søndag 29. april 2012

Nr. 296: How often Jesus taught that prayer and worship should be directed to the Trinity, God's spirit or himself?

Nr. 296:

How often Jesus taught that prayer and worship should be directed to the Trinity, God's spirit or himself?

By Fred Vidar Hjortland

If we read the word of God through so we never find any place that a spirit is presented as a separate person that this is suddenly the Spirit of God is a person who is to believe that the Big Bang or other hypotheses! To believe that the three gods took each other out in space and became a god, is to me more unlikely the Big Bang theory. There is only one God who is before all, Father. Jesus is created or brought to pass out of the Father and the Holy Ghost is no separate Gude Person teaches writing, but part of God or God's energy and power!

In the preceding pages we have seen that Jesus never talked about the Triune God, never called himself God and never spoke of the spirit as a divine person. As we face the question of who it is right to pray to and worship, I will begin to reason out a little from just these three conditions. My first thought is that it must seem quite incomprehensible that he never spoke of a triune God would teach someone to pray to and worship the Triune God! How on earth is it possible to imagine such a thing? How can Jesus teach his disciples to pray to God when trepersons he never mentions a trepersons God?

Furthermore, I think: How could anyone bring themselves to believe that he never called himself God, still had a desire that people should pray for himself and prepare himself as God? How is it possible to think such a thought? For Jesus' Jewish disciples, we know that it basically was completely unthinkable to pray to or worship a man. And when the man Jesus - who walked around the dusty sandals with them - as well as continually emphasized his humanity by calling both man and man's son and also never have said of himself that he was God, how can we "make it hang on a fork "that his disciples began to pray to him and worship him? My third and last argument is: How could he never spoke of the spirit as a divine person, teach someone to pray to and worship the spirit as a divine person? Or in other words: How can a statement that seems absurd and contradictory held up as a true and correct? One may wonder. Do you sort of imagine that the disciples said to Jesus: We do not believe that neither you nor your spirit is divine persons, it goes completely against our Jewish faith, and it's not something you have learned. But we would still like to pray to and worship you and your spirit! Furthermore, we do not believe in any trepersons God, for it is totally foreign to us, and it is not something you have learned. But we will still pray to and worship the triune God! Everyone will probably agree with me that the disciples hardly said anything like that! But what did they do? What were they? Is it possible to formulate a reasonable and plausible about the alleged thought processes with the disciples who brought them forward to the conviction that other than Yahweh, the God of Israel, should be able to and worshiped? For me personally, it seems that prayer and worship of Jesus, God's Spirit and the Trinity simply does not fit into either of thought or religious purposes, the whole biblical witness! But let us now turn from these initial reflections have some good Bible studies. What Jesus actually learn about who we are to pray to and worship?

As a first point, we begin by looking closer at about prayer and worship is ever directed to the Triune God in the Gospels. When we scroll through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we find Bible verses that say something like, of: Dear Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we pray .... Or three Almighty, we praise you? I can not find any! No verse, nothing that resembles or is near! And it's really not a bit strange. For when Jesus and the apostles never ever speak of treperson God, but always think of God as Father, then of course you will not find any instructions to ask for such an unknown and complex deity! We are satisfied with just a couple of quotes in this context. They are short and concise, but says all that needs to be said: Our Lord never prayed to the Trinity, and never commanded us to pray to the Trinity. (Dr. Edward Harwood, DD, Five Dissertations, as quoted in: The Monthly review - or - Literary Journal, Volume 47, London, 1772, Ed. Ralph Griffiths) There is not enshrined in the Bible one praise or prayer or any other form of worship that is directed against the Father, Son and Spirit, or to a trinity of any kind. The tradition of singing praises and end with prayers to dedicate them to the Father, Son and Spirit, has absolutely no support in Scripture, neither in terms of direct teaching or in terms of examples. (Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence, Boston, 1837, p.38) Let us now take a closer look at prayer and worship in relation to God's spirit. What does Jesus teach us about this? When we go to the Gospels and investigate, we see clearly that Jesus never ever taught anyone to pray to or worship the spirit. Jesus never said: I praise you Holy Spirit because you ..... Or: Thank you Holy Spirit because you ...... Nor does he sat down with his disciples and said: When you pray, you sometimes say: Dear Holy Spirit, who art in heaven ......

God's spirit is simply never prayed to or worshiped ever, neither in the Gospels or in any other scripture in the Bible! Here are some statements that confirm this observation: The Holy Spirit is in the New Testament never made the subject of prayer or worship. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol.4, p.916) Prayer directed against the Holy Spirit is unknown in the NT. People ask "in" the Spirit (Acts 7:55; Ef.6: 18, Jude 20), but never "to" the Spirit. Never ever say: "Come, Holy Spirit." Most important of all, Yeshua's own example. When he once rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, he said: "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (Luke 10:21). The fact that he was in the Spirit, led him to recognize the Spirit as a person separate from the Father. When Jesus prays, he seeks advice from the Father, not the Spirit. When he says: I am not alone, as he points to the Father as the one who is with him, "Father is with me" (John 4:32 p.m.; cf. 8:16.29). (Paul Sumner, Worship in the New Testament - the remapping Land, in MISHKAN, issue No.25, 1996, editor: Thorleif Elgvin) In the New Testament we find no examples of prayers addressed directly to the Holy Spirit. This was a practice that first arrived on the scene much later after the Trinity doctrine had been clarified. (Peter Toon (Anglican scholar), Our Triune God, p.226) There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that the Spirit was prayed to or worshiped. (Arthur Wainwright, cited in Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition, Authorhouse, 2007, p.475) Spirit as such is never a stated object of worship and New Testament is never said to engage in any kind of personal interaction with the Father and the Son. (New Theological Dictionary (Catholic), article: Trinity) In the New Testament, we find neither the texts that require or texts that describe worship or prayer to the Holy Spirit. (Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons, p.234) The Holy Spirit was not the subject of prayer or worship among the early Christians. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The fact that God's spirit will never ever be asked to or worshiped in the gospels, clearly shows that Jesus and the disciples continued a Jewish understanding of God's spirit. None of them thought Trinitarian. So far we have seen that Jesus never taught anyone to pray to the Triune God or praying to God's spirit. Let us finally look at how it relates to the issue of prayer and worship in relation to Jesus himself. Here I think it is appropriate to review the prayer and worship separately. First a little about prayer. Are there examples in the Gospels that someone was praying to Jesus? Did Jesus ever his disciples that they should pray to him? The first thing we can affirm is that no person ever pray to Jesus as if he would be their God. One example of this is found in none of the Gospels! Of course, pray for the sick and needy to him constantly for help, but they do because they think that he is a prophet and the anointed and equipped by God in a special way with the power to heal - not because he is God! Even a synagogue Board can ask Jesus for help this way! So we can affirm that no prayed to Jesus. But Jesus said to His disciples, however, that they should pray to him? Is it plausible that Jesus taught his disciples that they should pray to him - no one did it? Readers can make their own reflections.

When we sit down and read the four Gospels, we see that such a doctrine is not definitely assigned to Jesus in the three synoptic gospels. And in the Gospel of John we find in the whole, no hint of something like that. However, in this gospel, we have a simple cross that needs some further discussion, namely Joh.14: 14 The interested reader refer to my book "Jewish prayer tradition and Yeshua Ha Mashiach" in which this verse is a more complete text critical review. There, I conclude that both internal and external text critical factors point clearly indicate that this verse originally contained no learning about the prayer to Jesus! Here in this study I will only do two things. I will first display a table with a brief overview of text-critical moments, and then I'll list some Bibles translate the verse completely different than what we see in No-2011. First list of text-critical elements. The table below contains much important information and may with advantage be studied carefully. (See next page) Approximate time of the creation of text: Various Church Fathers and early versions: Has the form "ask me": Does the form "ask", "ask the Father," or omit the verse: After year 500 Slavonska (about 870) Ethiopia (600) Philoxenian / Harclean (508) X The second half 400's Syrian-Palestinian Euthymius (Palestine) The first half 400 - number Syrian Peshitta Armenian (c. 430) Augustine (North Africa) Nonnus (Egypt) The second half 300's Victorinus (Rome) Cyril (Jerusalem) Vulgate (Jeronimus) (383) Gothic (350) (Most of the MSS) The first half of 300 - the number Georgian (uncertain date of the translation, but the people were converted to Christianity at this time) Fathers of the Church would guarantee have cited and discussed Joh.14: 14 If Jesus had preached here a new and revolutionary learning about who you should pray to. But the interesting thing is that none of the early church fathers quoted Joh.14: 14 over your head! They seem to be completely unfamiliar with that in the Gospel of John was there a verse that contained a radically new teaching about prayer. The second half 200's The oldest Coptic dialect version, Sahidic. Later, after other Coptic dialects of the same reading as follows: copbo copach-2 and copfay The first half 200 - Indirect century witnesses: Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian teaches that we should only pray to God the Father! The second half 100's Vetus Syriac (c. 180-220) (Curetonian, Sinaiticus, Palestinian) Vetus Latina (180) (It = all or most MSS) Diatessaron (c. 170) (Diatessaron f, l, t) The first half 100 - number Indirect Witnesses Polycarp (c. 120) and Aristides (c. 125-130), only prayers addressed to God the Father! Estimated around or a little before the year 100 Indirect evidence: The first Christians kirkeordning letter (Didache, ca70-90) The first Christian letter (1 Clemens Letter, about 96), and the first Christian sermon by NT (2 Clemens Letters, 100), teaches all clearly and unambiguously that the beans only should be directed to God the Father! Many Bible translators have - not particularly surprising - considered the overall text critical material to be clearly in favor of a representation of Jn 2:14 p.m. without learning about the prayer to Jesus. Here are some examples: Norwegian: The Bible (1865): If I asked for Something in my name, I will do it. The New Testament, Erik Gunnar (1969): Yes, every prayer prayed in my name, I will fulfill. 1975 - The Norwegian Bible Society: If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. 1975 - The Norwegian Bible Society (nynorsk) the B if something in my name, I will do it. 1978 - The Norwegian Bible Society: If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. A living book (1989): Yes, ask anything in my name and I'll do it! The Bible the Word of God (1997): If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. The four gospels (Jacob Jervell - 2002): If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it. Norwegian King James (2003): If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. Danish: Dansk Standard (1933): If I asked for anything in my name, I will gore them. Bible in everyday Danish: Listen carefully after, What end pray for in my name, I will gore. Swedish: The Heliga Font, HM Melin (1865): If I bedjen något in my name, the shells rushing Gora. Swedish Bible (1917) Yes, if I bedjen on något in my name, so I shall göra it. David Hedegaard, (1964): About nine out of något pray in my name, shell göra rush it. NT, Verbum Förlag, (1971): Yes, about nine requests något in my name, so shell göra rush it. NT, (Bibelkommissionen - 1981): About nine requests något in my name, shell göra rush it. A living book (1987): ask for VAD any time, and and använd is my name, so ska jag göra it. Swedish Bible (2000): About nine requests något in my name, shell göra rush it. English: John Wycliffe Bible (1395): If ye Axén ony thing in my name, Y Schal do it. Tyndale (1537): Yf ye Shall ax eny thige in my name I will do it. Geneva Bible (1587): If ye Shall ash any thing in my Name, I will doe it. King James Version (1611): If ye Shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Noah Webster Bible (1833): If ye Shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Young's Literal Translation (1862): If ye ask anything in my name I will do (it). Darby (1890): "If ye Shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." American Standard Version (1901): If ye Shall ask anything in my name, That will I do. Twentieth Century New Testament (1904): If you ask anything, in my Name, I will do it. Weymouth Bible (1913): If You Will ask anything in my name, That will I do. Williams NT (1937): Yes, I repeat it, anything you ask for as bearers of my name, ..... The Revised English Bible: If you ask anything, in my name, I will do it Revised Standard Version (1946): "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." The New English Bible (1961): If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. The Jerusalem Bible (1966): If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it. Today's English Version (1966): If you ask anything, in my Name, I will do it. The Revised Berkeley Version (1970): I will do whatever you ask in My name. Green's Literal Translation (1976): If you ask anything in My Name, I will do it. New King James Version (1982): If you ask anything in My name, I will do it Amplified Bible (1987): (Yes) I will grant ... whatever you ask Shall in My Name ... The Message (EH Peterson) (1993): Whatever you request in this way, I'll do. New Living Translation (1996): Yes, ask anything in my name, and I will do it! Complete Jewish Bible (1998): If you ask for something in my name, I will do it. Millenium Bible (1998): If ye Shall ask anything in My name, I will do it. The Original N.T. (Schonfield): If you ask anything, in my name, I will do it God's New Covenant (Cassirer): If you ask for anything in my name, I shall bring it about The N.T. Everyman's Library: If ye Shall ask anything in My name, I will do it The Four Gospels, EV Rieu: Ask for anything in my name, I will do it. World English Bible: If You Will ask anything in my name, I will do it. The Book of Books: If you ask anything, in my name, I will do it English Majority Text Version: If you ask anything Hubble in My name, I will do it. Worldwide English New Testament: If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. The Way (The Catholic Living Bible): Yes, ask anything, overusing my name, and I will do it The New English Bible: If you ask anything, in my name, I will do it Jewish N.T. (David H. Stern) (1998): If you ask for something in my name, I will do it Hebrew Names Version (2000): If You Will ask anything in my name, I will do it. German: Luther (1545): Was ihr bit werden in meinem Namen das ich tun goodwill Elberfelder (1871): Wenn ihr etwas bit werden in meinem Namen, so werde ich es yard Schlachter (1951): Wenn ihr etwas in meinem Namen bit Werder, so werde ich es yard French: Martin (1744): Si vous a mon demandez Nom quelques chose, je la ferai Louis Segond (1979): Si vous demandez quelques chose a mon nom, je le ferai Darby (1991): Si vous demandez quelques chose a mon nom, moi, je le ferai Oster Violence (1996): Si vous demandez quelques chose a mon nom, je le ferai Netherlands: Dutch (The State Verta Ling) (1995): Zo gij ob cup Zulte in Mijn Naam, Ik Zal called loo. Italian: Giovanni Diodati (1649): See Voi chiedete Cosa alcuna nel mio Autonomous, io la Faro. Riveduta (1927): See chiederete qualche Cosa nel mio Autonomous, io la Faro. Il Nuovo Testamento in Lingua Moderna: Quindi see chiederete qualche Cosa nel mio Autonomous, io la faro! We round out the enumeration of Bible translations here. Personally, I know to well over a hundred Bibles around the world who do not teach prayer to Jesus in John 2:14 p.m.! As you can see it is therefore quite impossible to say that Jesus teaches prayer to himself in Joh.14: 14 He does not in fact - if you read this verse in a variety of other Bible translations! Millions of Christians around the world who use other Bible versions than the Norwegian Bible 2011, the completely puzzled by having to argue that prayers should be directed towards Jesus on the basis of this verse. In our neighboring countries Sweden, where there seems to be a broad consensus that John 2:14 p.m. will not be rendered in such a way that it teaches prayer to Jesus, for example, such arguments find little appeal! As I see it, Joh.14: 14 therefore impossible to make something good and valid argument that prayers can be directed to Jesus! Here are some interesting statements that are relevant to both John 2:14 p.m. and the whole question of whether Jesus taught his disciples to pray to himself or not: As long as there is doubt about what is the correct way of reading passages, it is definitely wrong to use such passages in support of any doctrine. (John Wilson: Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism, London, 1837, p.259) No doctrine must be based on an uncertain biblical text. (Bernard L. Ramm, comments for Mark.16 0.9 to 20, quoted in Joseph Wilting "Lord, to whom shall we go?" s.235) Set isolation is not every scripture immediately clear. It is therefore necessary to read in context. It is in this context, a good rule that Scripture is its own interpreter: obscure texts to be read in light of the clear. Larger contexts should shed light on the obscure detail. (Ole Modalsli and Leif Gunnar Engedal, Evangelical faith, Luther Publishing, 1980, s.35) Jesus never taught that they should pray to him, but that they should always pray to the Father in his name. (James M. Campbell, The Place of Prayer in the Christian Religion, The Methodist Book Concern, New York Cincinnati, 2009, p.149) We have no examples in the New Testament that the needs were presented to Jesus but when he himself was visibly present for the person who came up with demand. All written prayers addressed to him as Father. (Lant Carpenter, Unitarian, The Doctrine of the Gospel: A View of the Scriptural Grounds of Unitarianism, 3 oath., Bristol, 1823, p.102-103)

Based on the example of Jesus and Jesus' teaching was a regular routine among the first Christians to pray to the Father. (Wayne R. Spear, The Theology of Prayer, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1979, p.9) When Jesus hears one of his disciples saying: "Teach us to pray," he begins to teach prayer to himself, but about the prayer to the Father. He says, "Our Father, who art in heaven," etc. We should therefore pray to God alone, who is the Father, but not without going through the high priest .... He did not say "ask me", and not just "pray to the Father" but "Whatsoever ye ask the Father, he will give you in my name." .... That's right, therefore, well over one with him who said, "why do you call me good? There is only one that is good - the Father" to assume that he would say, 'Why ask me? The Father alone do you pray to him that I also pray so that you learn from the Holy Scriptures. For you must not pray to the Father has appointed its high priest who has been asked to be their spokesperson ... It is not reasonable that those who have been considered worthy to have the same father to pray for a brother. For the Father alone, with me and through me, you have to send up their prayers. (Church Father Origen, (d. 254), About prayer, chapter 10) It appears, therefore, from the New Testament, the early Christians not directed their prayers to Christ. (Andrews Norton (a onetime professor in "Sacred Literature" at Harvard University), A Statement of Reasons, 3.ed., Boston, 1859, p.231) "Our Father, who art in heaven. Must be thy name ..." All over the earth is the heavenly Father accused of the earth's many languages. The prayer that Jesus taught us, it begins where prayer must begin - with the true and living God. (Edmund P. Clowney, Emeritus professor of practical theology forms and President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, The Biblical Theology of Prayer, http://beginningwithmoses.org/oldsite/articles/btprayer.pdf) Thus, we can affirm that no praying to Jesus in the four Gospels and that Jesus does not ever instructed any of his listeners to do this. What about worship? Jesus is worshiped in the Gospels? The preliminary, brief and unsatisfactory answer to this question is the same as above: It depends on which Bible translation you read! NB In 2011, it seems as if Jesus is worshiped. But if I for example. had lived in Sweden and used the latest official Bible translation there (published in 2000), I would never read in the Gospels that Jesus was worshiped! The same would also have experienced if I had used Gunnes Norwegian translation from 1969 or such. The New English Bible from 1970! In order to understand how different Bibles can convey so totally different messages regarding whether Jesus was worshiped or not, it is necessary to look more closely at the Greek word proskyneô. Proskyneô is a word which means to bow down to the ground for some, and indirect: to celebrate or show honor. By the use of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament was made about 150-200 BC and was the first Christian Bible, we see that this kind of respect in general appear to everyone they want to honor, regardless of condition or dignity . There are, for example. common that guests will be shown this honor: He (Abraham) lifted up his eyes, and behold, three men stood before him. When he saw them he ran to meet them from the tent door, bent to the ground (proskyneô), and said: .... (1.Mos.18: 2) When Lot saw them, he rose and went to meet them, bowed their faces to the earth (proskyneô) and said: .... (1.Mos.19: 1) Trading partners can also receive proskyneô: And Abraham rose up and bowed (proskyneô) for the country's people, for the children of Heth. (1.Mos.23: 7) All we want to honor and exalt can receive proskyneô: Although he (Jacob) in front of them and bowed himself seven times to the earth (proskyneô), until he came to his brother. (1, Mos.33: 3) And Joseph's brothers came and bowed to him in the face of the earth (proskyneô). (1.Mos.42: 6) Then all these emails (Pharaoh's) servants come down to me (Moses) and bow to me (proskyneô), and say .... (2.Mos.11: 8) Moses went to meet his father, bowed down to him (proskyneô) and kissed him. (2.Mos. 18:7) Then fell she (Ruth) on his face and bent to the ground (proskyneô) and said to him (Boaz): ... (Ruth 2:10) He (Jonathan) fell on their faces to the ground and bent (proskyneô) three times (for David). (1.Sam.20: 41) David bent (proskyneô) on his face and threw himself down (Saul). (1 Samuel. 24:9) And they (the Prophet's disciples) came to him and bent to the ground (proskyneô) for him (Elisa). (2.Kong.2: 15) And all the king's servants who were in the king's gate knelt down and bowed (proskyneô) for him (Haman). (Est.3: 2) ... and for you (Israel), they throw themselves down (proskyneô), you shall plead. (Isaiah 45:14) King Nebudkanesar fell on their faces and worshiped (proskyneô) Daniel. (Dan.2: 46)

Proskyneô are often directed against the king: She (Abigail) fell on his face before David and bowed to the ground (proskyneô). (1 Samuel. 25:23) She (the woman from Tekoa) fell down before him (proskyneô) (King David) on his face and said: .... (2.Sam.14: 4) He (Absalom) came to the king, and he threw himself on his face to the earth (proskyneô) for the king (David). (2.Sam. 14:33) Bathsheba bowed and bowed down (proskyneô) for the king (David). (1.Kong.1: 16) And he (the prophet Nathan) came in and stood before the king and bowed with his face to the earth (proskyneô) for him (David). (1.Kong.1: 23) And he (Adonijah) came and threw themselves down (proskyneô) to King Solomon. (1.Kong.1: 53) Then he went out of the threshing floor and bowed down (proskyneô) for David on his face. (1.Krøn.21: 21) But after Jehoiada's death came the princes of Judah and threw himself down (proskyneô) for the king. (2.Krøn.24: 17) For he (the king) is your master, and you (the king's bride) will fall (proskyneô) for him. (Psalm 45:12) Proskyneô appears to idols: and I throw myself down (proskyneô) where in the house of Rimmon .... (2.Kong.5: 18) He bowed down to them (proskyneô) (idols), and burned incense to them. (2.Krøn.25: 14) He makes a graven image of that which he falls down (proskyneô). (Jes.44: 15) The bent (proskyneô) to the east of the sun. (Ez. .8:16) Proskyneô appears to angels: He (Abraham) lifted up his eyes, and behold, three men (actually angels) stood before him. When he saw them he ran to meet them from the tent door, bent to the ground (proskyneô), and said: .... (1.Mos.18: 2) When Lot saw them (actually angels), he rose and went to meet them, bowed their faces to the earth (proskyneô) and said: .... (1.Mos.19: 1) Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, so he could see the angel, standing in the way with a drawn sword in his hand. Then he bent (proskyneô) and fell on his face. (4.Mos.22: 31) Proskyneô is shown against the true God: And it happened when Abraham's servant heard their words, he bowed to the ground (proskyneô) for the Lord. (1.Mos.24: 52) The whole assembly bowed (proskyneô) (the Lord) while the singers sang and the trumpeters sounded. (2.Krøn.29: 28) And they bowed down and threw himself down (proskyneô) for the Lord on his face. (Neh.8: 6) In front of your holy temple I throw myself down (proskyneô) in your fear. (Psalm 5:8) Exalt the Lord our God, throw you down (proskyneô) for his footstool, holy is he. (Psalm 99:5) I want to throw me down (proskyneô) before your holy temple. (Psalm 138:2) It is interesting to see that God and a human king can be shown proskyneô at the same time: And all the assembly blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed and bowed down (proskyneô) for the Lord and the king. (1.Krøn.29: 20) This review of how proskyneô used in the Septuagint, shows clearly that this is not a word used only for the honor or worship the true God. The word, however, has a general and very broad scope! All that can be consumed, can be shown proskyneô! In the New Testament, we see that the word is used in exactly the same way. People are shown proskyneô (Matt.18: 26, Ap.gj.10: 25 and Rev 3: 9), idols are shown proskyneô (Ap.gj.7: 43, Åp.9: 20 and Åp.13: 4 ), angels appear proskyneô (Åp.22: 8), the Messiah appears proskyneô (Matt.28: 17, Hebr.1: 6) and God will be shown proskyneô (Matt.4: 10, Joh.4: 24 and Revelation .7:11). All that can be consumed, is shown proskyneô! In general, it must be said that the Oriental custom of bending to the ground for those you want to show honor and respect, can not possibly describe an act of worship itself. Had the word indicated something like that, would rob many famous people in the Bible been guilty of gross idolatry! The biblical material seems clearly to exclude an understanding of proskyneô that says that this word means worship! I've actually even seen people who have bowed to the ground for the special people that they have had great respect for. It happened out in Uganda in Africa a few years ago. Through such a reverent safety action showed his heartfelt respect, but they worshiped, of course not in any way the people they so bent down! The well-known Bible translation American Standard Version says in a footnote to Matt.2: 11 following the word proskyneô: "The Greek word signifying a reverent safety action, whether it is displayed against a creature or the Creator."

But if proskyneô denotes a reverent safety actions can be viewed from both the Creator and the created, why we translate this word not a Norwegian deferential proportionality expression that has a similar wide and broad implications? Why do we translate proskyneô not consistent with, for example. falling down or shelf? Would not precisely by such words and expressions reveal that it is a reverent safety actions can be directed against both God and man? Would not precisely by such translations bring out the Greek word far and wide meaning and scope? I just ask. Each reader will make his own thoughts from the material here presented. For my own part, I am convinced that there are such words and phrases we must use to render the meaning content of proskyneô in an honest and proper manner. You can bow down and worship both God and king, but one can not worship both God and king! By translating proskyneô to worship at irregular intervals in its sole discretion, increases also the translators is a colossal power and authority! When they sometimes translates this word to fall down and worship, and other times it translates to worship, it is in reality the ones who decide who the Bible readers to worship! And everyone could imagine what the result of this can be if translators are sitting with preconceived opinions about who is worthy of worship! The scriptures are never proskyneô as a "divine indication" - that is the recipient of proskyneô must be a God - and of course the word should never be used as such by us! In every respect it seems to me to be more accurate and better to translate proskyneô with "to fall reverently down", or "to praise". Moreover, it is also interesting to note that neither Paul, James, or Peter ever offer educational instruction that Christians will perform proskyneô to Jesus! (Check for yourself!) If Jesus really was worshiped in the Gospels, and the word proskyneô was used to describe this worship, as one would really expect to see that this word was retrieved and used again later by the New Testament authors. But they do that is not. However, the word used often in the Gospels in real encounter situations where people fall for Jesus, and in Revelation where the heavenly hosts stand face to face with God and the Lamb and fall down them. This is a good indication that proskyneô primarily refers to the specific physical nedbøyningshandlingen you show or do the people you meet and stands directly opposite. When Jesus walked on this earth, there were many people who came to him and worshiped him (proskyneô). In line with what has been said above, this does not mean that they worshiped Jesus! It does, however, that they showed him great honor and respect - as a prophet of God's End or the long-awaited royal Messiah. Just as the prophets of God and God's anointed kings were shown respect and honor through a nedbøyningshandling (proskyneô) in the Old Testament, such was the prophet and the anointed king over somebody, Jesus, shown the same respect in the New Testament! Nedbøyningshandlingen did not change character or content from OT to NT. It was at the time of Jesus is still a natural part of the Oriental politeness label. Magi (Matthew 2) thus do not worship a god, but they fell into the respect for a newborn Jewish king! Synagogue (Matthew 9:18) fell down a man he had great respect for, he had suddenly found a new god to worship! The Canaanite woman (Matt. 3:25 p.m.) fell at Jesus because she had heard that he could heal the sick, not because he was a god! We could continue. People fall for Jesus in awe and respect, but they never worship him as a god. In addition to the purely linguistic considerations contained herein proskyneô around the word, it also pointed out how utterly impossible it would be of pious Jews in Jesus' time to suddenly fall down in adoration in front of a man! Readers are invited to really reflect on this! Equally interesting, it may be to reflect on the fact that we never once in the gospels hear about loud protests or objections from any of the pious Jews who stood around and watched as people fell for Jesus (did proskyneô). They would not have cried out in anger and rage if this action would mean worship? In Matt.4: 10 Jesus says that the Lord your God will show you proskyneô and him only shall you give Latreuo. Notice that Jesus did not say that it is only God who will have proskyneô. If Jesus said it, he would have come in direct conflict with his own words in Rev 3: 9 There, he says in fact that he will do so that someone will come and show proskyneô against the believers - that is the people! Similarly, it would have come into conflict with his own words in Matt.18: 26 where he talks about a servant who shows proskyneô against an earthly master. Jesus book that is not in any way proskyneô word of God, but uses it himself in relation to humans. That which God alone should have, on the other hand Latreuo! (The word means to serve or worship a deity). And this admonition from Jesus is consistently followed throughout the NT! Jesus himself never Latreuo. Only God the Father (24 times) and different idols (2 times)! (The word occurs 21 times in the verb form: Matt 4:10, Luke 1:74, 2:37, 4:8, Acts 7:7,42; 24:14, 26:7, 27:23, Rom. 1:9 , 25; File. 3:3, 2 Tim. 1:3, Heb. 8:5, 9:9,14, 10:2, 12:28, 13:10; Revelation. 7:15, 22:3 + five times a substantival form: Jn. 16:2, Rom. 9:4, 12:1, Heb. 9:1.6). NT also has another word that directly means worship or worship, namely sebo. Also this will be consistently applied only either of the true God (9 times) or idolatry (1 time). Neither sebo, or any of this word derivations, sebomai (No. 4576 in Strong's lexicon), eusebeo (2151), sebazomai (4573), sebasma (4574) or theosebes (2318), are ever used in relation to Jesus! If we try to unravel together the threads regarding this in worship, we can thus affirm that Jesus never receive Latreuo or sebo - the typical words used it to grow, serve and worship a deity - but only receive proskyneô - a word that has a more general and public importance of showing respect for anyone. We have also seen that many people in the Bible received proskyneô - unless it meant that they were asked to or worshiped! On this basis, I think personally that it seems highly implausible when someone (unfortunately some Bible translators!) Trying to get us to believe that Jesus was worshiped because people bowed down before him (showed him proskyneô). Here are some interesting statements from theological quarters in connection with the word proskyneô and the whole question of the worship of Jesus: Bible Translations sometimes do not reflect the truth found in the inspired original, but only a prejudice that underpins an established traditional doctrine. One of the tasks of the learned Bible scholar is to detect such misstatement. (Sir Anthony Buzzard, "Focus on the Kingdom", Vol 5 No. 10, July, 2003) Is it demonstrably clear from Scripture that Christ alone is God and that he should be worshiped as such? The most eminent theologians in Protestantism reply no. (Dr. John Milner: End of Religious Controversy, Let. 9, p.76) At the time of Jesus were to fall down some quite common in the Eastern Roman Empire, both in official circles and in daily life less formal contexts in which people from different social strata met. ....... Social etiquette demanded visible gestures of deference and respect from an inferior to a superior all the way in this hierarchy. When they were facing a person of high dignity, it was expected that they performed a deep deflection or nedfalling. The Greek verb you used to describe such a nedfalling was proskyneô. (Jason D. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, University Press of America, 2003, p.41-49)

The examples of the use of proskyneô as we have discussed above (mrk. - the author is referring to his own review of the word), serves little to enhance the presentation of evidence that Christ was worshiped (ie God). The ambiguity in the meaning of proskyneô, which can be used both oriental respectful deflection and also truly worship, making it impossible to draw reliable conclusions from the material we have at our disposal. (Wainwright, The Trinity and the New Testament, p.104) It can not be proved that the word (proskyneô) in some of these cases refers to nothing more than a respectful and humble submission action. Josephus uses the word of the chief priests. This tells us that there can be about anything more than a physical nedfallingshandling characterized by deep humility and a desire to honor the falling down. (Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, 1909, Vol.4, p.943) The thought never showed up at his disciples that he (Jesus) put themselves at God's side or took God's place as the human central object of worship. They prayed to God alone. (Professor Paul Wernle, The Beginnings of Christianity, Vol I, by Oxford: Williams & Norgage, 1903) In all these cases (the author refers to various episodes in the Gospels where people fall for Jesus) was proskyneô clearly the culturally appropriate and usual way to plead with a person of high dignity, ie, one that had power and authority to help a person in need. The fact that this power could be and probably was thought of as a heavenly effect in most cases, meant not that the one who exercised it were divine. (James DG Dunn, Did the First Christian Worship Jesus? The New Evidence Testament, Westminster John Knox Press, 2010, p.10) Jesus' deep respect for the one God, which he shared with all the pious Jews of his time, among both supporters and opponents, making it difficult to imagine a real worship of him before his resurrection. (His Kvalbein, Jesus. What would he do? Who was he? Luther Publishers, 2008, s.309-310) Be assured that the God the Jews worship the same God that we worship. Their holy scriptures, the law and the prophets, we honor and read aloud in our meetings. And because we worship the God of the Jews just as there is one thing we can not be accused of, and that is that we come with something new! (Church Father Minicius Felix, Octavius, 2nd century AD) Both Jesus, Acts and Revelation emphasizes that God alone is worshiped. (Bible Study, Oslo, 1977, B.5, s.786) The question we brought up for discussion in this chapter, it was about Jesus in some way learned or legitimate prayer and worship to the Trinity, the Spirit of God or themselves. Personally, I can not imagine anything but an honest relationship to facts force us to answer a definite no in this issue - even though we had to work a bit first with some unfortunate renderings and translations in No-2011 before we could draw this conclusion . (The fact that one may encounter embossed clear theological translations, is very regrettable, but unfortunately not unknown!) What we certainly see is that when Jesus taught the Samaritan woman about true worship of God, so he taught her, only to worship the Father! No one else! He also said that it was the kind of worshipers the Father would have! Anyone who follows this advice, should thus be on firm ground. And when the disciples asked Jesus to teach them about prayer, he taught them only to pray to the Father! No one else! "So you ask," he said, Our Father, who art in heaven ..... This is a consistent pattern that is fixed and is never shaken by the Gospels. There is only one God, the Father, and no one else but him to please or be worshiped! Trinity, the Spirit of God or Jesus will never ever made into objects of prayer or worship.

Related links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-185-trinity-doctrine-reasons-in.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-186-trinity-doctrine-is-based-on.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-187-range-of-jesus-atonement.html

Nr. 295: How often Jesus spoke of God's Spirit as a separate divine person?

Nr. 295:

How often Jesus spoke of God's Spirit as a separate divine person?

By Fred Vidar Hjortland

It was when the Catholic church was supreme and the state church that Trinity took root. Before it was just a bounce believers Tertullian who believed in this heresy that God is triune. Prior to that, the faithful in many ways a Jewish \ Christian understanding of this. After that it was a pagan \ Christian understanding Simplified said.

As readers probably noticed, I write God's spirit with little "to". In the biblical reason text - the Hebrew and Greek biblical manuscripts - there is no direct guidance on the use of small or capital letter - all words were originally written with the same letter size. However, I choose small letter because I think this spelling is most consistent with a Jewish understanding of the spirit or wind / breath of God. For if we write the Spirit with a capital letter, the people's thoughts immediately go in the direction of a proper name of a person - and it represents in my opinion a serious wrong understanding of this phrase! Several theologians have come up with the same recognition and has largely moved on to writing God's spirit with little "to". In such Swedish Bible 2000 can be seen manifestations of this in my opinion better and more accurate understanding.

So much for spelling.

How do you write the word, however, is not that important. It is the sense you define the word that is decisive. Trinity doctrine says that the spirit is the third person or entity in the Godhead. The question remains whether this is a thought that hears a later dogma formation, or if there is something Jesus himself taught and passed on to his disciples. Did he ever them that God's Spirit was a separate divine person?

The answer is again no. This never happens! Not once does Jesus teach any man that God's spirit is nothing more than a page or a designation of the Father, even.

Jesus has a whole through the Jewish perspective on the spirit, that perspective is found everywhere in the Old Testament. From this perspective, not God's spirit a separate person, but God himself in the activity and action. God's power and presence comes as a mighty wind invisible and perform his work in the form of miracles or in the form of sacred inspiration of the prophets. When the Spirit of God hovered over the waters in Genesis, it was God himself who was the business! No other deity person! When God's Spirit came upon the prophets, it was God himself who inspired them! No one else! It is fundamentally important that we obtain this Jewish and Old Testament understanding of God's spirit! Without such background knowledge, we will in fact be able to easily get to misunderstand statements about the Spirit of God in the New Testament. We shall therefore dwell a bit more with this and take the time to listen to some skilled theologians and hear what they have to say about the matter: The Old Testament certainly not for God's spirit as a person, either according to a strict philosophical understanding or from a Semitic understanding. God's spirit is simply God's power. Whether this is sometimes depicted as separate from God, it is because God's breath is effective "out" him (Isaiah 48:16, 63:11, 32:15). .... Some very few times attach to the Old Testament authors God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isa. 63:10; Wis 1:3-7). When such expressions are used, they are only metaphors, explained by the fact that the Ruaha was considered to be the seat of intellectual acts and feeling (1 Exodus 41:8). (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol 14, pp. 574, 575) In these cases (ie, the instances in the Old Testament) does not mean "spirit of" one's own being, in any way separate from the person himself, but the person's current strength and power (jmfr.1.Mos 45:27, 2 Kings 2:15, 1 Samuel 30:12, Hag 1:14). Why should we believe that people behave differently when the phrase "spirit of" is used about God? When we hear the Dom14: 6 that "the spirit of the Lord" came the mighty Samson so that he could tear apart a lion, this meant that (person) of the Holy Spirit came upon Samson? No, it is meant is that the power of God came upon Samson, and gave him strength (see also Dom.6: 34, 11:29). There's not here any "hints" about a person separate from the Father within the Godhead acting in relation to individuals. See, for example ... 2.Kong.2: 16, 1.Sam.10: 6, 11:6). (Allan J. Hauser, The Genesis Debate, Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1982, p.119) It can not be proven from all passages in the Old Testament where the Holy Spirit is mentioned, that this is a person of the Godhead. There is now an almost universal agreement among scholars, commentators, that the "Holy Spirit" in the Jewish language does not mean anything other than divine inspiration. The term does not describe a person. (JD Michaelis, Remarks Wed John 16:13-15, cited by Wilson, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p.477)

From what has been said here, it should be clearly stated that the spirit throughout the Old Testament history is the energy of a personal God. It is not an independent or independent hypostasis. (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1909, art. Holy Spirit, p.390) God's "spirit" or "breath" means the Old Testament God's creative and innovative force: "You send your spirit out, they are created, and you make the earth's shape new again" (Psalm 104:30) ("New Testament", Erik Gunnes, Gyldendal Norwegian Publishers, 1969, glossary) That "the Holy Spirit" speaks to individuals, is something we often hear about in the rabbinical writings. But this does not of course believe that the Holy Spirit has personality. (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1883, p.139 n) Another text depicts the Spirit of God as his agent in creation. Since such terms probably was seen as substitutes for God, Judaism made them never to separate "persons", as Christianity did. (Dr. Moore, The Christian Conspiracy, p.38) Spirit is the principle of life and basic life activity. Spirit is the breath of life (1.Mos.6: 17, 7:15.22, ...). The breath is God's breath, the wind, which is given to man from God .... Yahweh's spirit or God (Elohim) spirit is a force that has a unique impact on the people ... and Yahweh's spirit is a force that initiates acts of Yahweh, who is both savior and judge. Yahweh's spirit is often the force that inspires prophecy (4.Mos.11: 17ff, 24:2, 2.Sam.23: 2, 1.Krøn.12: 18, Jes.61: 1, Micah 3:8, Ez .2:2, 3:12.14.24, 8:3, 11:1.5.24, 37:1, 43:5,, Nehemiah 9:30, Slow Arias 7:12). The prophet is a spirit man (Hosea 9:7). (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie) "God's Spirit," which is so frequently mentioned and if the works are so varied and important in Israel's religious life is not different from God. The term indicates either no division of the Godhead. God's Spirit is God himself, breathing, living, active full of energy in the world - that "God at work." Spirit is personal, because God is personal. .... God has life in himself, and is the source of all life in the universe. When you hear about different ways the fullness of this life force manifests itself, so it is explicitly Spirit of God we hear about. (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol.VI, p.255) According to Jewish thought is not the spirit of God a divine person. In this connection it is interesting and important to note that Jewish people have talked about and believed in God's spirit in the millennia, although this has ever made them binitarer! That their God would be a topersons God is a thought that has never dropped them. We can therefore with EJ Fortman stating that: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person, nor is there any solid evidence That any Old Testament writer held this view" (Edward J. Fortman, The Triune God, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972, pp.6, 15). Now we all know that Jesus lived and worked in a Jewish environment. This means that any proclamation of the spirit as a separate deity, must have seemed like sheer blasphemy for Jesus' listeners! The Jews thought that certainly the two divine persons! But we hear ever that some dishes sharp criticism and accusation against Jesus because of this preaching about the spirit? Never! Nor do we hear Jesus ever come forward and say, You know that the Scriptures are God's spirit a way to talk about God, but I tell you, God's Spirit is a person! Never do we hear Jesus saying things like this! Jesus has no agenda to correct the Jews' spiritual understanding. No Jew is ever reprimanded or corrected because of their understanding of the spirit or wind of God. Jesus seems however to be in perfect harmony with its surroundings when it comes to understanding what God's spirit is and means. More specific examples in the four Gospels could be mentioned to illustrate Jesus and the evangelist's thoroughly Jewish understanding of God's spirit. I shall include only a very few. In Luke 1:35 we hear that Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit, so that also profess in the Apostles' Creed. But if this is so and God's Spirit is a person other than the Father (Trinitarian doctrine clearly states that the Father and the Spirit are different people - they are not each other, they should be kept separate), then the Christ Spirit's son, and not of the Father, Son! (PS - I write the Spirit with a capital letter here because I refer a point of view of the Trinity). Then it actually directly wrong to say that Jesus is the Father, Son! This piquant problem disappears without a trace if the Spirit of God is given a Jewish significance. This is actually not the Spirit of God a person, but God himself in action. That this is the correct interpretation, the text actually suggests itself to us. It says in fact: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. This is typical Hebrew parallelism where the same thought and content is repeated with slightly different wording. Here we see clearly that the spirit is identified with God's power, that is, with God himself.

In Mark 1:32 p.m., Jesus says that no one knows the time of the last day than the Father. While the Son is specifically excluded, the spirit is not even mentioned! If you believe in the Trinity, do you actually Jesus a liar here. For the Trinity says that there is a third person in the Godhead which has exactly the same attributes as the Father. This means that the spirit must know exactly as much as the Father. But he denies that this is so. He says that there is only one, the Father, who knows! No one else! But is Jesus really a liar? Of course not! Only the Trinity that rotate things and produce such results. Jesus is true and right about God! When Jesus "forgets" to mention the spirit, it is simply because the spirit of him does not constitute a separate person in the Godhead. On the basis of his Jewish and Old Testament understanding, it would fall to him to say that God's spirit know as much as the Father! In John 8:13-18 Jesus speaks from an Old Testament precept that a case needs several witnesses to have credibility (see 5.Mos 19:15). Two witnesses are the minimum, preferably there should be three. What if there were two divine persons in the heavens, Jesus could have invoked an affirmative testimony from both of these two. Then Jesus would have had two external witnesses to strengthen his own testimony. Jesus discloses an external witness, Father. Again, "forgets" his spirit. Spirit works actually as a non-existent person of Jesus. From a Jewish and Old Testament understanding of God's spirit is not something surprising. It is, however, as expected. In Matthew 12:31-32 Jesus makes mockery of himself against the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. One of blasphemy is the remission of, the other not. What at first glance seems odd here is that the Father, who otherwise called the Most High God, is not mentioned at all in this context. Is not the blasphemy against the Most High worse than all other profane? Or is the mockery of God the Father which Jesus did not found it necessary to talk about? Is it here so that Jesus suddenly put the Spirit in the first place and totally forget and leave out the Father? For someone who thinks in the Trinity courts, these verses seem rather strange. If, however, we allow the spirit of a Jewish and Old Testament sense, the pieces fall into place. Then it is truly the most high God, Jesus is talking about here. Father does not forgotten, he will only be discussed under a different name! Moreover, it is interesting to note that none of the audience takes up some discussion with Jesus after hearing these words. They do not ask: Why are you talking about the Spirit of God as if it were a divine person as it is possible to mock? Why is not it? Simply because Jesus and his listeners have a common Jewish and Old Testament understanding of God's Spirit does! They understand what Jesus is talking about. No one is provoked.

We let it stay with these examples.

Some might think that it was not surprising that in Old Testament times did not understand that God's Spirit was a separate person in the Godhead, for the way the spirit as was described on was very vague and inadequate. Spirit could not seem to do much in the OT. In New Testament times, everything is different. Such is the thought, but what is reality? When you sit down and make a comparison, one sees in fact no difference. Spirit of God is described by exactly the same properties in the Old and New Testament! The idea thus has no basis in reality. This fact is again something that helps to show us that Jesus and the early Christians continued the Jewish and Old Testament understanding of God's spirit. The table below shows a comparison of how God's Spirit is described in the OT and NT: Spirit of God described the personal characteristics and properties: GT: NT: Spirit can be grieved Jes.63: 10 - But they were stubborn and did his Holy Spirit grieving Ef.4: 30 - Do not grieving the Spirit of God The spirit is willing Ez.1: 12 - where the spirit would go, they went 1.Kor.12: 11 - All of this is the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one that he will You can be stubborn at, mock, resist or challenge the spirit of Psalm 106:33 - because they were rebellious against his spirit Ap.gj.7 51 - You will always receive the Holy Spirit - as their fathers, lest you too! Matt.10: 31 - blasphemy against the spirit .. Acts 5:9 - how could you and your husband ... unite to challenge the Spirit of God (Overs.: A living book) Spirit is described by the personal pronoun "he" Ez.11: 5 - Spirit of the Lord came upon me, and he said to me

(The word "Ruach" I am. Female!) Joh.16: 13 - For he shall not speak of himself but what he hears, he will speak (The word "pneuma" I am. No sex!) Spirit can dwell inside the human Ez. 36:27 - My spirit will I give within you 1.Kor.3: 16 - do not you know that God's Spirit lives in you Spirit can operate, manage or lead people Dom.13: 25 - Spirit of the Lord began to move him ..... Psalm 143:10 - May your good Spirit lead me Jes.63: 14 - As the cattle go down into the valley, the Spirit of the Lord to rest them Rom.8: 14 - all driven by the Spirit of God ... Luk.2: 27 - He was driven by the spirit of the temple Acts 20:22 - bound by the spirit I am going to Jerusalem Spirit can teach, teach, guide people Neh.9: 20 - You gave your good Spirit to teach them Joh.16: 13 - Spirit of Truth shall guide you into all truth Spirit sees and knows everything Psalm 139:7 - Where do I go from your spirit 1.Kor.2: 10 - for the spirit searches all things Spirit can move away or move people 1.Kong.18: 12 - so it goes well so that the Spirit of the Lord carry you away to a place that I do not know about the Acts 8:39 - But when they step out of the water, the Spirit caught Philip away .... But Philip was found in Ashdod. Spirit speaks to people 2.Krøn.18: 23 - How is the Spirit of the Lord passed from me to speak to you? He said the spirit of Philip ...... (Acts 8:29) Spirit can speak through people 2.Sam.23: 2 - Spirit of the Lord speaks through me (David) Matt.10: 20 - but their father's spirit speaks to / through you Spirit can give power to people Micah 3:8 - But I am full of power by the Spirit of Acts 1:8 - But ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you Spirit is the Spirit of prayer Sak.12: 10 - But the house of David ... I will pour out grace and spirit of Rom.8: 26 - The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us 1) 1) This is an obscure Bible verse. Calvin interprets Romans 8:26 that God's Spirit helps the believer to find words in the prayer. That is, inspires and helps the believer - it does not ask himself to the Father. (Cf. Wayne R. Spear, The Theology of Prayer, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1979, p.45) Other trinitarer believe that the spirit here refers to the human spirit: "The context of the two Verses That Clearly indicates the groaning is done by the spirit of the one who is praying. The word Groan is Indicative of pain, Either physical or mental, and there is no conceivable reason for the Holy Spirit two Groan. Our own spirit groans with yearning Which we can not utter, can not vocalize or put in words, When we pray: 'For we know not how to pray as we ought.' "(Wallace, Foy E., The Mission And Medium Of The Holy Spirit, Richard Black Publisher, p.61)

Synopsis of the table: 1. Spirit of God is described by exactly the same properties in the Old and New Testament! 2. These descriptions were certainly not seen as evidence that God's spirit was separate divine person in GT! 3. The similarity in the descriptions suggest that neither the New Testament writers understood God's spirit as a divine person. This is the spirit that is equipped with the will and emotions, thus hangs together that it is God you meet! You go into a holy Presence of God! You come not an impersonal energy similar to electricity, but a personal God!

Let us now look at some general comments from theological quarters regarding the understanding of God's spirit. In the statements below, it is important to remember that things that are said to include the whole of the New Testament, of course, includes the teaching of Jesus in the four Gospels! Spirit is in the NT portrayed as power. (Sverre Aalen, Johanneisk theology, MF, 1979, s.126) In the whole talking the New Testament, like the old, the spirit as a divine force energy, especially in the hearts of men. (A Catholic Dictionary, p.810) Holy Spirit is another way of talking about God. (Robert Carden, One God - The Unfinished Reformation, 2.ed. Grace Christian Press, 2002, p.122) Spirit is, as many have noticed, never indicted as a "you" in either the Old or New Testament. (Dissertation Series, ed. William Baird, No. 61, "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ", Jane Schaberg, Scholars Press, 1982, p.7)

One can no more stop to that in the case of a personal nature from such texts as Matthew 10:19-20 and Luke 12:11-12, which can be in the Old Testament. (John McKenzie, Light on the Gospels, pp207-208) That the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit, not a separate person equal with the Father, is something we can be confident from the following statement of Christ: "All, my father handed over to me. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no know the Father except the Son and the Son will reveal him "(Matthew 11:27). If the Spirit is a person who is as omniscient as the Father, Jesus could not have said this, the Spirit would not be ignorant about some things. Likewise, Jesus says about a future event that "the day and hour knows no one, not even the angels in heaven nor the Son but the Father only" (Matthew 24:36). About Spirit had been a third person in the Trinity, he would have known the day and hour as well as the Father! Art Seized trinitarer take refuge when they encounter texts that states the subordination of the Son, is that such statements only to his human nature. But no one has ever claimed that the Holy Spirit has two natures! If there are two persons in addition to the Father who is also omniscient, I can not understand that Christ's statements above are true. I do not understand how to stick treenighetslærens hypothesized three-knowing people without simultaneously correcting a serious charge against the faithful and true witness, who said that no one but the Father was omniscient. We should unhesitatingly reject a system that so obviously contradicts our blessed Saviour. (Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence, Boston, 1837, p.151) Ho Theos (God) is never used in the New Testament to describe the pneuma hagion (Holy Spirit). (Karl Rahn, Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1963), 1:143) (Regarding Jesus' personification of God's Spirit as a "comfort" or "advocate" :) When Jesus personified the Spirit under a borrowed name or figurative form - descriptions that were never used in direct or literal descriptions of the Spirit - this is not the personification which suggests that the Spirit has a real personality, but on the contrary, a strong argument against such an understanding. (C. Morgridge, The True Believers Defence, Boston, 1837, p.154) When we speak of God as Spirit, as we are not talking about an impersonal influence, an energy that is sent from God and that is different from him. Nor are we talking about a divine figure, or a being who is a third person in the Godhead. We talk about God and his personal presence in the relationship-related activity. (Geoffrey Lampe (one time Professor of Divinity that Cambridge), God as Spirit, SCM Press, 1984, p.208) The early Christians did not think the Holy Spirit as a separate being or a person, but simply that the divine power that was in the business world and especially in the church. (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, Vol 1, New York: Scribner's, 1932, p.111)

We have in this section looked at the question of how often Jesus spoke of God's Spirit as a separate divine person. The answer we gave in the introduction was: Never! Hopefully, the review above given weight and substance to this claim. For my part I think it should be demonstrated to reach a different answer!

Related Articles:http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/04/nr-292-seven-important-questions-about.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/04/nr-293-seven-important-questions-about.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/04/nr-294-how-often-jesus-spoke-of-himself.html

lørdag 28. april 2012

Nr. 294: How often Jesus spoke of himself as God?

Nr. 294:

How often Jesus spoke of himself as God?

By Fred Vidar Hjortland

The apostle Paul gave a farewell address to the church in Ephesus where he said that after his death they would have perverse speech that attracted disciples to apostasy and deception. This is the Trinity, perverse speech about God and the Godhead!

Let us now proceed in our study and a closer look at the next question. If it was Jesus' mission to reveal God to the world, and God was a Trinity, and he himself was a part of this trinity - then one would think that he repeatedly and in multiple contexts would proclaim himself as God. People could always difficult to come to faith in the Trinity, if Jesus is not revealed to them that he was part of it! But again we ask: Does the it really so, or we are talking again from wishful thinking? How often Jesus talks about himself as God in the four gospels? The answer is this time: No time! Never!

And again, I recommend readers to check whether what I say is true or not. Here are some interesting observations from the theological hold: In the Gospels Jesus never uses the title "God" about themselves. (RE Brown (Catholic theology professor), Jesus - God and Man, Macmillan Pub Co, 1967, p.86) Jesus never reviews themselves as God, but always says that he is the Son of God. (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1909, Extra Volume, p.312) He (Jesus) taught that God is one and that he alone should be worshiped. He never called himself God, for he would not have kept the faith about him, which was sent to eradicate the false gods, .... would bring in another by the side of the One (dvs.Faderen). (Church Father Lactantius (240-320 AD) We must face the fact that NT research over the past 30-40 years has led a growing number of reputable NT scholars to the conclusion that Jesus .... certainly did not think about himself that he was God. (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1967-1968, Vol 50, p.251) The gospels do not draw a picture of Jesus as God. (Alphonso Salmeron: Comm. In Evang., Prolog. Xxvi.tom.ip394)

In light of the traditional Christian view that Jesus is God, it is quite shocking to discover that the Gospels in the New Testament does not contain a single statement of Jesus in which he unequivocally states that he is God. Not once in the Gospels we hear Jesus say about himself "I am God" or something similar. In Greek, this statement would be ego EIMI ho theos and Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, and all Jews in Israel at that time, it would be anahelah. Some of the most distinguished NT researchers agree with AE Harvey in his statement that "there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus spoke or acted as if he thought about himself that he was" a god "or divine" (AE Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 168). The strong Trinitarian believers Brian Hebbletwaite agrees: "It is no longer possible to defend Jesus' deity by referring to statements by Jesus in the Gospels in the NT" (Brian Hebblethwaite, The Incarnation: Collected Essays in Christology, (Cambridge: University, 1987), 74). (Http://servetustheevangelical.com/doc/ChapterOne.pdf) There were certain basic rules or beliefs related to being an agent for someone in antiquity. The most basic of all was, like the later Jewish Rabbis expressed it, that "He who is sent, is similar to that sent him." Or, in words that are probably better known to those of us who are familiar with the New Testament: "He who receives you receives me, and whoever receives me, receiveth not me, but he who sent me. " These are words that the gospels tell us was used by Jesus in relation to the apostles, and, as I previously said, the "apostle" simply the Greek word for "one sent forth", an "agent". When someone sent an agent, the agent was given full authority from the transmitter to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, the agreement was binding completely, it was the same as if the person who sent him the agreement made in person. Conversely, if someone rejected an agent, so he rejected the one that sent him. The agent was thus functionally similar to the one who sent him, because he was a subordinate, obedient and surrendered to the will of the person who sent him. This helps us to understand what this is all about in John 5 The question is not whether there really is only one God - John confirms explicitly that he believes that there is only one true God. The debate however is about, is Jesus' relationship to the one God. Jesus said to do what God does. If he is truly God's chosen agent, there is no reason to believe that Jesus said nothing inappropriate or improper. This would certainly not be the first time God chose one of their agents to speak or act on their behalf, to preach their message and make their deeds. But the Jews, as portrayed in John's gospel, do not recognize Jesus as the one that has been chosen by God. That's why they accused him of "making himself equal with God." That is, the problem is not "like God" in itself, but about Jesus appears as he does as God's agent or not. The question is whether Jesus has been sent by God and is obedient to God, or whether he is a rebellious upstart who seeks fame by claiming divine advantage for themselves. The Jews accused Jesus of making himself equal to God, that is, they accuse him of putting himself on God's level by claiming that he does what God does when he really has not been appointed by God to such a thing. They therefore feel that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy. By claiming such a thing, he has offended God. How to describe Jesus' response to this accusation? He denies the accusation in the strongest! Listen to the words used: "The Son can do nothing of himself, he can only do what he seeth the Father do .... by myself I can not do anything ... it is not my own will I want to promote, but his will which hath sent me "(Joh.5: 19:30). It is said emphatically that Jesus is God's obedient Son and agent. In the ancient Middle East was the eldest son usually her father's principal agent. It was also expected of a son that he learned his father's craft through careful iaktakelse and by imitating his father. John has this in mind when he uses this type of language to justify Jesus' words and actions. Jesus does what God does, and as someone who has part in a Father-Son relationship with God, that is exactly what one would expect. Only if Jesus had been a disobedient son that he had imitated his father and made what he sees his Father doing. There is thus no monotheistic problem in John 5 The question is whether Jesus puts himself on equal footing with God and seeking his own glory in a way that takes away some of the honor and glory of God, who alone are applicable. John emphasizes that Jesus is truly God's chosen agent, and because it is so, then there is nothing inappropriate in his behavior. He does what God does - not as an equal God, number two, but as God's obedient son and agent, which he sent to the world. The same applies Joh.10: 33 where the same type of language used. Jesus is accused of making himself God. To his opponents saw it, this would be blasphemy, because they considered him to be a rebellious upstart and not a select agent. (James F. McGrath, Are Christian monotheist? The Answer of St. John's Gospel. Lecture given at the North of England Institute for Christian Education Sixth Form Study Day, University of Durham, 27 March 98)

Athanasius ... searches the New Testament in his search for something to strengthen his position, but the only lyrics he can find are two lines from the Gospel of John: "I and the Father are one", and "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." But it is crystal clear from the context of these statements is that Christ speaks to represent God, not to be God. (Richard E. Rubenstein, When Jesus becam Good: The Struggle two Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome, 1999, p.7) So we see that the evangelist (John) as a response to the accusations of the Jews that Jesus had made himself "like God", not only gives us a representation of the arguments to prove their mistake. No, it johanneiske Jesus does something more than this. He stressed that he never claimed himself to be on equal footing with God, but that his words however should be equated with God's word, because he is sent by the Father and only speak what the Father has commanded him to say. (Paul N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6, Mohr Siebeck, 1996, p.218 ft.) Also in the fourth gospel, where we find a number of assurances of unity between the Father and the Son (10:30; 2:10 p.m., 17:11.21), it is emphasized that this device is a device between the transmitter and sending (5:19 - 30; 6:38-40), a unit of will and action that allows the agent to reveal his son emitter-father (12:44-50; 14:9) without compromising God's sovereignty. (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Doubleday, 1997, "God in the NT") Christians in the past abused this Scripture passage (John 10:30) to prove that Christ is ... consubstantial with the Father. For Christ are not talking about someone being unity, but the agreement he has with the Father. (The French reformer Jean Calvin, Commentary on John)

If you manage to unite and stick to, as many NT scholars seem to do, that a critical study of the Gospels on the one hand reveals a Jesus without any awareness of being God and a Jesus who never says of himself that he is God and, on the other hand, believe that the Nicene Christology, in which Jesus is portrayed as "true God from true God," is the right religion wise summary of the New Testament witness? (Professor GH booby, Jesus as theos in the NT, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 50, 1967-1968, pp 251-252) To believe that Jesus had an awareness of themselves as God, seem to tally very poorly on one's with the testimony he gives about himself!

People who believe that the Trinity is true and that Jesus was a Trinita, forced - as I see it - to admit a few things. They must first admit that he was true across through never told the truth about themselves to anyone! They must also admit that he allegedly expected everyone to believe he was God because he expected everyone to get to know the true (triune) God, never helped anyone up to this belief by telling them that he himself was God! This does not sound very good! Is it not more natural and logical to think that Jesus never spoke of himself as God precisely because he was not there?

Related links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/06/nr-1-is-god-trinity-or-not.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/06/nr-7-baptize-in-three-titles-father-son.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/08/nr-21-is-holy-spirit-person-or-part-of.html

fredag 27. april 2012

Nr. 293: Confessed Jesus to be God the Father?

Nr. 293:

Confessed Jesus to be God the Father?

By Fred Vidar Hjortland

It was Swedish Pelle Karlsson (on Hedemarktoppen, I think in 1972) which was the first I know of here in the Nordic region as emphasized and encouraged to worship and pray to the Holy Spirit. It is with horror, dismay and sorrow that I see what this has caused among the faithful. Where one believes that the spirit frees one from following God's word. It is God's word to guide us and correct us, that God by his spirit guide us is a fact, but always in accordance with God's word. Here Christianity gone wrong, especially the Pentecostal \ Charismatic Christians!

Let us now as a first point in our reality check see if it really is true that Jesus repeatedly proclaims or explains the triune God for the people around them. If we find a host of Trinity texts in the four gospels? The answer is no. We do not find many, and not a few. We are actually no! Not one verse! None of the Gospels ever put something Trinity claims made in Jesus' mouth! Jesus never says that God is triune! Let me emphasize that I do not hang me up in the word "Trinity". What I mean when I say that Jesus never ever said that God is triune, is that he never tries - either with the word or, in other words - to describe God as a mysterious entity composed of three entities. There is no hint of any such doctrine from Jesus' mouth. God is for him always one person, and it is the Father (see eg. John 17:3). Never three! The number three has absolutely no place in Jesus' mention of God.

If anyone should doubt the veracity of these claims, it is just to begin to examine yourself!

In order that no one should believe that they have found a trinity text when they read the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), I shall briefly comment on this. In this scripture passage is three "players" mentioned. But nothing is said about their particular relations to each other! It will be such. not said that they are equal! It is not said that they are all God. And it is certainly not said that they together constitute the one true God. So how can this verse, when read as a trinity text when it is demonstrably not make any attempt to describe God as triune? Why not rather think that the word "Father" has the same content and value elsewhere in the NT, namely, the one true God? And why not rather believe that the word "Son" - so this word does otherwise - is a description of the Messiah? And why not let the word "spirit" get carry its usual meaning of the Jewish God's prophetic and active presence? (PS - we'll talk about the spirit later). If we in fact the words be allowed to carry their usual meanings of these are not Matt 28:19 a description of the baptism of a triune God, but rather a baptism to God, to his Messiah, and his prophetic and active force. I can not see anything but that this must be the most plausible way to read this verse on. The usual meaning of words is invoked, and the author Matthew - who was himself a Jew - is not given a strange trinity understanding of the Godhead, which he does not give the slightest indication of any other places in his Gospel. It is in this context also interesting to notice all the baptisms described in Acts. None of those who were baptized had no prior instruction on the necessity of believing in a Triune God. We do not hear about one paid attention baptismal candidates who sit a Trinity confession before, during or after his baptism! In fact, used the apostles did not even Matthew's three-part formula when people were baptized - all of which were only baptized in Jesus' name! This is not at all with the fact that Jesus would have given his apostles commanded to baptize people into the Triune God! It must therefore be completely misguided and unacceptable to the Great Commission a trinity content. Many theologians endorses this assessment. Here is a bunch of interesting comments: Triadic formulations (formulations where the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together) in the New Testament is often understood as descriptions of a developed Trinitarian doctrine, but it is to read too much into them. (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company., 1987, p.1020) The New Testament speaks of the reality of no three-unit. We seek in vain for anything like that in the New Testament's triadic formulations. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, oath. Gerhard Kittel, (10 vol.), Vol III, p.108) Matthew 28:19: The baptizing them of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Here are the three mentioned together, but note the expression. Will it be said that the three persons? No, it is said that they are persons in all. If it is determined that they constitute one God? No. It is said that each of them is God? We hear of no such thing. Will it be said that they all are equal? We hear not about anything like that. It is said that they all be worshiped? No. When not preaching this verse a Trinitarian doctrine. If it does not proclaim them for three people, three that are equal to each other, three each of which is God, or three to be worshiped, then do not preach this verse Trinity. (IR Butts, Testimony of Scripture against the trinity, Boston, 1827)

G.F. Moore (Judaism, New York, 1971, Vol.1, p.188) notes that it is anachronistic to understand the phrase "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" as a Trinitarian expression, and that it is completely unnecessary to suspect this term to be the result of influence from hedningekristent hold. He considers it to be a statement of the (Jewish) Christians aimed at those who were converted from the Gentiles. As regards this expression as it occurs in the Didache 7:1-3, says Moore, that it is a statement of monotheism, messianism and prophetic community. Jewish believers considered it proper and fitting that converts from paganism were to confess their faith in the one true God, the Father and His Son - the Messiah, and the inspiration, the Holy Spirit in the faith community, especially as it was in force in their prophets. At the same time it was considered adequate when it came to Jews and Samaritans (who did not need to profess monotheism), that these were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ. (Dissertation Series, ed. William Baird, No. 61, "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ", Jane Schaberg, Scholars Press, 1982, p.10-11) For there to be baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost means to be baptized into the confession of faith in one God, the Almighty Father, faith in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten son, sent by the Father to reveal His will; and belief in God's Holy Spirit, who helped to inspire the holy scriptures. (Dr. Daniel Whitby, The Last Thoughts of Dr. Whitby, London, 1841, p.54) Although there are several triadic formulas in the New Testament, there is not one word anywhere in the New Testament that speaks of a "unit" of these very different entities, a unit of the "same" divine level .... We hear about faith in God the Father, faith in Jesus Christ, "Son," and believe in God's holy spirit, but we never hear of one God in three persons (værensmåter), never about the Triune God, a trinity. (Hans Küng, Christianity - Essence, History and Future, 1996, p.95) There are triadic formulations in the New Testament, for instance. command to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19), and the blessing of the prayer "Lord Jesus Christ's grace, the love of God and the Holy Spirit, be with you all" (2 Corinthians 1:13 p.m. ). But all these have to do with how God relates to the church. None of them explain how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being in terms relate to each other. The task to say whether such a correlation fell on a particularly influential group "heretikere" - the Gnostic Christians of the second century. (Gregory J. Riley, The River of God, 2001, p.62) It is impossible to conclude from this Scripture passage (Matthew 28:18-20) that the Holy Spirit is a person. Jesus' opinion may have been this: Those who were baptized were in connection with baptism profess that they believed in the Father and the Son and of all the teachings of the Holy Spirit had inspired and conveyed. (J. D. Michaelis, The Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, London, 1827, p.325-327) Sometimes it is argued that since the Son and the Spirit are mentioned together with the Father, and since baptism is commanded conducted on an equal footing in the names of all three, we can on this basis conclude that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mutually completely equal, and that each of them, therefore, is as much God as worthy of worship. The weakness of such a conclusion is obvious from the many parallel passage in Scripture. See, for example. 1 Timothy 5:21: "I charge you for God and Jesus Christ's face and of the elect angels that you will comply with this." The fact that angels are mentioned here with God and Christ, shows that even a very formal style of research together by God and other beings does not imply that these are essentially equal with God. In short, we can not - based on the fact that the Son and the Holy Spirit is mentioned here with the Father - join us for something else or something more than what otherwise scripture teaches us about them. (Theophilus Lindsey, "The Apology of Theophilus Lindsey, MA, on resigning the vicarage of Catterick, Yorkshire, in 1773," 4.ed., London, 1888, p.85-87) This text (Mt 28:18-20) provides in itself no conclusive evidence for either the personality of the three that are mentioned, or their equality or their divinity. (McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1981 reprint, Volume X, p.552 - commentary two Matt.28 :18-20) This will keep about Matt.28: 19 I guess it is satisfied that this verse does not teach any trinity. Therefore, we can bluntly repeat what we stated above, namely that Jesus never ever describe God as a triune being! And this - for some perhaps quite surprising - the fact is it is certainly not the only one who holds forth. Here you can hear some other voices:

Jesus never preached any doctrine of the Trinity. (John Hick, ed., HG Wood Professor of Theology at Birmingham University, The Myth of God Incarnate, SCM Press, 1977) Trinity doctrine was apparently unknown to Jesus and Paul ... they say nothing about it. (E. Washburn Hopkins, a professor at Yale University, Origin and Evolution of Religion) We will never find any Trinitarian doctrine of Jesus 'mouth, and this doctrine has not the authority, it must have had on the Apostles' time if it came directly from Jesus himself. (Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, (7 Volumes), Vol.1, p.79, footnote 2) Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament we encounter the word trinity. The idea was first thought of the church three hundred years after our Lord's death. (A. Weigall, The Paganism in our Christianity, GP Putnam and Sons, 1928, p.198) No responsible scientist Testament would argue that the Trinity was taught by Jesus, was proclaimed by the early Christians, or were deliberately held up by some of the New Testament writers. The fact is that this doctrine slowly and gradually developed during the first centuries in an attempt to provide an understandable learning about God. (AT Hanson (Professor of Theology at the University of Hull), The Image of the Invisible God, London, SCM Press Ltd., 1982, p.87) It (ie the Trinity) is a mystery which the Church presents for their faithful members of his theology .... but this doctrine has no connection with the message of Jesus and his apostles. (Emil Brunner, (former professor of systematic and practical theology at the University of Zurich), Christian Doctrine of God, Dogmatics: Vol 1, The Westminster Press, 1949, p.226) Jesus himself knew only God of Israel, whom he called Father. .... Trinity doctrine ... has no biblical foundation at all. (Prof. Karl-Heinz Ohlig, One or Three? (Saarbrucken Theologische Forschungen), English Publisher: Peter Lang, 2003, p.129-130) How is it that whenever there arose an opportunity to discuss the identity of the one true God, speaking writers and actors in Scripture always about him as "Father", and never as "the triune God"? Time and again you will notice that when opportunities to introduce or defend the trinity idea was so used of God's faithful servants - Jesus himself included - these opportunities to say a single word to this doctrine defense. (Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition?, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, Bloomington, Indiana: Author House, 2007, p.152) If the Trinity is a New Testament teachings, one should expect to find at least one verse which states that the one God is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." But any such verses are not found in any of the Bible pages. (Sir Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, Oxford: International Scholars Publications, 1998, p.332) Both Jesus and the apostles have a vision of who and what God is like involves an affirmation of the Old Testament monotheism. (William Wachtel, Christian monotheism: Reality or Illusion? Vol 1, Issue 1, 1992) It is clear from Jesus' own teaching that he believed that God certainly was still in heaven! (Alister E. McGrath, Understanding the Trinity, Zondervan, 1988, p.122)

What, above all, brings the church in embarrassment, the difficulties it has to prove any of these doctrinal statements from the New Testament writings. One simply can not find the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. Paul has the most exalted view of Jesus' person and role, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor did Jesus himself ever said straight out that he is the second person of the Trinity, fully equal to his heavenly father. As a devout Jew he would have been shocked and felt hurt by such a thought. (Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest), For Christ's Sake, Beacon Press, 1987, p.11) The second theme of Jesus' preaching was all about the fundamental validity of the doctrine was laid down in Scripture and tradition. Jesus repeated the Shema (5.Mos.6: 4, cited in Mark.12: 29) and recognized the law of the Old Testament as the source of knowledge about God's will concerning human behavior. ... The third theme of Jesus' preaching was a special emphasis of God as Father (a pure unitarian emphasis). His preaching confirmed the traditional Israelite view of God .... Yahweh was still the only deity and that it had chosen Israel. (Joseph Fitzmyer, A Christological Catechism, Paulist Press, 1991, p.47)

The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a simple, personal nature. The idea that one could find some trinity there, or even images or shadows of a trinity, an assumption that has long prevailed in theology, but such an assumption has been completely unjustified and unfounded. The Jews were a people who - because of the preaching the ever suffered - has evolved to be strong opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained invariable monotheists to this day. At this point there is no break between the Old Testament and New. The monotheistic tradition continues. Jesus had been trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish right to the marrow. He came with a new gospel, but not with any new theology. He said he had come "to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them." He accepted that his own faith in the important text of Jewish monotheism: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one God!" What he claimed about himself, was always in line with the Old Testament prophecies. He was the Messiah who would rule over the coming kingdom of promise, the Son of man, which the Jews hoped for. .... When he is sometimes asked, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?", So he was never an answer that suggested more than messianitet. (LL Paine, (one time professor of ecclesiastical history that the Bangor Theological Seminary), A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, 1900, p.4-5) It is ordinary enighed about, that there in some New Testament finder learn about treenigheden and exegetical questions oneness, therefore, if there finder New Testament evidence for this formulation af the Christian gudsbegreb. (Gad Danish Bible Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Copenhagen 1982, article Treenihed) Many teachings are accepted by evangelical Christians who clearly biblical, but there is no proof texts. Trinity doctrine is the best example of this. We provide only justice to the biblical witness, if we say that the Bible has no clear doctrine of a trinity. In reality, there is not a single proof text for this doctrine, if one believes in proof text a verse or a paragraph that "clearly" states that there is one God existing in three persons. (Prof. Charles C. Ryrie (Respected Trinitarian Evangelical Biblical scholar), Basic Theology, p.89) Trinity doctrine is not found in the Bible, it is a result of the church work. (Karl Barth, Grundlinien Dec Glauber, p.244fn) Some say .... that Jesus should have given us a new image of God. This view is as wrong as it gets. Jesus Christ is the father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... (Bishop Erling Utnem, Sure to be a new earth, Luther Publishing, 1987, s.170)

Neither the word Trinity or the doctrine as such occurs in the New Testament. Jesus and his followers did not intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one God" (5.Mos.6: 4). (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003, vol. XI, p.928) Our initial observation at the beginning of this chapter that Jesus never preached a triune God, the words - as we have seen above - solid theological support! That many Orthodox theologians admit this, to say the least is said to be interesting! Otherwise, is not the case more difficult than anyone can browse through the four Gospels and for himself a few noted that they do not contain a single statement from Trinity Jesus's mouth!

But the situation is the case, then Jesus can not possibly have been an Earl!

In his high priest prayer, he said it was vital for people to get to know the true God to share in eternal life (Joh.17: 3). But if God is a Trinity and Jesus knew this, how could he have failed to tell the people this great truth? He chose to hide the essential knowledge and just keep it for themselves? He did not care that the people around him were lost because they were not aware of the true God? If he did, then, he was neither good nor true! But it was not Jesus! More obvious and it is to assume that Jesus preached a triune God simply because he did not know any triune God!

Related links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-186-trinity-doctrine-is-based-on.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-185-trinity-doctrine-reasons-in.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/12/nr-164-adoration-of-holy-spirit-leads.html

torsdag 26. april 2012

Nr. 292: Introduction to study of the Trinity or the doctrine of God!

Nr. 292:

Introduction to study of the Trinity or the doctrine of God!

By Fred Vidar Hjortland

Trinity doctrine is alien to both the Old and New Testament, it came in full with the Catholic church and has evolved into a currently empty worship of the Holy Spirit in Pentecostal \ Charismatic circles is basically an invocation of evil spirits. Hillsong is an example of how to worship the Holy Spirit and thus get into the demonic realm!

The purpose of this limited study is not to address the Trinity in its full width. If it had been the goal, would probably side's been a totally different! Our more modest approach here in this context only to travel only a few questions and try to find out what kind of answer the primary witnesses to Jesus' life and work - the four Gospels - gives to them. If questions can not be said to cover all aspects and details of the Trinity, they must at least be said to be very basic and important in its character. And as such, the answers you come up to, at least give a very good indication of what Jesus must have thought about who God is. About this relatively short presentation may seem like an appetizer and an inspiration for further study, much to be won. The theme is in fact in my and arguably overdue for further theological reflection: It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy within Christianity, while two first centuries. (Dr. Harold Brown: Here Said: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p.5)

All major recognized denominations account for a particular doctrinal doctrine of Jesus. Specialists in early Christian thought, however, places in question the arguments that have been used to arrive at this doctrine. Scholars NT researchers are asking themselves the New Testament at all teach this doctrine, and historians wonder about the violent throat you see between Jesus himself and fully developed Christianity. These questions are very disturbing, for they indicate that the Christian church can be in a more serious situation than initially assumed. It may be that we do not have to do with a basic good structure that only needs a little modernization, but a poor structure which may have need of a radical and pervasive nystrukturering. (Professor Don Cupitt, Cambridge, The Debate About Christ, London: SCM Press, 1979, p.7)

This occurs naturally an important exegetically question, namely the question of to what extent the ontological Christology in the early church confessions - with its strong emphasis on Jesus' deity - is a faithful doctrinal confessional formulation of the New Testament witness. Represents the confession formulation a legitimate and inevitable development of New Testament Christology, or represents a distortion of this? Do not challenge this Christological problem for us - in light of the knowledge which is now available for NT research, a knowledge that far surpasses the knowledge of the Fathers possessed - a new and far more thorough? (GH booby, Bulletin of The John Rylands Library, Vol 50, (1967-68), p 247-261, "Jesus As 'Theos' In The New Testament") On the other hand, we must admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not constitute any part of the early Christians, New Testament message. Integrated considered this doctrine never been a central article of faith in the Christian church life in any part of its history. We are therefore forced to ask the question: Does the truth of this center of Christian theology, but not the center of the Christian faith? Is such a discrepancy between theology and faith possible? Or due to this disparity a mistake in almost the whole Christian church doctrine development? (Emil Brunner (former professor of systematic and practical theology at the University of Zurich), The Christian Doctrine of God, Dogmatics: Vol.1, The Westminster Press, 1949, p.205) From a theological assessment Trinity grew up as a syncretism of Judaism and Christianity in the face of Hellenism .... The theologians therefore detects, makes a big question this learning design. When it first goes up for one - and there's no way around this - that Jesus himself only knew the God of Israel, whom he called Father, and knew nothing about "being made to God," as it is commonly believed in the These days, with what right can we say that the Trinity is normative and binding on all Christians? ... No matter how we interpret the various stages in the development of the Trinity, it is clear that this doctrine, which was "dogma" in both East and West, has no biblical basis and can not be traced continuously back to the New Testament. .... Theology must eventually come to a recognition of the facts. (Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Ein Gott in turn the person? Vom Vater zum "Myserium" where Trinitat, Mainz: Matthias Grunewald-Verlag, 1999, 123-125, translated into English by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting) The need for an overall reassessment of the old church's belief in the divinity of Christ right up to the present time, it is urgent. (Professor A. Grill Meier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975, 1:557) One of the UK's leading Anglican theologians, Dr. Geoffrey Lampe, has come forward with a strong challenge to the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He said that treenighetslærens trepersons-God - "did not have much future." (London Observer, December 3, 1978) In the West, there are increasingly more often question the doctrine of the Trinity. ... It has long been a tendency to treat this doctrine as more of a problem than as a doctrine protective of their core truth of the Christian gospel. (Professor Colin E. Gunton (Kings College, London), The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 1991, p.31) A little about attitudes It is always important to have good attitudes when we study God's word, but when we are faced with large and difficult theological questions that challenge our habitual thought patterns - such as in this study - it will of course be especially important and necessary! That is when our attitudes are really put to the test. All new ideas are at first difficult and challenging to deal with. It is something we all know, and it's OK. A healthy skepticism and critical thought is good! Another thing is, however, if you close your ears, pull the blinds down and battened down all the hatches! Then the healthy skepticism started to be something negative! The Jews in Berea listened to what Paul had to say, even if the message was new to them! (Acts 17:11). They received the word with all readiness of mind, it says. Further, they searched the Scriptures daily to see if it behaved as it was told them. This listening and inquiring attitude is praised by Luke. He describes them as people actually affected by a noble mind! I wonder if this story has something to teach us! One can therefore - like the Jews in Berea - be faced with thoughts and ideas that initially seem new and strange, but on closer inspection turns out to be well grounded in the Word of God. If one goes through such a process, as well should the new thoughts and ideas be allowed to drop to and get a place in our hearts - even though they may both challenge and disturb us! It could be that God does not always feel the urge to pat us on the shoulder and say that everything is fine the way it is. Maybe sometimes he actually wants to disturb us and try to wake us up in relation to large, new and important truths! A closed heart can not be reached. The one who basically said "do not disturb me with the truth", has chosen a dangerous and destructive form of peace! And just because the wrong attitude can get as large a negative impact on a person - it can miss so much valuable - I find it appropriate to begin this study to say anything general about attitudes. For what good is it for good and good things will be picked up and poured out, if everything just roll off of the water on the goose? Or what good is it for valuable treasure is placed in front of the door if the door is never opened? Below I've compiled some interesting statements that is precisely this with attitudes. I think everyone will find something good and valuable here as it is worth reflecting on: We all want to make progress, but if we are on the wrong road, progress will involve a turnaround and a return to the straight path. And whoever does this first, is the most progressive. (CS Lewis, The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, Baker Books, p.7-8) When an honest, but deluded man hears the truth, he will either cease to be seduced, or cease to be honest. If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it will still be a silly thing! (Anatole France) The hardest prejudices to reveal, they are being shared by many. (Jason D. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, 2003, p.15) None are so blind as those who do not want to see! To be deprived of his illusions can be the first, painful step on the path to truth. On the other hand it must be admitted that not all the Church has taught is true. And it can happen that a new era of science and thinking can help to discover new aspects of God's revelation, or rather: old, forgot truths of God's word. Thus it happened at the Reformation. (From the parish priest and church historian Ivar Welles's book, "What will happen soon", Oslo, 1933, s.75) I am firmly convinced that the Lord has yet more truth to show us out of his holy word. For my own part, I regret greatly the situation of the Reformed churches have come in. They have reached a certain point in their religious practices, and will not go on from where their reformation tools have brought them. Luteranerne will not go beyond what Luther saw, and Calvinists is, as we see, where the firm took over this great man of God, a man still not everything. ... I urge you to remember that there is an article in their church confessional for you to be open and receptive to any truth that might be made known to you from God's written word. ... It is inconceivable that perfect knowledge should be in place immediately after the Christian faith so recently escaped such a thick anti-Christian darkness. (John Robinson, learned and noble Cambridge man who founded a Free Church congregation in the Netherlands in 1609) Unless I am convinced by Scripture or by common sense, I do not accept pavers and synod authority, for they have contradicted each other. My conscience is subject to God's word. I can not and will not take back anything, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand and can not do otherwise. May God help me. Amen. (From Luther's defense speech before the congregation of 210 high-grade clerical, royal and noble in Worms, 1521) Each subsequent generation of the church can and must then verify whether the confession formulas corresponds to the biblical message. There is reason to affirm that every religious confession has authority only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture. (Ole Modalsli and Leif Gunnar Engedal, Evangelical faith, Luther Publishing, 1980, s.38-39) Christians have a faith that is crystallized and solidified in the theologians artificial systems, look in any new truth drawn from Scripture until an unwelcome guest or even a suspicious enemy. (Birks, cited in: The Bible and the Church's teachings on hell-punishments, FW Farrar, Christiania, 1886, s.262) There are those nowadays who have been trained to look at any study that questions the old cherished traditions or creeds of various kinds - especially those that concern "established" the teachings of the Holy Ghost or the Holy Trinity - with great dismay and skepticism - no matter how biblical studies may be. (Robert Whitelaw, Biblical Facts about the Holy Spirit and the true holy trinity, Grace Abounding Ministries, Inc., 1991, Introduction) Evangelical Protestants can be as much a tradition as slaves, Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Christians, the difference is just that they do not realize that it is about tradition. People who profess to "Sola Scriptura" (so they think), confess in reality often a traditional interpretation of Sola Scriptura. (FF Bruce, from private correspondence, June 13, 1981, Focus on the Kingdom, Volume 3, No. 12, September 2001) Traditions that have their origins in the Christian environment, can have an "own weight" which leads Christians into bondage and shadows of true message of Scripture. Healthy respect for ancestors and their traditions have since degenerated into debilitating traditionalism, and it will be an important task to expose and correct the source of error that is so effective. (Ole Modalsli and Leif Gunnar Engedal, Evangelical faith, Luther Publishing, 1980, p.6-7) There is nothing wrong with tradition as long as we blend the tradition of truth. If we become more attached to our traditions than to the truth, then we have serious problems. ... The moment we look at our tradition as a test basis to assess others' relationship with God, we have elevated this tradition to an unscriptural status. (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy, p.17) God is truth God (Elohim Emet)! Love of truth, a willingness to submit to the truth, power, willingness to abandon traditional views that do not pass a truth test - is a sacred duty and a natural part of true godliness. (Franz Julius Delitzsch) Anyone who seriously decides to search for the truth, should first of all strengthen their minds with a love for it. For those who do not love it, will not exert himself much to obtain it, and will not worry much even if he has it in his possession. (The philosopher John Locke, Concerning Human Understanding, 1661) From the cowardice that has the courage to accept new truths, from the laziness that is content with half truths, from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth - O God of Truth, deliver us! Therefore, the faithful Christian, search for the truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, live the truth, defend the truth to death. (Jan Hus, 1369-1415) Let us not receive anything, believe anything or follow anything that is not in the Bible or can be proven from the Bible. (JC Ryle, in: The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, compiled by Mark Water, Baker Books, 2000, p.117) Nowadays those who read Scripture already assumed several religious beliefs during their schooling before they sit down to understand a text. When they read the text, it happens naturally, but perhaps unconsciously, that they explain all the difficulties in keeping with these beliefs. This is why it can happen that people of all beliefs find their special opinions confirmed in the Holy Scriptures. In reality it is not Scripture that informs them, but those who ascribe scriptural language of their own opinion. (John Lingard, "A New Version of the Four Gospels with Notes Critical and Explanatory, by a Catholic ", London, J. Booker, 1836, p.330) We must be ready to have the text break through our defenses, challenge our assumptions, disrupt our complacency and judge our compromise. (John Stott, Understanding the Bible, Lunde Publisher, 1974/1990, pp. 172) To recognize the authority of Scripture means nothing more than to endorse any doctrinal position or opinion ... To submit to the authority of a text means very convenient that you are willing to be corrected, to change the attitude and opinion change if the text requires it. ... If you are not careful, your lenses become mirrored glass that reflects your own theological agenda rather than to convey the text's meaning. In that case you will not "find" something else in Scripture than you have "entered" there. ... Our prejudices must be subject to the authority of the biblical text, we must allow the text to create and shape our understanding. (Guthrie / Duval, Biblical Greek Exegesis, Zondervan, 1998, p.105-106) When we meet various New Testament texts in the following sections, let us as far as possible try to appreciate what they have to say about God, without judging them against or read them through later doctrinal developments. (Larry W. Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology, Library of Biblical Theology, Abingdon Press, 2010, p.7) To let the Bible speak for itself, no matter how good or bad this speech corresponds to one with expectations or acceptable forms of modern Christianity, is an exercise in courage, or to use another word, faith. (Jason D. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, 2003, p.168) A thorough and conscientious search for truth often leads to a conviction that things previously held to be correct, in reality are not. (Justin Martyr, Exhortation to the Greeks) Peering into the mist of gray That shroud the surface of the bay, Nothing I see except a supervisor Of fog surrounding every sail. Then Suddenly against a cape A Vast and silent form takes shape, A great ship lies against the shore Where nothing has appeared before. Who must be a truth Often gauze Into a fog for many days, It may seem very acidic two heaven Nothing is there but mist-clouds dim. Then, Suddenly, His eyes will see A shape everywhere nothing used to be. (Clarence E. Flynn) Some initial thoughts

Was Jesus a Trinity?

Many Christians would argue with the strength that Jesus of course was a Trinita. As the other person in the Trinity - as many believe it is appropriate to describe Jesus - he was of course aware of both who he was and how the deity as a whole was put together. Since he was a part of the Trinity, he did not really believe in any doctrine of the Trinity - he just knew the whole with a perfect certainty that it was such a deity was! No one can actually know God better than God himself! And as humanity's great teacher, a witness and God's reveal, of course, Jesus communicated that his knowledge of God to the world. He was not called "Light of the World" for nothing! In Jesus' presence could not eclipsed, untrue or half-anne notions of God consist? When he preached and guided people to believe in the true God, he brought them always until a clear and confident faith in the triune God. And as a natural consequence of these two conditions - that Jesus knew better than anyone else that God was a triune God and that he always and everywhere true and faithful witness of this God to the people around them - we find a number of clear examples Jesus preaching at Trinity reproduced in the four Gospels. How many Christians will probably think, and something like this should just correct the situation could be described if the Trinity is really true. That Jesus of endless reasons to fail, or in any way confusing to tell the truth about the true God, appears at least not for me as a credible alternative. Provided that the conditions are right, I can not understand anything but that these must necessarily lead to a number of clear examples of the Trinity sermons of Jesus in the four Gospels! So far all well and good. But before we turn us completely satisfied with this description, it will probably not be so stupid to make a little bit of reality check of what is being said here. Situation is really as we are promised that it should be? Votes line of thought and its conclusion with what we see in the real world? If we find such. a lot of trinitarian texts in the Gospels? Draws the Gospels a clear picture for us by Jesus as a Trinity-believing person? Jesus proclaims constantly the Triune God when he preaches in the temple and in synagogues? Jews accuse him time and again to proclaim a God who they have never heard of before - a triune God? He proclaims himself as God? He sits down with his disciples in quiet moments and explain to them detailed and clear about God's Pentecost? He teaches them that worship should be directed against him? Assuming his friends and disciples a treenighetstro after listening to his preaching? These and similar questions are critical enough sense that you ask before you accept the truth that Jesus was a Trinitas as a biblical truth. Here in this study, we - as the title page already disclosed - just travel seven such critical questions. The answers will eventually emerge to these questions will definitely do something with your readers. If not all immediately begin to adjust his belief in God - it's a bit much to expect - the study should at least provide inspiration for further serious reflection, prayer and reflection. And who knows, maybe some - with me - one day will realize that it is not quite as obvious as many people believe that Jesus was a Trinity! Maybe someone with a today will agree with me that the following little humorous story provides a better and more accurate picture of Jesus' relationship with the Trinity than the example. The Athanasian Creed does! Jesus said, "Whom do but say That I Am?" And his Disciples answered and said, "Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead, others say Elijah, or Other of the old prophets." And Jesus answered and said, "But who do you say That I Am?" Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His Rationality and simply, by an act of His Will, being generated (eternally), in considerations of the Various functions by Which God is related to historical creation, but only on the fact That Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son and a Holy Spirit, Each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and lock in acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination Within Good , but no division Causing Which would make the substance no longer simple. " And Jesus Answering, said, "Huh?"

PS! Only a few brief remarks before we get started with the review of the questions. In short one can say that this program is built on two "pillars". The first and most important of these is the Scripture's own testimony. It does not come with anything else unless this column is in place. Scripture's own words, and it becomes critical! Each question we travel throughout the study, are therefore primarily considered in terms of what the four gospels have to say about them. In addition, it is also interesting to be able to document that a number of talented scholars have observed the same thing as a self in the Scriptures. This is particularly interesting when concurrent observations from orthodoxy own camp! The second pillar is called therefore the support of theological authority. Although statements from theological quarters, of course, does not prove anything, it's not going to get past the wide and heavy theological support provides a reassuring strength and weight to their own observations. A case is always stronger when more eyes have seen the same thing! Once one has recognized theologians and major theological encyclopedias in the back, it is also difficult to dismiss observations that weird or sectarian. With such support it must rather admit that observations appear to be serious and some observations in the highest degree is worth noting, and take seriously!

Related links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-197-trinity-in-unity.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-196-jesus-is-not-god-almighty.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-195-holy-spirit-unnamed-person.html