and direct

address put the very language squarely on the side of maintaining the

separate personhood of Father and Son. This is not to say that their unity

is something that goes far beyond simple purpose; indeed, given the

background of the Old Testament, the very statements of the Son regarding His

relationship with the Father are among the strongest assertions of His Deity

in the Bible. But, as stated before, the doctrine of the Trinity is

pre-eminently a balanced doctrine that differentiates between the being or

nature of God and the Persons who share equally that being. If there is more

than one God, or if there is less than three Persons, then the doctrine of

the Trinity is in error.

Striking is the example of Matthew 27:46 where Jesus, quoting from

Psalm 22:1 cries out, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" That the

Father is the immediate person addressed is clear from Luke's account where

the next statement from Jesus in his narrative is "Father, into your hands I

commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46)[8] Some early heresies (predominately

gnostic in character) had to posit some kind of "separation" of the Deity

from the human Son at this point (and indeed, some Oneness writers could be

accused of the same problem). That this is the Son addressing the Father is

crystal clear, and the ensuing personhood of both is inarguable.

One of the high-water marks of Synoptic Christology is to be found in

Matthew 11:27. Here the reciprocity between the Father and Son is put forth

with exactness, while at the same time dictating the absolute deity of both.

The relationship of the Father and Son is the topic under discussion in

both John 5:16ff and John 8:12ff. The Apostle again walks a tight line in

maintaining the distinct personhood of Father and Son while asserting the

full deity of Jesus Christ. Outside of a Trinitarian concept of God, this

position of John's is unintelligible. Important in this discussion is the

fact that in the very same passages that the Deity of the Son is emphasized

his distinction from the Father is also seen. This causes insuperable

problems for the Oneness position, as we shall see. In John 5:19-24, Jesus

clearly differentiates himself from the Father, yet claims attributes that

are only proper of Deity (life, judgment, honor). In John 5:30 the Son says

He can do nothing of Himself, yet in 37-39 he identifies Himself as the one

witnessed to by the Scriptures who can give eternal life. Only Yahweh of the

Tanakh can do so. Hence, the deity spoken of by Jesus is not the Father

dwelling in the Son, but is the Son's personally. This is seen even more

plainly in chapter 8. Here it is the Son who utilizes the phrase ego eimi in

the absolute sense, identifying Himself as Yahweh. It is the Son who says He

is glorified by the Father (v. 54) and yet only four verses later it is the

Son who says, "Before Abraham came into existence, I AM!" Clearly the Son is

fully deity just as the Father.

And what of the Spirit? Jesus said in John 14:16-17 that the Father

would send another (Gr: allos) comforter. Jesus had been the Comforter for

the disciples during His earthly ministry, but He was about to leave them and

return to heaven where he had been before (John 17:5). The Holy Spirit,

identified as a Person by John (through his usage of the masculine ekeinos at

John 16:13), is sent both by the Father (John 14:16) as well as by the Son

(16:7).[9] The Spirit is not identified as the Father, nor as the Son, for

neither could send Himself.

Hence, it is clear from this short review that the Scriptures

differentiate between the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son, as

well as differentiating between these and the Spirit. The next area that

must be addressed is the Biblical teaching of the pre-existence of the Son,

or, as often referred to by Oneness writers, the "eternal Son theory."



That the Son, as a divine Person, has existed from all eternity, is a

solidly Biblical teaching. Most denials of this teaching stem from a

misunderstanding of the term monogenes[10] or the term "begotten" as used in

Psalm 2:7. Such denials cannot stand under the weight of the Biblical

evidence.

Though other passages could be examined, we will limit the discussion

to seven Biblical sections that clearly teach the pre- existence of the Son

as a Person within the divine being. What may be the most obvious passage is

found in Colossians chapter 1, verses 13 through 17. Here the "beloved Son"

is described as "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (Gr:

prototokos) of all creation." He (the Son) is then described as the Creator

in what could only be called exhaustive terms. Certainly, if the Son is the

creator, then the Son both pre-existed and is indeed eternal, for God is the

creator of all that is. It will not do to say that this passage says that

God created all things for the Son who was yet to exist; for verse 16 is

emphatic is announcing that it was "in Him" that all things were created (the

usage of en is the instrumental of agency). Without doubt the Son is

presented here as pre-existent.

The same can be said of Philippians 2:5-7, the Carmen Christi. This

passage has spawned literally hundreds of volumes, and an in-depth exegesis

is not called for here. Rather, it is obvious that the Son is presented here

as eternally existing (huparchon) in the very morphe tou theou - the form of

God. This One is also said to be "equal with God." Note there is here no

confounding of the Persons (just as throughout Scripture) yet there is just

as plainly an identification of more than one Person under discussion. It

was not the Father with whom the Son was equal who became flesh and "made

Himself of no repute"; rather, it was the Son who did this.

The opening chapter of the book of Hebrews identifies the Son as

pre-existent as well. Verse 2 echoes Colossians 1:13-17 in saying that it

was "through the Son" that the worlds were made. This Son is the "radiance

of His glory and the exact representation of His being." Again the

distinction of the Son from the Father is maintained at the exact same time

as the absolute deity of the Son is put forward, a balance found only in the

doctrine of the Trinity and not in non-Christian theories. The Son, verse 3

says, "upholds all things by His powerful word." This is directly analogous

to the final statements of Colossians 1:17, and demands the continuous and

eternal existence of the Son to make any sense whatsoever. In light of this,

it is clear that the interpretation of verse 5, which quotes from Psalm 2,

that asserts a beginning for the Son misses the entire point of the opening

of Hebrews. In its original context, this passage did not indicate that God

had literally fathered the king to whom the Psalm was addressed; certainly,

therefore, such a forced meaning cannot be placed on this usage either.

Rather, the writer of Hebrew's purpose is to exalt the Son and demonstrate

His superiority even to the angels, going so far as to clearly identify the

Son as Yahweh in verses 10 through 12. It would be strange indeed if the

writer tried to show the real nature of the Son by saying that He, like the

angels, was a created, non-eternal being.

The Lord Jesus Himself never attempted to say He had a beginning, but

was instead aware of His true nature. In the real "Lord's prayer" of John

17, he states in verse 5, "And now you glorify me, Father, with the glory I

had with you (para seauto) before the worlds were made." Jesus is here

conscious of the glory which He had shared with the Father in eternity, a

clear reflection of Philippians 2, Hebrews 1, and, as we shall see, John 1.

As Yahweh declares that he will give his glory to no other (Isaiah 48:11) yet

another identification of the Son as being one with the Father in sharing the

divine name Yahweh is here presented. This glorious pre-existence of which

Jesus here speaks is also seen in John 14:28 when Jesus, having said He was

returning to the Father, points out to the disciples that they should have

rejoiced at this, for rather than His continued existence in His current

state of humiliation (the "being made of no repute" of Philippians 2), He was

about to return to His glorious position with the Father in heaven, a

position which is "greater" than the one He now was enduring.

Many passages in the New Testament identify the Lord Jesus Christ as

Yahweh. One of these is John 8:58, where, again speaking as the Son, Jesus

asserts his existence before Abraham. As pointed out above, it does not do

to say that this was simply an assertion that the deity resident within Him

pre-existed (in Oneness teaching, the Father) but rather it was He as the Son

who was "before Abraham."

In John 3:13 Jesus said, "no one has gone up into heaven except the one

who came out of heaven, the Son of man."[11] Jesus' own words indicate that

He was aware of His origin and pre-existence. What is also interesting is

the name for Himself that is used - the Son of Man. One would expect the Son

of God to be used here, but it is not. Jesus was one Person, not two. The

Son of God was the Son of Man. One cannot divide Him into two Persons.

The most striking evidence of the pre-existence of the Son is found in

the prologue of the Gospel of John. This vital Christological passage is

incredible for its careful accuracy to detail - even down to the tenses of

verbs the author is discriminating in his writing. It again must be asserted

that, without a Trinitarian understanding of God, this passage ends up

self-contradictory and illogical. John defines his terms for us in verses 14

and 18. In verse 14 he tells us that the Logos of whom he has been speaking

became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He also tells us that it is

Jesus Christ who, though clearly not the Father Himself, is the one who

"makes the Father known" and who is, indeed, the monogenes theos[12] the

"unique God." That verse 18 has under consideration two separate Persons is

beyond disputation. That these two Persons are the Father and the Son is

just as sure, for John so identifies them.



With this in mind, the first three verses are crystalline in their

teaching. John asserts that the Logos was "in the beginning," that is, the

Word is eternal. This Logos was "with God" (Gr: pros ton theon.)[13] This

latter phrase can only refer to personal contact and communion, a point to be

expanded on in much of the Gospel of John. Hence, from this phrase, it is

clear that one cannot completely identify the Person of God (in John's usage

here, the Father) with the Logos (i.e., the Son). However, he goes on in the

third clause to provide that balance found throughout the inspired text by

saying, "the Word was God." The NEB renders this clause, "and what God was,

the Word was." Perhaps Dr. Kenneth Wuest came the closest when he

translated, "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity." By placing

the term theos in the emphatic position, and by using that term itself

(rather than theios - a "godlike" one), John avoids any kind of Arian

subordinationism. At the same time, John does not make logos and theos

identical to one another, for he does not put an article before theos. By so

doing he walks the fine line between Arianism and Sabellianism,

subordinationism and modalism.

Finally, John asserts, as did Paul before him, that the Logos is the

Creator. "Through him were all things made which have been made." This is

exactly the point of Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:2. As John identified

the Logos as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, then his testimony must be added

to all the others in proclaiming the pre-existence of the Son.

Having seen the pre-existence of the Son, then we are forced by the

Biblical data itself to deal with the internal relationships of the Persons

who make up the Godhead. Though many Oneness writers would object to the

terminology utilized to discuss this subject, it is they, not the

Trinitarian, who are ignoring the Biblical material and its clear teaching.

Though an in-depth discussion of the opera ad intra is not warranted in this

paper, it might be good to point out that we are obviously here not

discussing simply an economic trinity. All of the above evidence points to

real and purposeful distinctions (not divisions) within the Being of God that

are necessary and eternal, not temporal and passing. God has eternally been

trinal and will always be so. The relationship between the essence of God

and the Persons is not a subject of Biblical discussion directly; but we are

forced to deal with the issue nevertheless - by the Scriptural testimony

itself. G. T. Shedd expressed it this way:



"The essence...is not prior, either in the order of nature or of

time, to the persons, nor subsequent to them, but simultaneous with

them. Hence, the essence is not one constituent factor by itself,

apart from the persons, any more than the persons are three

constituent factors by themselves, apart from the essence. The one

essence is simultaneously three persons, and the three persons are

one essence. The trinity is not a composition of one essence with

three persons. It is not an essence without distinctions united with

three distinctions, so as to make a complex. The trinity is simple

and uncomplex. "If," says Twesten,... "we distinguish between the

clearness of light and the different degrees of clearness, we do not

imply that light is composed of clearness and degrees of clearness."

Neither is God composed of one untrinal essence and three persons."[14]



With these Trinitarian concepts in mind, the specific Christological

questions must now be addressed.



III. Christological Concepts



"Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach

men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at

once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly

man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance

[homoousios] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same

time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all

respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the

Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for

us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer

[theotokos]; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,

recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,

without division, without separation [en duo phusesin, asungchutos

atreptos, adiairetos achoristos]; the distinction of natures being in

no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each

nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and

subsistence [hupostasis], not as parted or separated into two

persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word,

Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of

him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of

the Fathers has handed down to us."[15]



In 451 A.D. the Council of Chalcedon formulated this definition of the

Person of Christ. The council was called as a result of the controversy

concerning the relationship of the divine and the human in the Lord

Jesus.[16] The Nestorian controversy, monothelitism, the Eutychian

controversy, and others, had precipitated the council. It can be safely said

that we have yet to get beyond Chalcedon in our theology - modern orthodox

Christological formulations have not proceeded beyond the Chalcedonian

definition. Chalcedon's emphasis on the two natures but one person in Christ

was anticipated in its main elements by the Athanasian creed. A portion of

that creed reads, "He is perfect God and He is perfect man, with a rational

soul and human flesh...Although He is God and man, He is not two but one

Christ...because He is one person."



The relationship between the divine and the human in Christ is as

unique as the God who brought this situation about. Indeed, to understand

this relationship one must first define the terms being utilized, and this

was one of the main contributions of Chalcedon. Schaff noted that one of the

main importances of Chalcedon was



"The precise distinction between nature and person. Nature or

substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a

being; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting, and

acting subject. There is no person without nature, but there may be

nature without person (as in irrational beings). The Church doctrine

distinguishes in the Holy Trinity three persons (though not in the

ordinary human sense of the word) in one divine nature of substance

which they have in common; in its Christology it teaches, conversely,

two nature in one person (in the usual sense of person) which

pervades both. Therefore it cannot be said: The Logos assumed a

human person, or united himself with a definite human individual: for

then the God-Man would consist of two persons; but he took upon

himself the human nature, which is common to all men; and therefore

he redeemed not a particular man, but all men, as partakers of the

same nature of substance. The personal Logos did not become an

individual anthropos, but sarx, flesh, which includes the whole of

human nature, body, soul and spirit."[17]



In his discussion of the Person and work of Christ, Dr. Berkhof gives the

following information:



"The term "nature" denotes the sum-total of all the essential

qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a

substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of

such a substance. The term "person" denotes a complete substance

endowed with reasons, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its

own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a

nature, but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person

is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence,

individuality."[18]



What does all of this mean? It means that when Jesus spoke, He spoke as one

Person, not two. One cannot say that, when claiming deity, Jesus' "deity"

spoke, or when He referred to His humanity, it was His "human nature" that

spoke. It can be seen from this that natures don't speak - only Persons do.

And, since Jesus is one Person, not two, He speaks as a whole Person. Hence,

when Jesus speaks, He speaks as Jesus. This is in direct contradistinction

to Oneness teaching that is fond of making either the Deity in Jesus speak

(whom they identify as the Father) or the humanity (the Son). The two

natures (divine and human) make up but one Person, Jesus Christ. The divine

nature is the Son of God, the eternal Logos.

The Chalcedonian definition defines the unipersonality of Christ.[19]

Jesus was a true Person; he was not non-human, nor less than human, nor a

multiple personality. He had two natures, but those natures were made

personal by only one Person, the Word made flesh. Hence, though Jesus may

say things that indicate his two natures, what he says represents His whole

being, not a certain part thereof.

One might well ask the question, what does Scripture say concerning

this question? How does the Bible present this teaching? Stuart Olyott

answers that question:



"It does so by three strands of teaching. The first is its entire

failure to give us any evidence of two personalities in our Lord

Jesus Christ...In all that is recorded of our Lord Jesus Christ there

is no word spoken by him, no action performed and no attribute

predicated of him, which suggests that he is not a single indivisible

person...A second line of biblical evidence is found in considering

the terms in which the New Testament writers wrote of Christ...There

is not a hint that two personalities came to redeem them that were

under the law, but one. Both natures are represented as united in

one person...But there is a third line of scriptural proof which

settles the issue beyond question...It is the fact that what can be

true of only one or the other of Christ's two natures is attributed,

not to the nature, but to the one person. He is spoken of in terms

true of either one or the other of his natures."[20]



Olyott gives a number of Biblical examples. Acts 20:28 is cited. Here Paul

speaks of the Church of God which "he purchased with His own blood." Christ's

blood, of course, was part of his human nature, yet this attribute (the

blood) is predicated here directly of the divine nature ("God"). "What could

only be true of his human nature is said to have been accomplished by the

divine person. There is not a human Christ and a divine Christ - two

Christs. There is but one Christ." (p. 105) Another example is 1 Corinthians

2:8 which speaks of the fact that the rulers of this age "crucified the Lord

of glory." Again, though Christ died in human terms, it is the divine Person

who is said to have been crucified. No hint is given whatsoever of two

persons in the one Jesus; rather, Christ is one Person composed of two

natures.

But could the term "Father" simply refer to the divine nature in

Christ, as Oneness writers assert? The New Testament does not allow for

this. As we have already seen, the Biblical witness sharply distinguishes

between the Father and the Son. We have seen that Jesus Christ is

unipersonal; He is one person. It is just as clear that the Lord Jesus

Christ is never identified as the Father, but is shown to be another Person

beside the Father. A large class of examples of this would be the greetings

in the epistles of Paul. In Romans 1:7 we read, "Grace to you and peace from

God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."[21] 1 Corinthians 1:3 is

identical, as is 2 Corinthians 1:2. Galatians 1:3, Ephesians 1:2, and

Philippians 1:2. Nowhere does Paul identify Jesus as the Father.



Even more significant in this respect is what is known as Granville

Sharp's Rule. This rule of Greek grammar basically stated says that when two

singular nouns are connected by the copulative kai, and the first noun has

the article, while the second does not, both nouns are describing the same

person. There are a number of Granville Sharp constructions in the New

Testament that emphasize the deity of Christ, most especially Titus 2:13 and

2 Peter 1:1. But, no Granville Sharp construction ever identifies the Father

as Jesus Christ. The care taken by Paul and the other apostles in

differentiating between the Father and Jesus Christ speaks volumes concerning

their faith.

Some might object to the Trinitarian doctrine of Christ by saying that

if we say the Son is (to use a human term) "begotten" eternally by the Father

(i.e., there is a relationship that is eternal and timeless between the

Father and the Son) that we are in effect positing either subordinationism or

tri-theism, depending. Dr. Shedd replied as follows:



"But if the Father is unbegotten, does it not follow that he alone

is the absolute Being? and is not this Arianism? Not so. For one

and the same numerical essence subsists whole and undivided in him

who is generated, as well as in him who generates; in him who is

spirated, as well as in those two who spirate. There can therefore

be no inequality of essence caused by these acts of generation and

spiration."[22]



Such language seems, to many, to be foreign to the "simple" message of the

Gospel. But such an objection ignores the heights of Ephesians 1, as well as

the object under discussion - that being the very Person of the Lord of

glory. One writer expressed it this way:



"Jesus cannot be analyzed and calculated. But whoever speaks of him

in human words is entering into the realm of "rational" speech.

There is no unique language for the realm of the incalculable and the

"irrational." Thus, where we express "eschatological history," the

origin and the goal, God's reality in the man Jesus, our language

collapses; it becomes paradoxical. We could also say that our

language then expresses awe. It says those things which leave men

"speechless." Its terms are not then a means for grasping but rather

for making known that we have been grasped. It is not then a form of

mastery, but testimony to the overpowering experience which has come

upon man."[23]



IV. Oneness Theology Defined

Having examined some of the pertinent issues relevant to Christian

theology, the statements of Oneness exponents themselves will now be

examined. The following material is taken from original sources and

materials. Following the definition of the position, specific objections

will be dealt with.

David K. Bernard presented a paper at Harvard Divinity School in 1985.

In this paper, Bernard provided a good summary of Oneness teaching:



"The basis of Oneness theology is a radical concept of monotheism.

Simply stated, God is absolutely and indivisibly one. There are no

essential distinctions or divisions in His eternal nature. All the

names and titles of the Deity, such as Elohim, Yahweh, Adonai,

Father, Word, and Holy Spirit refer to one and the same being, or -

in trinitarian terminology - to one person. Any plurality associated

with God is only a plurality of attributes, titles, roles,

manifestations, modes of activity, or relationships to man."[24]



He added in his book, The Oneness of God,



"They believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are manifestations,

modes, offices, or relationships that the one God has displayed to

man."[25]



Hence, from Bernard's statements it is clear that the Oneness position

adheres to the classical modalistic terminology of such ancient writers as

Praxeas of Sabellius or Noetus. However, it would be an error to think that,

from the Oneness perspective, the Father, Son and Spirit are one Person. To

see exactly what this position is stating, it would be good to look at

statements regarding each of the "Persons" as seen by the Trinitarian

perspective. First, the question can be asked, "Who is the Father in Oneness

theology?"



"The term Father refers to God Himself - God in all His deity. When

we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the

Father."[26]



"If there is only one God and that God is the Father (Malachi 2:10),

and if Jesus is God, then it logically follows that Jesus is the

Father."[27]



Hence, from this perspective, God is the Father. All that can be predicated

of God is predicated of the Father and the Father only. This shall be seen

more clearly as we examine the other required questions. "Who is the Word in

Oneness theology?" This question receives two answers from Oneness writers -

there is a seeming contradiction in response to this question. John Paterson

identified the Word as the Father Himself:



So we conclude that the Word was the visible expression of the

invisible God - in other words, the invisible God embodied in visible

form;...From the Scriptures quoted it should be obvious that the Word

was not merely an impersonal thought existing in the mind of God but

was, in reality, the Eternal Spirit Himself clothed upon by a visible

and personal form..."[28]





In distinction to this, other writers put forward a non-personal "Word":

[Paddy by Grace]

"The Logos (Word) of John 1 is not equivalent to the title Son in

Oneness theology as it is in trinitarianism. Son is limited to the

Incarnation, but Logos is not. The Logos is God's self expression,

"God's means of self disclosure," or "God uttering Himself." Before

the Incarnation, the Logos was the unexpressed thought or plan in the

mind of God, which had a reality no human thought can have because of

God's perfect foreknowledge, and in the case of the Incarnation,

God's predestination. In the beginning, the Logos was with God, not

as a separate person but as God Himself - pertaining to and belonging

to God much like a man and his word. In the fulness of time God put

flesh on the Logos; He expressed Himself in flesh."[29]



Bernard further added in The Oneness of God:



"The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the

mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan - an absolutely

certain future event - and therefore it had a reality attached to it

that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the

plan or thought of God as expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.

What is the difference, therefore, between the two terms, Word and

Son? The Word had pre-existence and the Word was God (the Father),

so we can use it without reference to humanity. However, the Son

always refers to the Incarnation and we cannot use it in the absence

of the human element. Except as a foreordained plan in the mind of

God, the Son did not have pre-existence before the conception in the

womb of Mary. The Son of God pre-existed in thought but not in

substance. The Bible calls this foreordained plan the Word (John

1:1, 14)."[30]



Thomas Weisser adds, "The Logos of John 1 was simply the concept in the

Father's mind. Not a separate person!"[31] But Robert Brent Graves muddies

the water even more by stating, "Only when we begin to take John at his word

that God "became flesh" can we begin to understand the power and the

authority of Jesus Christ."[32] Hence, one group of Oneness exponents seem

to be saying that the Word was the Father Himself, but manifested in the

flesh (Paterson and possibly Graves) while others see the Word as simply the

plan of God put into place at the opportune time.

Asking the further question, "Who is the Son in Oneness theology?"

might shed some light on the Word issue as well. The answer to this is

unanimous - the Son is the human aspect of Christ. The Son is a created

being who is not in any way divine. The Son did not pre-exist, and indeed,

the "Sonship" of God will cease at a time in the future.[33] Important for

Oneness teachers is the idea of a begotten Son (see footnote #10 and

discussion at that point).



Robert Brent Graves says,



"Although some religious authors have depicted Christ as an "eternal

Son. Actually the concept of an eternal Son would not allow the

possibility of a begotten Son; for the two would be a contradiction

in terms."[34]



For the Christian to understand just what the Oneness position is asserting,

it is necessary that, before continuing looking at each Person individually,

we must look to Jesus and the Oneness teaching concerning Him. The key to

understanding this theological viewpoint is found in the teaching that Jesus

is both the Father and the Son. Paterson explains as follows:



"Therefore, when we say that Jesus is both God and Man, we mean that

He is both Father and Son. As the Father, He is absolutely and

PURELY God; as the Son, He is absolutely and PURELY Man. When Jesus

claims to be God, it is with respect to His Essence as the Eternal

Spirit, the Father; and when He says, "My Father is greater than I"

(John 14:28), it is with respect to His created nature as Man, the

Son...In this connection, let me make this point crystal clear - the

doctrine enunciated in this booklet emphasizes the very real humanity

of Christ; it is not at all the same as teaching that the Father IS

the Son, or that the Son IS the Father. Such teaching is confused,

illogical, and unscriptural - but when we say that Jesus is BOTH

Father and Son, BOTH God and Man, that is a vastly different

matter."[35]



Likewise, Bernard states,



"Oneness believers emphasize the two natures in Christ, using this

fact to explain the plural references to Father and Son in the

Gospels. As Father, Jesus sometimes acted and spoke from His divine

self-consciousness; as Son He sometimes acted and spoke from His

human self-consciousness. The two natures never acted in conflict,

for they were united into one person.

Aside from their emphasis on the two natures of Christ, Oneness

teachers have given inadequate attention to many areas of

Christology. Some have made statements that sound Apollinarian

because of failure to define and use terms precisely, but Oneness

scholars overwhelmingly reject this implication. If carefully

developed, Oneness may be seen as compatible with the Christological

formulation of the Council of Chalcedon, namely that Christ as two

complete natures - deity and humanity - but is only one person."[36]



Despite Bernard's assertion, the Oneness position patently denies the

uni-personality of Christ. To maintain the uni-personality of God, the

Oneness position has to make Jesus into two persons, the Father and the Son.

Even Bernard demonstrates this when he says, "Sometimes it is easy to get

confused when the Bible describes Jesus in these two different roles,

especially when describes Him acting in both roles in the same story...He

could speak as man one moment and then as God the next moment."[37] As we've

seen, natures do not speak, only persons do. Bernard seems aware of the

weakness of the Oneness position at this point, for he is much more willing

to admit the depths of the subject than most Oneness writers. He says,



"While the Bible is clear in emphasizing both the full deity and

full humanity of Jesus, it does not describe in detail how these two

natures are united in the one person of Jesus Christ. This, too, has

been the subject of much speculation and debate. Perhaps there is

room for divergent views on this issue since the Bible does not treat

it directly."[38]



Bernard is one of the few Oneness writers who does not directly attribute

the doctrine of the Trinity to Satan. He seems aware of the fact that the

Oneness position avoids the supposed "philosophical language" by basically

ignoring the issue that was faced squarely at Nicea and Chalcedon.



This viewpoint gives a unique twist to what otherwise might sound

somewhat like orthodox teaching:



"From the Bible we see that Jesus Christ had two distinct natures in

a way that no other human being has ever had. One nature is human or

fleshly; the other nature is divine or Spirit. Jesus was both fully

man and fully God. The name Jesus refers to the eternal Spirit of

God (the Father) dwelling in the flesh. We can use the name Jesus to

describe either one of His two natures or both. For example, when we

say Jesus died on the cross, we mean His flesh died on the cross.

When we say Jesus lives in our hearts, we mean His Spirit is

there."[39]



But what Biblical support can the Oneness teacher gather? One of the

favorite references is Colossians 2:9, which, in the King James Version

(which seems to enjoy predominance in their camp) reads, "For in him dwelleth

all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." For them, the Godhead would refer

to all that makes up God, i.e., the Father:



"According to these verses of Scripture, Jesus is not a part of God,

but all of God is resident in Him. If there were several persons in

the Godhead, according to Colossians 2:9 they would all be resident

in the bodily form of Jesus."[40]



However, even here the position is foundationless, for the Greek term,

theotetos, is best rendered "Deity" and refers to the being of God - "that

which makes God God" is how B. B. Warfield expressed it. Not only this, but

the same epistle had already clearly differentiated between the Lord Jesus

Christ and the Father in 1:3, and had asserted the pre- existence of the Son

in 1:15-17.



The many passages that teach the pre-existence and separate personality

of the Son cause the Oneness position great difficulties, as can be seen from

the attempts to fit these passages into the system. Hebrews chapter one gives

a good example:



"Hebrews 1:2 states that God made the worlds by the Son. Similarly,

Colossians 1:13-17 says all things were created by the Son, and

Ephesians 3:9 says all things were created by Jesus Christ. What

does creation "by the Son" mean, since the Son did not have a

substantial pre-existence before the Incarnation?

"Of course, we know that Jesus as God pre-existed the

Incarnation, since the deity of Jesus is none other than the Father

Himself. We recognize that Jesus (the divine Spirit of Jesus) is

indeed the Creator. These verses describe the eternal Spirit that

was in the Son - the deity that was later incarnated as the Son - as

the Creator. The humanity of Jesus Christ could not create, but God

who came in the Son as Jesus Christ created the world. Hebrews 1:10

clearly states that Jesus as Lord was the Creator.

"Perhaps these scriptural passages have a deeper meaning that

can be expressed as follows: Although the Son did not exist at the

time of creation except as the Word in the mind of God, God used His

foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world."[41]



Elsewhere Bernard added,



"According to Hebrews 1:2, God made the worlds by the Son.

Certainly, the Spirit (God) who was in the Son was also the Creator

of the worlds. This passage may also indicate that God predicated

the entire work of creation upon the future manifestation of the Son.

God foreknew that man would sin, but He also foreknew that through

the Son man could be saved and could fulfill God's original purpose

in creation. As John Miller stated, "Though He did not pick up His

humanity till the fulness of time, yet He used it, and acted upon it,

from all eternity." "[42]



Likewise, the problem of Jesus' prayer life elicits some intriguing

interpretation:



"The prayers of Christ represent the struggle of the human will as

it submitted to the divine will. They represent Jesus praying from

His human self-consciousness not from His divine, for by definition

God does not need to pray. This line of reasoning also explains

other examples of the inferiority of the Son in power and knowledge.

If these examples demonstrate a plurality of persons, they establish

the subordination of one person to the other, contrary to the

trinitarian doctrine of co-equality.

"Other examples of communication, conversation, or expression of

love between Father and Son are explained as communication between

the divine and human natures of Christ. If used to demonstrate a

distinction of persons, they would establish separate centers of

consciousness in the Godhead, which is in effect polytheism."[43]



"Do the prayers of Christ indicate a distinction of persons between

Jesus and the Father? No. On the contrary, His praying indicates a

distinction between the Son of God and God. Jesus prayed in His

humanity, not in His deity...How can God pray and still be God? By

definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His

oneness has no other to whom He can pray...Some may object to this

explanation, contending that it means Jesus prayed to Himself.

However, we must realize that, unlike any other human being, Jesus

had two perfect and complete natures - humanity and divinity."[44]



The above hardly squares with Bernard's earlier statement that the two

natures are joined into one person. Communication between natures is

illogical; between persons it is normal. If Oneness teachers wish to

maintain a surface acceptance of Chalcedonian definitions, they should at

least make it clear that they are defining terms in a completely different

way than orthodox theology.

Finally, a common element of Oneness-Pentecostal writing is the

criticism of the usage of non-Biblical terminology to answer the questions of

God's existence and being. This is a common attack utilized by many

anti-Trinitarian groups. Why use such terms as "nature" or "person" or

"ousia" or any of the other terms borrowed from philosophy? Doesn't this

indicate a reliance upon pagan sources? we are asked. Though this point will

be answered more fully below, it might be pointed out that the Oneness

position is faced with the same choice as the Trinitarian - questions can be

put to their position that cannot possibly be answered in solely Biblical

terminology. Either these questions must be ignored or they must be answered

by using words or phrases not drawn directly from the Scriptural witness.

In summary, the Oneness position asserts that God is uni-personal. All

the titles of Deity are applicable to the one being who is God - Father,

Lord, King, Holy Spirit, Jehovah, etc. The Son of God is the manifestation

of the Father in the flesh. The Son is not eternal nor pre-existent. Jesus

is the Father and the Son - Father in his divinity and Son in his humanity.

Hence, the Trinity is said to be a misunderstanding of the Biblical teaching,

and many Oneness writers attribute the doctrine to pagan sources.[45]



V. Brief Criticism and Reply

Since the opening of this paper dealt with the Scriptural witness

concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, space need not be taken in rebutting

many of the statements of the Oneness position. The following points should

focus on the particular problems:



A) The Oneness position cannot explain logically or Biblically the clear

references to the pre-existence and Creatorship of the Son such as Colossians

1, Hebrews 1 and John 1.



B) This position fails to demonstrate any kind of identification of Jesus

Christ as the Father, and ignores or inadequately explains the many

references that demonstrate the personal distinctions of Father and Son.



C) This position relies heavily on assumed and unproven presuppositions,

such as the uni-personality of Yahweh. These writers tend to be very

selective in their choice of facts, which can also be seen in their easy

rejection of textual evidence that contradicts their position.[46]



D) The Christological formulation of the Oneness position is untenable and

without Scriptural support. There is no evidence that Jesus was two persons,

nor that the two "natures" communicated with one another.



E) The understanding of the Logos given in Scripture is totally lacking in

the Oneness perspective. The clear personal nature of the Logos must be

sacrificed to maintain the system.



F) The position asserts historical claims[47] that are not solidly based in

fact.[48] For example, Oneness writers will assert that the "three persons

theory" was a late innovation, while noted patristic authority J.N.D. Kelly

has noted,



"Before considering formal writers, the reader should notice how

deeply the conception of a plurality of divine Persons was imprinted

on the apostolic tradition and the popular faith. Though as yet

uncanonized, the New Testament was already exerting a powerful

influence; it is a commonplace that the outlines of a dyadic and a

triadic pattern are clearly visible in its pages. It is even more

marked in such glimpses as are obtainable of the Church's liturgy and

day-to-day catechetical practice."[49]



These criticisms, substantiated by earlier references, are sufficient to

allow the student of Scripture to reject the Oneness position as holding any

real claim to being a "biblical teaching."

The only remaining question is the validity of the criticism regarding

the usage of non-biblical language and terminology. It has already been

pointed out that any theological system that makes any kind of brave attempt

to answer the inevitable questions that arise when the nature, attributes and

being of God is discussed will have to utilize non-Biblical terminology in

framing its answers. Why? First, since the Scriptures themselves rarely ask

these questions, and the questions themselves are often derived from

non-Biblical sources and utilize non- Biblical language and categories of

thought, the honest respondant will have to express truth in such as way as

to both be intelligible to the questioner, as well as be honest with the

subject. The important question is, are we willing to sacrifice the true

teaching of Scripture on the imaginary altar of slavery to the limited

terminology of the Biblical writers? Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield aptly

addressed this very question:



"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using

Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the

doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the

Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in

substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be

spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense

of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine

in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle

that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words

of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in

solution; when it is crystalized from its solvent it does not cease

to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak

without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in

Scripture, not in forumulated definition, but in fragmentary

allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic

unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more

thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine

in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the

doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine."[50]



References:

1. David Bernard, The Oneness of God, (Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame

Press) 1985, p.298 2. Thomas Weisser, Three Persons from the Bible? or

Babylon, (U.S.) 1983, p. 3. 3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1941) pgs. 87-89. 4. John

Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John McNeill, ed.

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press) 1960, pp. 141-142. 5. Charles Hodge,

Systematic Theology, 3 Volumes, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing

Company) 1986, 1:459. 6. Weisser, Three Persons, p. 2. 7. The particular

responses of the Oneness theologians will be noted at a later point in the

presentation. 8. The words of Jesus at Matthew 27:46 have come in for many

kinds of interpretation. Unfortunately, many of the theories have

compromised both theology proper, as well as Christology. That the Father

never was separated from or abandoned the Son is clear from many sources.

The second person is utilized by Jesus, not the third in verse 46.

Immediately on the heels of this statement Jesus speaks to the Father in the

vocative ("Father, into your hands..."). Whatever else Jesus was saying, He

was not saying that, at the very time of His ultimate obedience to the

Father, that the Father there abandoned Him. Rather, it seems much more

logical to see this as a quotation of Psalm 22 that is meant to call to mind

all of that Psalm, which would include the victory of v. 19ff, as well as

verse 24 which states, "For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of

the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to

his cry for help." 9. It would be a grave error to identify the Father and

the Son as one person, or to say that Jesus is both the Father and the Son,

simply due to their mutual work and actions. As there is only one God,

overlapping of work and action is hardly to be thought unusual, and does not

indicate an identity of person but rather an identity of nature. 10. James

Hope Moulton, George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company) 1930, pp. 416-417. See also

Barclay Newman and Eugene Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of

John. (New York: United Bible Societies) 1980, p. 24. 11. The variant

reading "...who is in heaven." is opposed by P66 and P75 along with Codex

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These witnesses are joined by the Coptic versions,

a few uncials, minuscules, and Fathers. 12. The reading monogenes theos is

strongly supported by the manuscript witnesses. This is the reading of P66

and P75 as well as the original reading of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, a few

other uncials, and a large number of the early Fathers. That there is good

reason to see monogenes huios as an assimilation to John 3:16 is obvious;

just so, that monogenes theos has no logical antecedent is just as true.

13. Some try to render this as "the Word was pertaining to God" on the basis

of the occurrence of pros ton theon in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. However, this

attempt fails for the two instances in Hebrews are different syntactical

constructions; the presence of the neuter plural article before the phrase in

Hebrews changes the subject to an assumed "things." Also, John 1:1b

represents a sentence structure using the verb form en while this is not so

in Hebrews. 14. William G. T. Shedd, Shedd's Dogmatic Theology.

(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1980, pg. 253. 15. As cited by Henry

Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church. (New York: Oxford University

Press) 1963, pp. 144-145. 16. For a discussion of the Council of Chalcedon,

see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdman's Publishing Company) 1910, 3:740-762. 17. Schaff, History of the

Christian Church, 3:751. 18. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company) 1941, pp. 321-330. 19. See

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Doctrine of the Person and the Work of Christ,

Section III, "The Unipersonality of Christ." 20. Stuart Olyott, Son of

Mary, Son of God, (England: Evangelical Press) 1984, pp. 103-105. 21. Some

Oneness writers such as Robert Brent Graves have attempted to assert that the

copulative kai found here and in the other epistolary greetings should not be

translated in its normal sense of "and" but rather as the equative "even."

Hence, Graves translates 1 Cor. 1:3 as "Grace to you and peace from God our

Father even the Lord Jesus Christ." That there is no scholarly support for

such an assertion is clear, for Graves would hardly be consistent and say

"Grace to you, even peace..." which would be required should he follow his

own suggestion through. 22. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 303. 23. Otto

Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing

Company) 1962, 2:116. 24. David K. Bernard, Essentials of Oneness Theology,

(Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame Press) 1985, p. 8. 25. Bernard, The

Oneness of God, p. 15. 26. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 98. 27.

Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 66. 28. John Paterson, God in Christ Jesus,

(Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame Press) 1966, p. 29. Bernard, Essentials

in Oneness Theology, p. 22. 30. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 103. 31.

Weisser, Three Persons, p. 35. 32. Robert Brent Graves, The God of Two

Testaments, (U.S.) 1977, p. 35. 33. See Bernard, The Oneness of God, p.

106. 34. Graves, The God of Two Testaments, p. 44. 35. Paterson, God in

Christ Jesus, p. 22. 36. Bernard, Essentials in Oneness Theology, p. 19.

37. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 88. 38. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p.

90 39. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 86. 40. Bernard, The Oneness of

God, p. 57. 41. Bernard, The Oneness of God, p. 115. 42. Bernard,

Essentials in Oneness Theology, p. 21. 43. Ibid., p. 22. 44. Bernard, The

Oneness of God, pp. 176-177. 45. See Weisser, Three Persons, pp. 17-28. 46.

Bernard rejects, for example, the reading of monogenes theos at 1:18 by

saying, "We do not believe these variant readings are correct...This verse of

Scripture does not mean that God is revealed by God, but that God is revealed

in flesh through the humanity of the Son." Here theology determines textual

criticism. 47. Bernard, The Oneness of God, pp. 236 ff as an example. 48.

Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, 2 Volumes, (New York:

Harper and Row) 1975, 2:144-145 gives a brief account of the origins of the

modalistic teaching. 49. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (New

York: Harper and Row) 1978, p. 88. 50. B. B. Warfield, The Works of B.B.

Warfield, 10 volumes, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) 1929, 2:133.



Researched and written by:

James White, B.A., M.A.

Printed Copies Available From:

Alpha and Omega Ministries

P.O. Box 47041

Phoenix, AZ 85068

(.zip file available on Pros Apologian, 1:114:105.0)



... The Bible is God's Word



--- via The Blue Wave v1.06

* Origin: Pros Apologian--Defending the Faith [phone] (1:114/105.0)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Various other verses and quotations concerning Messiah….



=================== Messiah in the Tenach [Bible]======================

.

SEED OF THE WOMAN

.

GENESIS 3:15 - B.C.E.4004>>>And I will put enmity between

thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: He shall bruise thy

head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

.

GALATIONS 4:4 - B.C.E.[5]>>>But when

the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son; made of a woman,

made under the Law.

.

1 JOHN 3:8 - A.C.E.90>>>For this purpose the Son of God

was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

.

THROUGH ABRAHAM

.

GENESIS 22:18 - B.C.E.1872>>>And in thy seed {Abraham's} shall al

the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou has obeyed My Voice.

.

HEBREWS 2:16 - A.C.E. - 60>>>He {Jesus/Yeshua} took on Him the seed of

Abraham.

.

GALATIONS 3:29 - A.C.E.68>>>If ye be Yeshua's, then ye are Abraham's seed.

.

THROUGH ISAAC

.

GENESIS 21:12 - B.C.E.1898>>>And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be

grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of the bond-woman: in

all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice: for in Isaac

shall thy seed be called.

.

HEBREWS 11:17-19 - A.C.E.64>>>By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered

up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten

son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting

that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead: from whence also he

received him in a figure.

.

THROUGH JACOB AND JUDAH

.

GENESIS 28:14 - B.C.E.1760>>>In thy {Jacob's} seed shall all the families of

the earth be blessed.

.

MATTHEW 1:2 - B.C.E.5>>>Jacob begat Judah.

.

HEBREWS 7:14 - A.C.E.64>>>For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of

Judah.

.

MESSIAH WOULD COME AT A SET TIME

.

GENESIS 49:10 - B.C.E.1689>>>The sceptre shall not depart from Judah nor a

lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come: and unto Him shall the

gathering of the people be.

.

LUKE 2:1 - B.C.E.5>>>And it came to pass in those days that there went out a

decree from Ceasar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

.

NOTE:The sceptre which is the symbol of government was taken away at this

time when Judea paid her first taxes to Rome. Then in Bethlehem of Judea,

Yeshua was born. Shiloh had come.

.

TIME FORETOLD BY DANIEL

.

DANIEL 9:26 - B.C.E.537>>>After sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.

The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the

sanctuary.

.

MARK15:37-A.C.E.33>>>Yeshua cried with a loud voice & breathed His last.

.

=========================R A B B I N I C==============================

.

MIDRASH MISHLE[10:21];Rab Huna counted amongst the seven Names of

Messiah also: HaShem Zidkenu, [Referring to Jer.23:6].

.

R.JOSEPH ALBO OF TOLEDO[SEPHER IKKARIM 28:54] The Scripture calleth the

Names of Messiah also: L-rd Zidkenu, because He is the Mediator through

Whom we shall get the righteousness of the L-rd.

.

R.ELIJAH DE VIDAS: The meaning of He was wounded for our transgressions

bruised for our iniquities is, that since Messiah bears our inquities,

which produce the effect of His being bruised,it follows that whoso

will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must

endure and suffer for them himself. [on Is. 53]

.

SANHEDRIN [93B]:Messiah...What is His Name? The disciples of the school

of the Rabbi [Yehudah Hanassi, the author of the Mishnah] said: Cholaja

[The sickly] for it says[Is.53:4]: Surely He hath born our sicknesses &

carried our pains; and we did regard Him stricken, smitten of G-d and

afflicted. [See also note aa Pesiqta].

.

ZOHAR[TO DEUT. 6:4]: Hear O Israel:HaShem our G-d,HaShem is One. Why is

there a need of mentioning the Name of G-d three times in this verse?

The First HaShem is the Father above.The Second is the Stem of Jesse,

the Messiah Who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And

the Third One is the Way which is below [meaning the Holy Spirit Who

shows us the way] and These Three are One.

.

Rabbi Moshe el Sheikh, Chief Rabbi of Safed...

"I will do yet a third thing, and that is, that 'they shall look unto

Me,' for they shall lift up their eyes unto Me in perfect repentance,

when they see Him Whom they pierced, that is Messiah,the Son of Joseph;

for our Rabbi's, of blessed memory, have said that He will take upon

Himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to

make an atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if

Israel had pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and

therefore,in order that it may be reckoned to them as perfect atonement

they will repent and look to the Blessed One, saying, that there is

none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died

for their sin; this is the meaning of 'They shall look upon Me...'"

.

Rabbis Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan

said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah,

writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this

verse which says, `And Elohim said, let Us make man in

Our image after Our likeness,' Moses said, Master of

the Universe why do You give herewith an excuse to the

sectarians (who believe in the Tri-Unity of G-d), G-d

answered Moses, You write and whoever wants to err let

him err.

.

Come near unto me, hear this: I have not spoken in

secret from the beginning; from the time that it was,

there am I; and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath

sent me. (Isaiah 48:16)

.

G-d will set His own crown upon the head of King Messiah, and clothe

Him with honor and majesty...Midrash Tehillim on Ps.21:3...Rabbi Hann

in the name of Rabbi Aha; continues the thought...G-d will bestow a

portion of His supernatural glory on Messiah....The Midrash then

continues with two designations of Messiah; HaShem, a man of war and

HaShem, is our righteousness.

.

[On Is.9:6; R.Aben Ezra:]...There are some interpreters who say that

'Wonderful, Everlasting Father' are Names of G-d and only 'Prince of

Peace' is the Name of the Child. But according to my view the

interpretation is right (which says): all are the Names of the Child.

.

[Midrash Echa (1:51):]...What is the Name of King Messiah? To this

answered Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: HaShemis His Name, for it is written:

'This is the Name whereby He shall be called: HaShemZidkenu'.

.

[See also, Midrash Rabbah 999:8), (Ps. 45:6), (Prov.30:4), (Ps.2:7),

(Sukkah [52a]), (Zohar [part III, fol.307, Amsterdam edition]) (Ps.2:12

Lesser's trans.)...{ect...... also, verses in Tanach may be one or two

verses differance depending upon your translation}.

.

[Zohar vol.III]...The Ancient and Holy One is revealed and described as

being Three; it is because the Other Lights are Two complete Ones, yet

is the Ancient and Holy One described and complete as One, & He is One,

positively One; thus are the Other Lights united and glorified in One,

because They are One...[Rabbi Simeon further states]...Thus are the

Three Lights united in One. The Spirit which is downward, Who is called

the Holy Spirit, the Spirit which is the Middle Pillar, Who is called

the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, also called the Spirit below.

The Upper Spirit is hidden in secret; in Him are existing all the Holy

Spirits [the Holy Spirit and the Spirit that is the middle pillar], and

all that is light."

.

[Rabbi T. Nassi on Rosh HaShannah]...the three-fold sound of the ram's

horn which is sounded on Rosh Hashanah, is an emblem of the Three-fold

nature of G-d.

.

{see also, (Bereshis Rabba 2), (R.Simeon on Song of Songs 2:6, Zohar

Tanchuma), (R. Tzvi Nassi's book, The Great Mystery), (Burt Yellin's

book, Messiah, A Rabbinic & Scriptural Viewpoint, {available locally

only}) (Sukkah 52a; Rabbi Dosa), (Rabbi B'rekhyah: From the Suffering

Servant of Isaiah, S. Driver & A. Neubauer, Hermon Press, New York,

1877.)....ect...ect...ect....

.

The King Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, be high ABOVE MOSES.

[Neve Shalom]

.

I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures, and have not

found the time for coming of Messiah, clearly fixed, except in the

words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the

ninth chapter of the prophecy ofDaniel." R.Moses Abraham Levi.

.

While the shofar is being blown in the Synagogue on Rosh HaShannah

the following remarkably significant prayer is offered:

.

Merciful and gracious G-d, I have sinned against Thee, and done that

which is evil in Thy sight. Have mercy on me and forgive all my

transgressions, trespasses and sins, through >Yehoshua< the Prince

of His Presence.1

.

In most prayer books of the present day this prayer is omitted, and

the following offered instead:

.

May it please Thee, O L-rd G-d, and the G-d of our fathers, that Thou

mayest accept it as the meditation through Elijah and Joshua, the

Prince of the Presence, the Prince Metatron and that Thou mayest be

filled with mercy towards us. Blessed art Thou, O L-rd Who art

merciful.

.

The angel Metatron, according to Jewish theology, was he who discoursed

with Moses[2] and the angel in whom G-d placed His Name. The following

from the Zohar is of interest in this case:

.

There is a man, if a Man He is, Who is an Angel.This Angel is Metatron,

the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy One, blessed

be He, Who is an Emanation from Him [from G-d]; yea, He [the Metatron]

is Jehovah. Of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but

He is the Emanation from G-d.3

.

1.Salvation:don't have the referrance handy to look it up for myself as

to the exact form of the word used...seems to be Joshua. from the

Prayer Book For The New Year (1913). Rev.Dr.A.Th.Phillips, page 100.

2.Exodus 3:2-15

3.Zohar, chapter 67, page 130.

.

"In fact the MESSIAH IS SUCH A PROPHET as it is stated in the Midrash

on the verse, "Behold My servant shall prosper...Moses by the miracles

which he wrought drew but a single nation to the worship of G-d, but

the MESSIAH will draw ALL NATIONS to the worship of G-d."

R.Levi ben Gershom.

.

"Rabbi Phinehas, Rabbi Levi, and Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of

Rabbi Menachem; 'In the Time to Come, all sacrifices will be annulled,

but that of thanksgiving will not be annulled.' This is indicated by

what is written in [Jeremiah 33:11].

.

The thought of Torah changing in the "Age to Come" is again made

perfectly clear in the rendering of Deuteronomy 17:18,in Sifra. Here it

is stated that the L-rd wrote a copy of Mishna-Torah for Himself, and

that He would not be content with the Mishna-Torah of the father. The

question is asked..."Why does He say Mishna-Torah? Because it is

destined to be changed."

.

"The Torah which a man learns in this world is but vanity compared with

the Torah of Messiah" Midrash Qohelet on Eccl.11:8.

.

And I will put enmity between thee and the WOMAN, and

between thy seed and her SEED; He shall bruise thy

head and thou shalt bruise His heel.

-Gen.3:15 Lesser's.

.

It is not written that we may perserve a son from our

father, but SEED from our father. This is the SEED

that is coming from another place. And Who is this?

This is the King Messiah.

-Ber.Rabbah (51,ed. Warsh. p.95 a, on Genesis 19:32).

.

This is that SEED that is coming from another place, and

Who is this? This is the King Messiah.

-Ber.Rabbah 51, ed. Wars. P.95,a, on Gen.19:23

.

The serpent of Gen.3 is identified with satan.

-Jewish Ency. (p.70,col.b)

.

Isaac carried the wood like a man who takes up his cross.

-Pesikta Rab. (54, a).

.

Our Rabbis have a tradition that in the week in which

Messiah will be born there will be a bright star in the

east, which is the 'star of the Messiah.'

-Pesikta Sortarta. (fol.58 c.1)

.

Kings shall not cease, nor rulers from the house of

Judah, nor sapherim teaching the Law from his seed,

till the time that the King The Messiah shall come,

Who will arise from Yehudah. How beauteous is the

King, The Messiah Who will arise from Yehudah.

-Targum Palestine, Gen.49:10.

.

From what has been said you will perceive that Shiloh,

The Messiah, was to appear whilst Judah was a distinct

tribe, having its genealogies, and its magistrates,

scribes, lawyers and expounders of G-d's Laws. But it

is an undeniable fact that Tribe of Judah, as well as

all the other tribes, has lost its genealogies for more

than seventeen hundred years and therefore the Messiah

must have appeared, or the prediction is false. To

assert the latter would be blasphemy;to deny the former

is unreasonable. -R. Frey

.

For many days shall the children of Israel abide without

a King, and without a Prince, and without a Sacrifice,

and without a standing image, and without an ephod, and

without a teraphim. After that will the children of

Israel return and seek for the L-rd their G-d, and David

their King,.... -Hosea 3:4-5, Lesser's.

.

David their King is this Messiah, like, 'My servant David

shall be their King forever." -Aben Ezra

.

The Messiah had one spirit which was equal to all the

others put together according to Isaiah 11:1-10.

-Yalkut (vol.1 p.247,d)(Edersheim)

.

Therefore will the Lord Himself give you a sign; behold

this almah/young woman, [in LXX trans. done by 70 Rabbi's

it is the Greek word for virgin], shall conceive, and

bare a Son and she shall call His Name Immanuel,(G-d with us).

-Isaiah 7:14 Lesser's.

.

'Behold a virgin shall conceive', There are some who say

that this was made a sign, because a virgin 'fuit non

apta generationi.

-Jarchi.

.

R. Huni in the name of R. Ide and R. Joshua said, that

this man is the King Messiah of Whom it is said, Psalms

2:7, 'This day have I begotten Thee.'

-Talmud Bab.

.

Jarchi refutes the above by observing that Hezekiah was

nine years old when his father Ahaz began to reign, and

he must be at this time, at least thirteen years of age.

In like manner Kimchi, and Eben Ezra object to it; and

besides his mother could not be called a virgin. -Gill

.

Out of thee Bethlehem shall Messiah go forth before me,

to exercise dominion over Israel. Whose Name has been

spoken from of old from the day of eternity.

-Micah 5:2 Targum Jonathan

[Paddy by Grace]

Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall come forth unto me Messiah,

the Son of David. -R.Jarchi

.

Behold, I will send my messenger, and He shall clear out

the way before me: and suddenly will come to His Temple

the L-rd Whom ye seek; and the Messenger of the Covenant

Whom ye desire, for behold He is coming saith the L-rd

of hosts. -Malachi 3:1 Lesser's

.

The L-rd is the King Messiah; He is also the Angel of the

Covenant. -Kimchi

.

The L-rd is both the Divine Majesty, and the Angel of the

Covenant, for the sentence is doubled. -Aben Ezra

.

The L-rd may be explained of the King Messiah.

-Mashmiah Jeshua, fol.76

.

The Most Holy is the Messiah, for He is more holy than the

sons of David. -R. Nachman

.

Our Rabbis expound this in a Midrash of the King Messiah

saying, He shall be higher than Abraham, exalted above

Moses, and loftier than the ministering angels.

-R.Sa'adyah Ibn Danan {Midrash Tanchuma}

.

For to us a Son is born, to us a Son is given: and He

shall receive the Law upon Him to keep it; and His Name

is called from of old, Wonderful, Counselor, ELOHA, The

Mighty, Abiding to Eternity, The Messiah, because peace

shall be multiplied on us in His days.

-Isaiah 9:6 Targum Jonathan

.

Rabbi Samuel, the son of Nachman, said, 'When Esau met

Jacob he said unto him, "My brother Jacob, let us walk

together in this world. Jacob replied: Let my L-rd, I

pray thee, pass over before his servant" (Genesis 33:14)

What is the meaning of, "I pray thee, pass over? Jacob

said to him: I have yet to supply the Messiah, of Whom

it is said: "Unto us a Child is born".

-Midrash (Deuteronomy 2:4)

.

For those who cannot look upon the Son Himself, behold

Him in His reflected light, even thus do they regard the

image of G-d, Who is His Angel, the Word [Logos], as G-d

Himself. -(De Plant Noe) Philo Judaeus

.

There are it seemeth two Temples of G-d. The one in this

world, in which also there is a High Priest, His First

Begotten Divine Word (Logos). -Philo Judaeus

.

As it is said of the former redeemer, and Moses took

his wife, and his sons, and set them on an ass (Exodus

4:20), so it is said of the latter Redeemer {Messiah}

"poor and riding on an ass"-Midrash Kohelet (fol.63:2)

.

Deutero-Zechariah's Messiah has much in common with

Isaiah's. He is described (Zechariah 9:9) as a

righteous Prince of Peace who will rise from the ranks

of the pious and oppressed, who will ride into Jerusalem

not in military splender, but on an ass. (Compaire

Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on an ass),....

-Jewish Encyl. {vol.8, p.507, c.a.}

.

My Son art Thou; I have indeed this day begotten Thee. *Do homage to

the Son, lest He be angry, and ye be lost on the way; for His wrath is

so speedily kindled. Happy are all they that put their trust in Him.

-Psalms 2:7-12 Lesser's

.

*[Ps.2:12 Heb. 'Bar' = 202]...Thou art the Son, the faithful shepherd;

of Thee it is said, 'Kiss the Son'. {note: this has been removed in

English in many new Jewish Tanach translation, but it is there in the

Hebrew!} Thou art the Governor of the Universe, the Head of Israel,

the Lord of ministering angels, the Son of the Highest, the Son of

the Holy and Blessed One, yea the very Shechinah. { note: The

Shechinah is the VERY HOLY SPIRIT OF HA-SHEM!}.

.

Our Doctors expound the Psalm of the Messiah.

-(Jarchi (Maas) [ref.Ps.2]

.

Whosoever is not willing to praise This Son, his sins shall

be brought before the Holy King.

-Zohar (Dent.fol.109) [ref.Ps.2]

.

But if it be interpreted of the Messiah, the matter is clear.

-Aben Ezra [ref.Ps.2]

.

It is a tradition of the Rabbis that Messiah, The Son of

David, Who is to be revealed speedily.....the Holy One

said unto Him, Ask of Me anything and I will give it thee,

for it is said; 'I will declare the decree, etc. "Today

have I begotten thee."

-Talmud Bab. (Succah, fol.52) [ref.Ps.2]

.

*This is the faithful Shepherd; Of Thee it is said, "Kiss

the Son," Thou art the Prince of the Israelites, the L-rd

of the earth.....The Son of the Most High, the Son of The

Holy G-d.....and the gracious Shekinah.

-Zohar (Gen.fol.88, c.348) [ref.Ps.2]

.

Know Him as your G-d, Who is the Son of G-d.

-Sibylline Oracles (Lactantins P.10 s.)

.

Then He [My Servant Messiah] will become despised, and will

cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate

and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for

sickness; and as though the Presence of the Shekinah had been

withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not.

-Targum Jonathan Isaiah 53:3

.

Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that

the prophet is here speaking of the Messiah.

-R.Mosheh El-Sheikh [ref.Is.53:3]

.

There is a secret one [interpretation] sealed up in it's

midst, which sees throughout allusions to the King Messiah

......And in the same sense it is expounded by our Rabbis.

-R.Sa'adyah Ibn Danan [ref.Is.53:3]

.

Awake, O sword against My Shepherd, and against the Man I

have associated with Me, saith the L-rd of hosts: smite

the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; but I will

turn my hand towards the feeble one.

-Zechariah 13:7 Lesser's

.

This prophecy refers to the great wars which shall be in

all the earth in the times of Messiah ben Joseph: but

they regard the times of Messiah, the Son of David, Who is

already come. -Aden Ezra [ref.Zech.13:7]

.

But the wise man, R. Abraham Ben Ezra, has interpreted this

prophecy of the great wars which shall be in all the world

in the days of the Messiah the Son of Joseph....The Messiah

therefore is the Person to be smitten before the scattering

of the sheep. -R. Kimchi [ref.Zech.13:7]

.

...At that time G-d will tell Messiah all that will happen

to Him. The sins of the souls of the ones who are with Thee

under My throne will in the generation of Messiah bend Thee

down under a yoke of iron and Thou make Thee like a calf

whose eyes are dimmed because of pain and Thy Spirit will be

pressed as with a yoke; Because of the sins of these souls;

Thy tongue shall cleave to the roof of Thy mouth. Art Thou

willing to suffer these things? Messiah will ask [G-d], will

these sufferings last many years? G-d answers Him: I swear...

that they will last for one week only. If Thou dost regret it

I will banish their sinful souls right away! Messiah

answered, With joy in My soul and gladness in My heart, I take

upon Me these sufferings that no one in Israel might perish,

both the living and those that are buried in the dust of the

earth,and all the souls from the First Adam even until now...

During the week [of years] when the Son of David, the Messiah

comes,they will bring iron bars and put them on His neck until

His height is bent low and He cries, and weeps so that His

voice ascends even to the sky. And He [Messiah] will say:

Master of the Universe, is then My power and My Spirit

unlimited, even My limbs and My soul? Am I not flesh and

blood?

It is because of this future ordeal that David [prophetically]

wept, saying My strength is dried up like a potsherd [Psalms

22:7]. At this hour, G-d will say to Him, Ephraim, My

Righteous Messiah, didst Thou not agree before the creation to

this? Now let Your sorrows be as My own sorrows....

At that Messiah answers, Now is My Spirit calmed for 'It is

enough for a servant to be like master.'

Pesikta Rabbati {Piska 36:142}/Yalkut on Isaiah 60:1-2}

.

It is well known that in the coming of the Messiah is

(included) the coming of the Blessed G-d into the world.

-R. Alschech

.

And being beaten He shall be silent lest any one should know

what The Word is, or whence it came, that it may speak with

mortals; and He shall wear the CROWN OF THORNS.

-Sibylline Oracles (B.C. 117, 184)

.

And they shall inflict on G-d blows with impure hands, and

with polluted mouths they shall send forth polluted spittle

and He shall then absolutely give His Holy back to stripes.

-Sibylline Oracles (B.C. 117, 184)

.

While He bore the sins of many and for the transgressors He

let (evil) befall Him. -Isaiah 53:12.b Lesser's

.

And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon

them, as it is written, "By His stripes we were healed, and

He carried the sins of many; and made intercession for the

transgressors." -B'renutsh Rabbah (pp.430, 671)

.

.....And they will look up toward Me (for every one) Whom

they have thrust through, and they will lament for Him as

one lamenteth for an Only Son, and weepeth bitterly for

the Firstborn.

-Zechariah 12:10 Lesser's

.

And the heathen will look unto Me to see what I will do to

those who have pierced Messiah, the Son of Joseph.

-Aben Ezra

.

It must be granted him that says, for Messiah the Son of

Joseph that shall be slain as it is written, And they shall

look upon Me Whom they have pierced.

-Talmud Bab. (Succah 52, 1)

.

He will revive us after two days; on the third day He will

raise us up, and we shall live in His Presence.

-Hosea 6:2 Lesser's

.

This passage is applied to the resurrection and to the

Messiah by R. Moses Hadarshan in Genesis 22:4.

-Ber Rabbah (Frey)

.

And after sleeping three days, He shall put an end to the

fate of death; and then releasing Himself from the dead,

He shall come to light, first showing to the 'called ones'

the beginning of the Resurrection.

-Sibylline Oracles (See Jewish Encyclopedia)

.

R. Alexander said R.Joshua ben Levi objects to what is

written, "And behold one like the Son of man came with the

clouds of heaven; and it is written, "Poor and riding upon

and ass"; if they {Israel} are worthy He {Messiah} comes

with the clouds of heaven; but if they are not worthy, He

comes poor and riding on an ass.

-Talmud Babl. (Sanh., fol.98, 1)

.

The following from tractate Sanhedrin 98a.....

Rabbi Yoshua met Elijah standing at the entrance to the cave

of Rabbi Simeon b. Yochai and said to him:

"When will the Messiah come?"

Elijah responds:

"Go and ask Him yourself."

R. Yoshua:

"And where does He reside?"

Elijah:

"He abides among the poor, the sick and the stricken."

R. Yoshua went and met Messiah and said:

"Peace be unto You, my Rabbi and my L-rd."

Messiah replies:

"Peace be unto you, son of Levi."

R. Yoshua asks the Messiah:

"When will You come my L-rd?"

Messiah:

"Today!"

Upon returning to the cave, Elijah asks Him:

"What did He say to you?"

R. Yoshua:

"He said, 'Peace be unto you son of Levi.'"

{Elijah explains to him that the Messiah has assured both

him and his father of the World to Come.}

R. Yoshua perplexed says:

"But He deceived me, in that He said He would come today,

and He has not come."

Elijah replies:

"By the word 'Today,' He meant, 'IF YOU BUT HEAR MY VOICE!'"

.

!!!!!!!

w

.

==============RABBINIC QUOTES [ANCIENT] CONCERNING YESHUA===========

.

The Talmud states that Yeshua was of royal decent....

Rabbi Ulla's comments; Sanhedrin 43a>Would you believe that any defence

would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the

All-mercciful says: You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal

him, [Deut.13:9]. It was different with Jesus, for He was near to the

kingship.

.

From the Karaite Anthology, by Leon Nemoy, Yale press, pgs. 50-51, 9...

Next there appeared Yesua, who Rabbanites say was the son of Pandera;

he is known as Jesus, the son of Mary. He lived in the days of Joshua,

the son of Perahiah, who is said to have been the maternal uncle of

Jesus. The Rabbanites plotted against Jesus until they put him to death

This took place in thereign of Augustus Ceasar, the emperor of Rome,

i.e.,at the time of the second Temple.{Jacov Al-Kirkisani,900's AD/CE.}

.

===========JUDAIC/RABBINIC QUOTES [MODERN] CONCERNING YESHUA========

.

Intermountain Jewish News Pages

31-32 Sec.A August 12, 1988..."WE WONDER WHETHER AMERICAN ORTHODOX

JEWISH LEADERSHIP, ONE OF WHO'S SPOKESMEN RABBI GREENBERG CLAIMS TO

BE..." "LEADING ORTHODOX RABBI IN THE UNITED STATES" says...[quoting

from the article]... "A Jewish leader today, Rabbi Irving Greenberg,

has written (in The Relationship of Judaism and Christianity: Towards

a New Organic Model, " a 19 page essay published in Quarterly Review,

then distributed by CLAL)):" "...I believe the early Christians were

faithful Jews when they recognized Jesus. Like good, faithful Jews,

they were looking for the Messiah, particulary in a different century.

Lo and behold! They recognized his arrival. That is a very faithful

response of a Jew - to recognize that the Messiah has arrived, and to

respond" (p.5; pagination of CLAL reprint)"

.

"should enable one to affirm the fullness of the faith-claims of the

other, not just offer tolerance...We need a model that would allow both

sides to respect the full nature of the other in all its faith-claims"

(pg.2)

.

"The one thing the rabbis would give Christianity, then, is that Jesus

was a Messiah- a false Messiah...The Rabbis concluded that Christianity

was an alien growth, developed by those who followed a false Messiah.

The Rabbis perhaps erred here...."

.

"...In short,the classic Christian interpretation that Christianity has

superceded Judaism is an understandable hermeneutic, rooted in Jewish

models of interpetation and capable of being derived out of

faithfullness to pastJewish modes of thinking"(pg.7)."

.

"The Rabbis and the Jews...sensed the profound continuity from Judaism

into Christianity."(pg.8)"

.

"Nor does my analysis foreclose the possibility that sacramental

Christianity is in fact a higher form of Biblical religion, i.e.,one in

which God is even MORE manifest and present"[emphasis in origional]

(pg.14)"

.

"...this model offers the affirmation of the fullest possibilities of

Christ: from God Incarnate to prophet or messiah or teacher - freed at

least of the incubus of hatred and monopolistic claims of owning God"

(pg.15)"

.

......................................................................

.

RABBI HILLEL GOLDBERG: Denver, Colo. I.M.J.N. in View From Denver...

"Now, a few authoritive Jewish philosophers did not see Christianity as

idolatry for non-Jews, and still fewer went further, seeing in

Christianity a positive, civilizing, and even religiously elevating

influence for non-Jews."

.

DAVID FLUSSER, PROFESSOR OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY AT HEBREW UNIVERSITY IN

JERUSALEM: I do not think that many Jews would object if the Messiah

- when He came - was the Jew Jesus.

.

We may all feel thankful that the Jewish race was so

prolific in great men, that even so late in history, it

produced one {Jesus} Who deserves to be compared with

Moses, Isaiah and Hillel.

-Rabbi Adolph Moses in Courier-Journal 1885

.

Former Chief Rabbi finds the Messiah, [adapted from a narrative by Dr.

Jacob Gartenhaus]....

Rabbi Daniel Zion, former chief Rabbi of Bulgaria and later chief Rabbi

of Jaffa Israel. The article says that more controversy has he been the

subject of than any other personality. Scores of articles in both

Jewish and Christian periodicals have been written about him.

.

He first made his confession of Belief in Yeshua in 1952, and was

discharged from being the chief of Jaffa the same year, Rabbi Zion was

allowed to tell of his experience on Kol Israel Radio station in Israel

such a thing had never been permitted before. {His Kol Israel Radio

statement follows}....

.

...More than 20 years ago, I had the first opportunity of reading the

New Covenant. It influenced me greatly. I began to speak of it in a

small circle in Bulgaria. I always regretted that Yeshua the Messiah

has been estranged from the community of Israel. Yeshua had nothing but

good for the Jewish people. He called them to repentance and proclaimed

the Kingdom of G-d. But I must confess that my position as a Rabbi did

not allow me at once to come out openly before the world in order to

spread this truth until, G-d in His great mercy, set me free from all

fear. He brought me into this country of Israel, where at first I

discharged my duties as a Rabbi of Jaffa. After I gave up my position

[as a Rabbi], I went to Jerusalem where for a whole month I engaged in

fasting, prayer and supplicaton. It was then that I asked G-d to show

me the right way, and the Eternal heard my prayer. On the first of

Shebat, 5710 [Spring 1950], the Holy Spirit revealed to me that

Yeshua is indeed the Messiah,who suffered for us and sacrificed Himself

for our sin. A burning fire in my heart gave me no rest until I had

publicly confessed my faith. In spite of all difficulties, suffering

and persecutions, which I have endured incessantly, nothing could

dissuade me from my faith. On the contrary, G-d to Whom I have given

my heart and to Whom I turn in all my needs, has given me the strength

and power to continue in my witness. He spoke to me through a verse in

Is.41:10:Fear thou not; for I am with thee; yea, be not dismayed, for I

am thy G-d;I will uphold thee with the right hand of my Righteousness."

By this I understood that a great and important task has been given to

me by the Eternal, which I must accomplish at all costs. Do not think

that I have left Judaism. On the contrary, I have remained Jewish, and

become more Jewish because Yeshua Himself remained Jewish. I comply

with the Torah, just as Yeshua the Messiah complied with it. May it be

G-d's will that Yeshua the Messiah come to unite the whole world in one

faith, that everyone may be prepared for the Kingdom of the Almighty,

in order that the words of Zechariah 14 be fulfilled: 'And the L-rd

shall be King over all the earth'. 2

.

2 Postcript: Rabbi Zion was able to proclaim his faith in Yeshua to

thousands of Jewish people till he died in his one hundredth year.

THERE YOU HAVE IT, STRAIGHT FROM THE FORMER CHIEF RABBI OF YAFFA!

.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Refferance to the Tiberias Rabbi is found in Would I Would You, a book

giving accounts of famous Hebrew Believers, from the Lewis & Harriet

Lederer Foundation 6204 Park Heights Ave. Baltimore, Maryland 21215,

Another book is, Famous Hebrew Christians by Jacob Gartenhaus...

The Tiberias Rabbi, and David H. Stern's, Messianic Jewish Manifesto.

The account of Rabbi/Haham Ephraim ben Jospeh Eliakim:

became a dayanim, overseeer of justice, in the community, married the

chief Rabbi's daughter, was the son of a Rabbi and leading man in the

community, was also a teacher of Bible and Talmud. Part of the start

of him becoming a Believer was knowing the older Jewish interpetations

of Is. 53, had his mikvah shel Yeshua in Nazareth. He witnessed in

Jerusalem, used to discuss Yeshua with the Yeshivah students in

Jerusalem, many of whom were his former students, and died at the age

of 74 on Aug.31, 1930.

.

Alfred Adersheim was a Torah Scholar of renown, Rabbi Max Wertheimer,

Talmud Scholar, Shabbetai Benjamin Rohold Ben of respected Rabbi's in

Erets Israel, Jospeh Rabinowitz Ben of a Chassidic-rabbanic family and

considered a Jewish leader of his time, Rabbi Iechiel Lichtenstein

district Rabbi in Tapio Szele Hungary, Scholar Joachim Heinrich Raphael

Biesenthal, Scholar David Baron, Rabbi Ephraim ben Joseph Eliakim Haham

of Tiberias & dayanim of the community, Hebrew Scholar Hayim Yedidiah

Pollak; all of these people became Messianic Believers in Yeshua the

Messiah, and the list goes on and on....

.

Subj: Judaic Quotes concerning Yeshua*******************

.

"As a child I recieved instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud.

I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene"

Albert Einstein/Nobel Prize winner in physics; former professor,

Princeton University; {Quoted from an interview by George Sylvester

Viereck. "What life means to Einstein," The Saturday Evening Post,

October 26, 1929, Curtis Publishing Company.}

.

"Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works,

his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of

Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism. He was a Jew

among Jews...." Rabbi Leo Black/for many years the religious leader of

German Jewry;{Quoted by Shalom Ben-Chorin in"The Image of Jesus{Yeshua}

in Modern Judaism," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11, no. 3 (summer

1974), 408. Used by permission.}

.

"It is a peculiar manifestation of our exile psychology that we

permitted, and even aided in, the deletion of New Testament Messianism,

that meaningful offshoot of our spiritual history. It was in a Jewish

land, that this spiritual revolution was kindled; and Jews were those

who had spread it all over the land....."We must overcome the

superstitious fear which we harbor about the Messianic movement of

Jesus{Yeshua}, and we must place the movement where it belongs, namely,

in the spiritual history of Judaism...." Martin Buber/author and former

professor at Hebrew University, Jerusalem; {From "Three Talks on

Judaism,"translated by Paul Levertoff in "Jewish Opinions About Jesus,"

Der Weg 7 no.1 (January-February, 1933),8.}

.

"Neither Christian protest nor Jewish lamentation can annul the fact

that Jesus was a Jew, an Hebrew of the Hebrews. Surely it is not

wholly unfit that Jesus be reclaimed by those who have never unitedly

nor organizedly denied him, though oft denied by his followers; that

Jesus should not be so much appropriated by us as assigned to the place

in Jewish life and Jewish history which is rightfully his own. Jesus

was not only a Jew but he was the Jew, the Jew of Jews....In that day

when history shall be written in the light of truth, the people of

Israel will not be known as the Christ-killers, but as Christ-bearers;

not as G*d-slayers, but as the G*d-bringers to the world." Rabbi

Stephen S. Wise/Zionist leader and founder of the Jewish Institute of

Religion; {Taken from an article written by Stephen S. Wise, "The Life

and Teaching of Jesus the Jew," in The Outlook, June 7, 1913.)

.

"Jesus was a Jew and a Jew he remained till his last breath. His one

idea was to implant within his nation the idea of the coming of the

Messiah and, by repentance and good works, hasten the 'end'...'In all

this, Jesus is the most Jewish of Jews...more Jewish that Hillel...From

the standpoint of general humanity, he is, indeed, 'a light to the

gentiles'." Joseph Klausner/Professor at Hebrew University, Jerusalem

and author; {Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan,

1925), 363, 368, 374, 413.}

.

===========================RABBINIC MISC.===========================

.

Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven,

so is this world; One thousand years out of seven shall be

fallow, as it is written, 'And the L-rd alone shall be

exalted in that day;' meaning that the day is altogether a

Sabbath, as it is said, 'For a thousand years in Thy sight

are but as yesterday when it is past."

-Rabbi Kattina on Genesis 1:

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

...did so under the spiritual influence of an Orthodox Rabbi, who

considers the Talmud not ONLY SECONDARY TO THE BIBLE but believes, as

a Jew should, that the Talmud was given unto Moses orally on Mount

Sinai together with the Bible; as the Talmud states (Volume I, page

12)....

*Volume I/pg. iv, EN JACOB, Agada Of The Babylonian Talmud;

By Rabbi Jacob Ibn Chabib revised & translated into English by

Rabbi S.H. Glick; Third Edition New York 5680-Copyright 1916

.

Vol.I/pg.viii, #2; Since we find that the sages themselves had said,

concerning medical knowledge that the opinion of such and such a Rabbi

did not prove to be true, as for instance, The Eagle-stone (Shabbath

fol.66b), or other things mentioned. We infer from this that they DID

NOT ARRIVE AT THE TRUE ULITMATE CONCLUSION OF EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF

THE TORAH.

.

The above, from the first complete English Translation of the Talmud,

shows that even back in 1916, the idea of Talmud being secondary in

nature to the Bible, [although note the importance attached to it].

--------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Though there are certain Rabbi's who say they do not believe in satan

today, the idea is indeed in Tanach and Rabbinic lit. as well. That is

where it came from. Try reading the writings of the Baal Shem Tov

sometime, and say that Jews don't believe there is a satan, you'll

quickly see they do. The Stories of Eliyahu Hanayi by Yisroel Yakkov

Klapholz is full of such things from various Rabbinic sources. Not to

mention the personification of the yitsaharah in Talmud.

.

=======================M I S C. M E S S I A N I C===================

.

Hugh Schonfield writes in The History of Jewish Christianity

pgs.170-171]...Organizations were quickly set up to ameliorate the lot

of the Jewish suffers, but the Jewish Christians and non-Aryan

Christians were largely denied relief from these sources, and their

pitiful appeals came before the I.H.C.A....

.

I would suggest getting the MARCH/APRIL 1989 issue of Archaeology

today. Seems that they have found quite a bit of evidence that Rabbinic

Jews and Messianic Jews both worshiped side by side up till the 7th

century in parts of Israel and the rest of the world.

.

We possess manuscripts of the New Covenant from about 130 AD (Rylands

MS), with major portions of the New Testament from 200 AD (Beatty

Papyri). Along with a first Century Mishnaic Hebrew Matthew, as well

as various quotes of early manuscripts, not to mention the early Syriac

manuscripts.

.

=======================M I S C. V A R I O U S========================

.

In terms of praying to saints. It is said that it is merely asking them

for intercession, however, as a Catholic, you are taught that they

can respond. The most notable incident is in the case of Joan of Arc,

St. Catherine, who was dead, gave her advice. Theresa of Avila,

I believe, also had the same type of experience. These are both saints

in the church and are to emulated as such. These were people who were

dead, and is necromancy, which is forbidden in Tanach/{O.T.}!

.

===============VARIOUS QUOTES ANCIENT CONCERNING YESHUA=============

.

First, Josephus [whether reading the Arabic or western versions refers

to particular followers of Jesus, called the Christ. Both versions

refer to Jesus...The western refers to him as"He was the Christ,...for

he appeared to them alive again on the third day", while the arabic

says "His conduct was good... They reported that He had appeared to

them three days after his crucifixion... He was perhaps the Messiah.."

("Kitab Al-Unwan Al-Mukallal..."].

.

Cornelius Tacitus: "But not all the relief that could come from man,

not all the bounties...availed to relive Nero...Hence..he falsely

charged..the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for

their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death

by Pontius Pilate...".

.

Pliny also notes that ...people sang hymns to Christ as "to a God"

[Epistle 10, 96ff].