the POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royal I

[Pilgrimagain]

Re: Good night you people.....

Re: Good night you people.....

Originally posted by AVmetro


Evangelion stated that in order to prove something from scripture, you must quote extra-biblical sources in order to validate your position. I responded in what I felt constituted "proof" to him I do not rely upon opinon driven commentaries in order to support a biblical fact.

Ev, for example, quoted Justin Martyr on one occasion in order to refute a pre-existant Christ. .....Simply asinine methodology

I'm also interested in hearing whether Ps16:8 is "dually" applicable...

God bless ye,
Jeremiah

Right. You just expect us to take YOUR opinion. When by your logic we shouldn't because after all, your words and opinion are extra biblical.

 

[MARANATHA2002]

Evan, I understand that there are references of the use of “god” with the little “g”. We simply disagree that “BDB” is the final authority, that the little “g” references, are referring to CHRIST/MESSIAH. Any person, place, or thing can be a “god” with a little “g”. It is a matter of opinion, to believe that CHRIST/MESSIAH is being referred to as a “god” with a little “g”. It seems in your opinion, of their opinion, you believe they have come to that conclusion. I simply disagree with their translation. I believe CHRIST/MESSIAH is “THE GOD” with the big “G”, and there isn’t a extra-biblical writing that will change my mind. Peace, but not yet.

 

[Evangelion]

I am not arguing that BDB is the "final authority", I am arguing that you have resorted to a double standard in your interpretation of el as applied to Christ. Whenever it's applied to anybody else, you're willing to accept that it doesn't signify deity, but when it's applied to Christ, you argue that it does!

The bottom line here is that you cannnot appeal to verses such as Isaiah 9:6 as "proof" for the deity of Christ, without falling into the trap of circular reasoning.

 

[Anastasis]

MARANATHA2002,

have you ever considered that El is applied to Nebucadnezzar too?

Ezekiel 31:11 I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one (EL) of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness.

Compare to:

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God (EL) formed, neither shall there be after me.


The Bible sometimes "contradict" itself if you don't give some room for the context, in this case that there's only one supreme God.


As for Psalm 45, this is surely said to Solomon. I see no problem in Solomon being called Elohim. The verses quoted in Hebrews 1:5, 8-9 were said to Solomon originally. That temple spoken of in 2 Sam. 7:13 (Hebrews 1:5 quotes 2 Sam. 7:14) is the one Solomon build (1 Kings 5:19).


God Bless

 

[Evangelion]

Nice one, mate. :up:

 

[Anastasis]

Ev, glad to give a hand

 

[AVmetro]

Pilgrimagain...

Pilgrimagain...

Right. You just expect us to take YOUR opinion. When by your logic we shouldn't because after all, your words and opinion are extra biblical.

And you are speaking of.........what? No, you shouldn't take my opinion but the bibles word on the matter. That is what I endorse...

 

[AVmetro]

Ev...

Ev...

Duh. Obviously it's a non-literal reference. You've missed the entire point, as usual. Cirisme disputed the fact that mortal men receive the title "god" (elohim.) I have since proved that this is indeed the case

My point here is; If you are to take ‘God’ here as a ‘title’ then you must also insist that ‘Aaron’ is a title as well. I am simply tired of people referring to Ex7 in order to prove an unrelated point.

. Once again, you've resorted to the Trinitarian double standard - "The application of elohim to Christ always means that Jesus is God, but never when it is applied to anybody else." Circular reasoning.

This is fairly hypocritical. The double standard works both ways. You insist that because people other than YHWH have had ‘god’ applied to them, that Christ must not be. Additionally, I do not derive my conclusions solely on the basis of ‘god’ as applied to Christ…

Your lengthy commentary citations (all this from the guy who says he doesn't use commentaries, eh?) do nothing to prove that Jesus is God.

Only used them in order to play by your rules. And btw, I have specifically stated that lexicons and the like are fine. It is opinionated commentary that irks me when insisted upon as “proof” of a particular point.

I have discussed Psalm 45 numerous times here at TOL, and I have always agreed that it contains a Messianic reference. This does not, however, detract from the fact that its initial application was to a Hebrew king. Like so many Messianic references, it has a dual application.

I ask again. Does Ps16 carry a dual application?

Thus, from the New American Bible:

My heart is stirred by a noble theme, as I sing my ode to the king. My tongue is the pen of a nimble scribe.
You are the most handsome of men; fair speech has graced your lips, for God has blessed you forever.

As the psalm says, a scribe is singing about the king. Then we get to verse 7, but the subject has not changed.

Your throne, O god, stands forever; your royal scepter is a scepter for justice.

I suppose I could follow the Unitarian line of reasoning with Heb1:10-12 and consider it a mere “break in thought”…

God bless you in the highest EV,
Jeremiah L.G.

 

[Anastasis]

Re: Ev...

Re: Ev...

Originally posted by AVmetro


I suppose I could follow the Unitarian line of reasoning with Heb1:10-12 and consider it a mere “break in thought”…

You could consider the context too? Just a suggestion. There's a major difference in who speaks to who when we compare Heb. 1:8-9 to 1:10-12.


Just a suggestion

 

[Evangelion]

AV will keep. I'll tear him apart later.

 

[AVmetro]

Ana

Ana

You could consider the context too? Just a suggestion. There's a major difference in who speaks to who when we compare Heb. 1:8-9 to 1:10-12.

Yes, context would be important. Only from your presupposed position that Jesus is not YHWH do you exclude Him.

Oh yeah, while we're on the subject of Hebrews, let me get rid of this.......

There is some dissention among scholars as to the original source of the quote.

Clarke offers the following:

There has been some difficulty in ascertaining the place from which the apostle quotes these words; some suppose Psa_97:7 : Worship him, all ye gods; which the Septuagint translate thus: 'Worship him, all ye his angels'; but it is not clear that the Messiah is intended in this psalm, nor are the words precisely those used here by the apostle. Our marginal references send us with great propriety to the Septuagint version of Deu_32:43, where the passage is found verbatim et literatim; but there is nothing answering to the words in the present Hebrew text.

The apostle undoubtedly quoted the Septuagint, which had then been for more than 300 years a version of the highest repute among the Jews; and it is very probable that the copy from which the Seventy translated had the corresponding words.

Some of the above [bold] I agree with....yet...
That it is not a clear reference to the Messiah is of no relevance…A scripture can be applied nonetheless..Let us take Matt2:15 “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Cf..Hos11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Hosea is a clear reference to the Exodus….Howbeit that I have my explanation of the matter….still not a “clear Messianic reference”, now is it?

John Gill:

He saith, and let all the angels of God worship him;
These words are cited from Psa_97:7 where the angels are called Elohim, gods. So Aben Ezra on the place observes, that there are some (meaning their doctors) who say, that "all the gods are the angels"; and Kimchi says, that the words are not imperative, but are in the past tense, instead of the future.[/i]

Personally, I believe that Psalm 97:7 is the most accurate match - but the only problem with it, is that neither passage (Deuteronomy 32:43 & Psalm 97:7) mentions the Messiah at all, let alone his entry into the world.

Anastasis would seem to disagree. It is evident according to him that the context demands they be ‘false gods’….in that case, the connection is destroyed….

Only you seem to have a problem with this (lack of mention). Heb2:13 “And again he says, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” Cf..Is8:18. Now this is interesting; Jesus did not ‘exist’ at the time this was spoken, nor was it spoken by Jesus in Isaiah….see how your highly selective logic functions……

This raises questions for both the Trinitarian and Unitarian interpretations, because it casts aspersions on the legitimacy of the NT use of the quote. The author of Hebrews says that God spoke these words when He brought "the firstborn" into the world. But in actual fact, these words were first spoken before the Messiah was brought into the world - and they were not spoken by the Father in reference to the Son. Which is confusing.

It’s called prophecy…The very virgin birth itself was not directly referent to the Messiah ..Let’s read: Is7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.”

The word ‘virgin’ is exclusive to the LXX. Additionally, the prophecy is only referent to the Messiah in part. Also, the scripture is actually fulfilled , I believe, in 2Kings….Therefore what do we have: 1.) A double application. (As in Deut32:43)…2.) It is a rendering exclusive to the LXX (As in Deut32:43)…3.) Was not originally spoken in reference to Jesus (As in Deut32:43)…Therefore in order for you to reject Deut32:43 on the basis of your current line of reasoning, you must as well reject the virgin birth prophecy…..The fact is BOTH are revealed in the NT as applicable to Jesus Christ….otherwise no one would have known the better…

Robertson admits the problem, but does not present a solution:

Hebrews 1:6 - And when he again bringeth in (hotan de palin eisagagēi).
Indefinite temporal clause with hotan and second aorist active subjunctive of eisagō. If palin is taken with eisagagēi, the reference is to the Second Coming as in Heb_9:28. If palin merely introduces another quotation (Psa_97:7) parallel to kai palin in Heb_1:5, the reference is to the incarnation when the angels did worship the Child Jesus (Luk_2:13.). There is no way to decide certainly about it.

The fact of the matter, which you ignore, is that there are many prophecies of this nature….just try arguing with an orthodox Jew concerning Messianic prophecy….

Of course, there is yet another problem, which is that the angels did not worship Jesus at his birth, but instead glorified God.

Here is an assertion. So did Paul lie?

.....the above was in part, and for some reason I forgot to post it (Wife arghhhh!! (jk)..

God bless,
Jeremiah L.G.

 

[Evangelion]

AV -

I'm also interested in hearing whether Ps16:8 is "dually" applicable...

No, it's not. The Messianic context is established by verse 10, not verse 8.

My point here is; If you are to take ‘God’ here as a ‘title’ then you must also insist that ‘Aaron’ is a title as well.

Why?

I am simply tired of people referring to Ex7 in order to prove an unrelated point.

How is it "an unrelated point"?

This is fairly hypocritical.

Why?

The double standard works both ways.

How so?

You insist that because people other than YHWH have had ‘god’ applied to them, that Christ must not be.

That's not my only line of argument. I also have the weight of Scripture on my side - and Scripture itself bears witness to the fact that Jesus is never called Yahweh. You have to assume this when you come to the text. You cannot find it in any of the Messianic prophecies, so you have to take your arguments from other passages which do not even refer to Christ by name!

Additionally, I do not derive my conclusions solely on the basis of ‘god’ as applied to Christ...

But you have argued from Isaiah 9:6 in order to "prove" that he is God! This can only stand if you can prove that he is God by other means. Isaiah 9:6 should be your last port of call, not one of your first.

Only used them in order to play by your rules.

*snip*

But you're not playing by my rules. My rules are predicated on the definition of words and their application to various doctrines, not mere "opinionated commentary." My citation from Clark on oikoumene is a classic example.

*dusts his hands*

Really, I don't know why you even bother. You're so far out of your depth, I can hardly see the top of your head.

 

[Anastasis]

Ev,

It's so sad these guys live in denial of what a God is in the Bible. I guess if they faced it, most of their arguments would be gone.

 

[Evangelion]

Sad, but true. They have exchanged the wisdom of God for the wisdom of men. :down:

 

[Anastasis]

AV,

Originally posted by AVmetro

Only you seem to have a problem with this (lack of mention). Heb2:13 “And again he says, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” Cf..Is8:18. Now this is interesting; Jesus did not ‘exist’ at the time this was spoken, nor was it spoken by Jesus in Isaiah….see how your highly selective logic functions……

?? Who do you think is speaking here? Surely not a trinity god. Jesus surely didnt need to be existing to be speaking in a prophecy.. was he crucified back in OT time..? (Ps. 22/Is. 53)


I think whenever Ev acts selective towards you, you it's a matter of saving time.

 

[Evangelion]

Correction.

Correction.

Time for a quick clean-up:

Anastasis would seem to disagree. It is evident according to him that the context demands they be ‘false gods’….in that case, the connection is destroyed….

I don't care how he takes it. He's entitled to his own opinion - and in any case, not every commentator believes that Psalm 97:7 is the passage in question, so Anastasis probably prefers the Deuteronomy reference, as do many others. A break with Psalm 97:7 doesn't present any difficulty when an alternative verse is in view.

Only you seem to have a problem with this (lack of mention).

Read it again:

• 
  Personally, I believe that Psalm 97:7 is the most accurate match - but the only problem with it, is that neither passage (Deuteronomy 32:43 & Psalm 97:7) mentions the Messiah at all, let alone his entry into the world.

I accept the link - there's no question about it in my mind. It's just not very explicit, that's all.

Heb2:13 “And again he says, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” Cf..Is8:18. Now this is interesting; Jesus did not ‘exist’ at the time this was spoken, nor was it spoken by Jesus in Isaiah….see how your highly selective logic functions……

I'm not being selective - and I don't have a problem with Isaiah 8:18, because we are told in that chapter that it is the prophet speaking. Like David in his Messianic psalms, Isaiah takes on the role of the Messiah himself. We are not expected to believe that this is the Messiah speaking - especially since Isaiah 8 confirms that it is Isaiah!

Thus, Robertson:

• 
  Heb 2:13 - I will put my trust in him (Egō esomai pepoithōs ep' autōi).
  A rare periphrastic (intransitive) future perfect of peithō, a quotation from Isa_8:17. The author represents the Messiah as putting his trust in God as other men do (cf. Heb_12:2). Certainly Jesus did this constantly. The third quotation (kai palin, And again) is from Isa_8:18 (the next verse), but the Messiah shows himself closely linked with the children (paidia) of God, the sons (huioi) of Heb_2:10.

Johnson likewise:

• 
  Heb 2:13-15 - And again.
  A quotation is now given from Isa_8:17, in which the Messiah is represented associating himself with the saints as all children of God. The point is that Christ makes himself the brother of the saved. Heb_2:17-18 are quoted in order to give this point clearly.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown concur, elaborating on the significance of the Christological antitype:

• 
  Behold I and the children, &c.--
  (Isa_8:18). "Sons" (Heb_2:10), "brethren" (Heb_2:12), and "children," imply His right and property in them from everlasting. He speaks of them as "children" of God, though not yet in being, yet considered as such in His purpose, and presents them before God the Father, who has given Him them, to be glorified with Himself. Isaiah (meaning "salvation of Jehovah") typically represented Messiah, who is at once Father and Son, Isaiah and Immanuel (Isa_9:6).
  
  He expresses his resolve to rely, he and his children, not like Ahaz and the Jews on the Assyrian king, against the confederacy of Pekah of Israel, and Rezin of Syria, but on Jehovah; and then foretells the deliverance of Judah by God, in language which finds its antitypical full realization only in the far greater deliverance wrought by Messiah. Christ, the antitypical Prophet, similarly, instead of the human confidences of His age, Himself, and with Him GOD THE FATHER'S children (who are therefore His children, and so antitypical to Isaiah's children, though here regarded as His "brethren," compare Isa_9:6; "Father" and "His seed," Isa_53:10) led by Him, trust wholly in God for salvation. The official words and acts of all the prophets find their antitype in the Great Prophet (Rev_19:10), just as His kingly office is antitypical to that of the theocratic kings; and His priestly office to the types and rites of the Aaronic priesthood.

Notice that crucial point - "He speaks of them as "children" of God, though not yet in being, yet considered as such in His purpose..." In the same way, Christ is foreshadowed, while yet he did not exist. (See also John 8:58, 17:3, etc.) Notice also that the prophets, kings and priests represent Christ, speaking on his behalf as if they were Jesus himself, because he does not yet exist at this time!

It’s called prophecy…

*snip*

Duh. I was simply pointing out the apparent tension between the OT and NT texts - a tension highlighted and discussed by both Clarke and Robertson. I wasn't denying the link, and I wasn't casting aspersions on prophecy. Your comments about the virgin birth in Isaiah et al have no relevance here.

Here is an assertion.

I see no corresponding text which says that the angels worshipped Christ at his birth. Do you? If you do, feel free to post it. If you don't, my comment is not an "assertion" but a fact.

So did Paul lie?

*snip*

No, he didn't. And I already agreed that Psalm 97:7 is the closest match, so you can see for yourself that I'm not denying the truth of Paul's words. I am merely commenting on the fact that:

• Paul does not refer to a literal event (i.e. the angels did not worship Christ at his birth.)
  
• The fact that Paul does not refer to a literal event, creates an apparent tension between the OT and NT accounts (as noted by various commentators.)
  
• Paul is, however, correct when he says that this is what the Father has said, so the fact that the literal event has not occurred, is irrelevant.
  
• Psalm 97:7 is not as explicit as we would expect for a prophetic statement of this nature - although the link is preserved if we translate elohim in verse 7 as "angels", not "gods." (Are you willing to do this, AV?)

Just as an aside, take a quick look at Psalm 2:7, where Jesus is said to have been begotten "this day", even though we know that this did not literally occur until much later! It's another classic example of "Jewish pre-existence", which is figurative, not literal.

Think about it...


PS. "Isaiah" means "salvation of Yahweh." Following the standard Trinitarian logic, this means that Isaiah is Yahweh!

 

[Anastasis]

Well I think concerning Hebrews 1:6 that Ev sums it up very well:

"Personally, I believe that Psalm 97:7 is the most accurate match - but the only problem with it, is that neither passage (Deuteronomy 32:43 & Psalm 97:7) mentions the Messiah at all, let alone his entry into the world."


Consistency seem to demand that the writer quotes from somewhere, but I don't see where. Perhaps the real point is that the glory of Jesus will be to the glory of the Father (Phil. 2:11) and that way the writer might have had the mentioned verses talking of the Father in mind.

But it's evident he doesn't quote a passage like he does in the other verses. That consistency isn't there. But since we all believe the Bible is written by men inspired by God's Holy Spirit, what is the problem? I don't see it.

 

[Evangelion]

Well said, Anastasis. :up:

This part...

Consistency seem to demand that the writer quotes from somewhere, but I don't see where. Perhaps the real point is that the glory of Jesus will be to the glory of the Father (Phil. 2:11) and that way the writer might have had the mentioned verses talking of the Father in mind.

...hits the nail on the head.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Re: Pilgrimagain...

Re: Pilgrimagain...

Originally posted by AVmetro


And you are speaking of.........what? No, you shouldn't take my opinion but the bibles word on the matter. That is what I endorse...

That's funny, because in your very next quote you give us your interpretation of scripture. If you really beleive in people using the Bible only then you must stop talking and simply post verses of scripture.

 

[Evangelion]

Hey, that's what Melody does!