tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post6162922948302609093..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Jesus as the Unifier of the BibleBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-69551915939065421652008-08-08T13:19:00.000-07:002008-08-08T13:19:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-21778341429530584882008-08-06T11:31:00.000-07:002008-08-06T11:31:00.000-07:00Ben,Okay you goaded me on to one more response. Y...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Okay you goaded me on to one more response. You said:<BR/><BR/>"Its quite impossible after the discussion about subjection there to come to another grammatically plausible conclusion than that God, at the end of that verse has to refer to the Father, and I say that to you as no fan of the Wayne Grudem school of understanding the Trinity"<BR/><BR/>Not true. It is not only <B>NOT</B> impossible, but it is completely understandable and sustainable in context with the inspired words. I won't give you the explanation here since I want to be respectful of your request to end the conversation. But I would suggest that it would be worthwhile to get a copy of "The Trinity - Eternity Past to Eternity Future Explaining Truth & Exposing Error" when it is released by the end of September or early October 2008. I think you will find in it a very logical refutation of both Dr. Bruce Ware and Dr. Wayne Grudem. I think both you and I have refuted Grudem in our own way :) and those refutations are worthy of consideration.<BR/><BR/>Blessings to you as well,<BR/>Cheryl SchatzCheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-18515084435538852752008-08-06T11:17:00.000-07:002008-08-06T11:17:00.000-07:00Cheryl bless your heart that very verse you site s...Cheryl bless your heart that very verse you site says that God will be all in all once the Son subjects himself to the Father, having handed the Kingdom back over to the Father. Its quite impossible after the discussion about subjection there to come to another grammatically plausible conclusion than that God, at the end of that verse has to refer to the Father, and I say that to you as no fan of the Wayne Grudem school of understanding the Trinity. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-59111665473788556992008-08-06T08:56:00.000-07:002008-08-06T08:56:00.000-07:00Ben,"Well Cheryl, you may be surprised to learn th...Ben,<BR/><BR/>"Well Cheryl, you may be surprised to learn that every single commentary on 1 Corinthians, including all the conservative ones conclude that the word God there in 1 Cor. 15 must refer to God the Father, not to the Trinity because of the grammar and Greek structure of the sentence."<BR/><BR/>Nice try, Ben. I am not home now and will be home in about a week. If you would like I can quote you from the commentaries that say that "God" does not mean the Father but means the triune God. So they "all" do not say such a thing. I would agree that the commentaries that have a complementarian bent who believe that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father would say such a thing. The ones that are true to the full equality of the Son in the Trinity that includes his full equal authority and his full equal works say that "God" means the Godhead.<BR/><BR/>Now I will bow out as you requested. I think people should check out the facts for themselves since this is an issue of primary doctrine not a secondary issue of faith.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Cheryl SchatzCheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-65168195278410799062008-08-06T04:12:00.000-07:002008-08-06T04:12:00.000-07:00Well Cheryl, you may be surprised to learn that e...Well Cheryl, you may be surprised to learn that every single commentary on 1 Corinthians, including all the conservative ones conclude that the word God there in 1 Cor. 15 must refer to God the Father, not to the Trinity because of the grammar and Greek structure of the sentence. But, nice try....<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-55069178271684252062008-08-05T20:11:00.000-07:002008-08-05T20:11:00.000-07:00Ben,Of course wikipedia isn't perfect, but the ide...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Of course wikipedia isn't perfect, but the idea of monotheism as one being is there while still being three persons and not "modes".<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"Nowhere in the NT does the word theos refer to the tri-personal unity we now call God."<BR/><BR/>This one should be defended biblically and I hope you will allow me one last post :)<BR/><BR/>1 Cor. 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. <BR/><BR/>Here we see the human Son willingly subject himself to the Father so that there will once again be an undivided unity. God here is Father, Son and Holy Spirit all in all. If the resurrected man Jesus had refused to subject himself the Godhead would not appear one again. From this point we see unity in only one Being, we have one throne and everything is united and no longer seen as divisible. How this will happen, I don't know if anyone knows, but Theos here certainly means the Trinity. There is so much more I could share but since you have called an end to the discussion, I will bow out and continue to work on the editing of my DVD on the Trinity. My focus will be on the LORD of hosts and the revelation of his work in the OT.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-65178658535449186832008-08-05T19:51:00.000-07:002008-08-05T19:51:00.000-07:00Cheryl God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit don't h...Cheryl God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit don't have 3 PERSONAL DIMENSIONS. Come on now. The creeds are clear--- three persons, sharing one divine essence. The Latin of the Nicean Creed discussion says explicitly 3 'personae'. Personhood is not a dimension of being. If you are a person, you are a person, and all the more so if you are a divine person. <BR/>I think some of the problem here is the way you are using the term being. And I would remind you one more time. The term God (theos) in the NT refers either to the Father or the Son as persons who are distinguishable. Nowhere in the NT does the word theos refer to the tri-personal unity we now call God. At some point, your thinking about the term being, and the term person needs to conform to what the NT actually says about these matters. The later creedal statements have to be normed by Scripture, not the other way around. <BR/><BR/>This has been a fun conversation, and I can see you have thought a lot about this, and are passionate about it. But its time to call a halt to it.<BR/><BR/>Keep studying, and blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-20910763725104441382008-08-05T19:20:00.000-07:002008-08-05T19:20:00.000-07:00Ben,You said:"The Father, Son, and Spirit are thre...Ben,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"The Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons sharing one divine essence. That means they are not three separate beings, that would be tri-theism, rather than monotheism. The trick here is to not over-emphasize either the threeness or the oneness, but to do justice to both."<BR/><BR/>You are right in that three beings is tri-theism. However one being is monotheism. One cannot get away from the Trinity being one Being.<BR/><BR/>Monotheism is defined by places such as wikipedia as: By the same token, monotheistic religions may still include concepts of a plurality of the divine, for example the Trinity, in which God is <B>one being</B> in three personal dimensions (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit).<BR/><BR/>To define God as <B>not</B> "three beings" but also <B>not</B> "one being" appears to be outside the established Creeds. The unity of the Trinity is their unity of essence and being along with unity of all of the qualities of being as God.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70490104376783766642008-08-05T04:18:00.000-07:002008-08-05T04:18:00.000-07:00The Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons shar...The Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons sharing one divine essence. That means they are not three separate beings, that would be tri-theism, rather than monotheism. The trick here is to not over-emphasize either the threeness or the oneness, but to do justice to both. The threenesss means that each member of the Trinity can have different roles or functions on any given occasion, and in turn it means that you cannot predicate of each member of the Trinity everything that you can predicate of one of them. For example neither the Spirit nor the Father have ever died on a cross. <BR/><BR/>As for the angel of the Lord, he is not worshipped in the OT, but obeisance is done to him, the extreme form of respect.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-22783457825298427862008-08-04T19:55:00.000-07:002008-08-04T19:55:00.000-07:00Ben,You said: "I don't see the relevance of confe...Ben,<BR/><BR/>You said: "I don't see the relevance of confessions that say God is infinite in being. That is neither a comment on the oneness or the threeness of God but of the infiniteness of God."<BR/><BR/>Let me see if I understand you right? Are you saying that God is made up of three beings? The Father is a separate being, the Son is a separate being and the Holy Spirit is a separate being?Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-79471220534906994072008-08-04T19:52:00.000-07:002008-08-04T19:52:00.000-07:00Ben,You said, "Jesus is not in the category of any...Ben,<BR/><BR/>You said, "Jesus is not in the category of any angel of any kind, and for the record the term malak and other OT terms for angels including 'sons of God' and elohim refers always to created beings."<BR/><BR/>It would be correct to say that the pre-incarnate Jesus is not in the same category as any messenger. It would also be correct to say that the Angel of the LORD is treated in a way that no mere angel and no mere prophet was treated. You haven't explained that the Angel of the LORD is worshiped. Is it acceptable to worship a created angel?Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-14723518593289476492008-08-04T15:30:00.000-07:002008-08-04T15:30:00.000-07:00I don't see the relevance of confessions that say ...I don't see the relevance of confessions that say God is infinite in being. That is neither a comment on the oneness or the threeness of God but of the infiniteness of God. The term 'being' is not interchangeable with the term substance, essence or nature, and more to the point the Greek terms for being and substance are not synonyms. The term ousia can be translated nature, substance, or essence but certainly not 'being'. Let's stick with what the Greek and Hebrew actually meant in their original historical contexts, not in much later church confessions, which were too often based on even the later Latin translations of the NT.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Blessings BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57097717847022012092008-08-04T15:21:00.000-07:002008-08-04T15:21:00.000-07:00Jesus is not in the category of any angel of any k...Jesus is not in the category of any angel of any kind, and for the record the term malak and other OT terms for angels including 'sons of God' and elohim refers always to created beings. It is quite irrelevant that the term angellos in secular contexts can mean an ordinary messenger. If you compare Revelation to other early Jewish apocalyptic literature it is clear enough that John is not talking about something different than what you call created spirit beings, nor are the authors of the OT. In fact all turn of the era Jewish apocalyptic literature have angelic mediators conveying the revelation to a human recipient (see Rev. 1). So yes indeed, John is writing using one of God's Fed Ex messengers, expecting that the angel of that church will help interpret his words to that church.<BR/><BR/>Blessings<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-37350463929373153332008-08-04T13:07:00.000-07:002008-08-04T13:07:00.000-07:00Ben,You said:"Cheryl, about angels, notice in Mk. ...Ben,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"Cheryl, about angels, notice in Mk. 13.32 that Jesus clearly distinguishes not only himself (the Son) from angels, but all mere mortals ('no one knows') from angels."<BR/><BR/>This is what I have affirmed. Jesus is not in the category of mere created angels. However the term "angel" can mean also messenger and not a created spirit creature.<BR/><BR/>In the book of Revelation we have John writing to the "angel" of the church in Ephesus. John was not writing to a created spirit creature but to the messenger for the church.<BR/><BR/>Rev 2:1 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: <BR/><BR/>Every time we find a mere created spirit being called an angel appear we find that he will not accept worship and he does not call himself by God's name.<BR/><BR/>We also find every prophet speaks God's word but clearly never speaks as God himself. Never even once does a prophet speak AS God.<BR/><BR/>However the Angel of the LORD speaks as God, does the work of God, forgives sin and is worshiped as God. Thus we can see that the one who is called the Angel of the LORD, whose name is "wonderful" is also called God and YHWH<BR/><BR/>Judges 13:18 But the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" <BR/><BR/>Judges 13:22 So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God." <BR/>Judges 13:23 But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have let us hear things like this at this time."Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-77856715955002898122008-08-04T13:01:00.000-07:002008-08-04T13:01:00.000-07:00Ben,Modalism has to do with persons not being or s...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Modalism has to do with persons not being or substance. I have not said that God is only one person. God is three persons in one being or one substance.<BR/><BR/>The Westminster confession:<BR/><BR/>http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm#chap2<BR/><BR/>I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is <B>infinite in being</B> and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; <BR/><BR/>The 1689 Baptist confession of faith:<BR/><BR/>http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm<BR/><BR/>1._____The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose <B>subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being</B> and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; <BR/><BR/>We can clearly see from the creeds that God's being and God's substance or subsistence is one. All three are the one being, the one substance and all three are the one God. We cannot go back and rewrite the history of the Church to make God to be three separate Beings. God is Spirit and there is no division in his Being. We are not to divide the substance of God nor make him into three Beings.<BR/><BR/>I myself am very grateful for the many church councils who have defined and refined over and over again so that we can clearly see the teaching of the Trinity. There are no three Beings who are God and the Church has not taught this nor will you find it in any council. The one true God is completely united as three persons and we cannot fully understand how he can do this (God can be called "he" because he is one being) or how they exist (God can be called "they" because he exists as three persons).Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-71165138789859172652008-08-04T12:57:00.000-07:002008-08-04T12:57:00.000-07:00Cheryl, about angels, notice in Mk. 13.32 that Jes...Cheryl, about angels, notice in Mk. 13.32 that Jesus clearly distinguishes not only himself (the Son) from angels, but all mere mortals ('no one knows') from angels. Jewish angelology was clear enough. Angels were created beings, unlike the Son who is the only begotten of the Father. If you start arguing the angel of the Lord=Yahweh=Jesus you fall right into the Jehovah's witness trap. There is a good reason why the author of Hebrews so clearly distinguishes the Son from the angels in Heb. 1-2. Go back and look at that again. <BR/><BR/>The other thing you are missing is the Jewish concept of agency, whether applied to a angelic or human agents. Early Jews had a saying "a person's agent is as himself". The agent can speak for and as the sender, and was expected to be treated as if the sender was present in person. It is thus not a surprise that the special angel messenger of God is able to speak for and as Yahweh. This was part of the common understanding of how agents could and would speak. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-72152329181625319102008-08-04T12:40:00.000-07:002008-08-04T12:40:00.000-07:00Thanks for the further comments Cheryl but no, the...Thanks for the further comments Cheryl but no, the Nicene Father said that 'ousia' refers to the shared substance of the three persons, not the shared being. Look at the Latin translation of 'ousia' from that council. Unius Substantia-- of one substance with the Father, does not mean of one being with the Father. That would either be monarchianism or modalism, both of which were condemned by later church councils (see for example the Chalcedonian formula). <BR/><BR/>Blessings anyway,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-16933423706945736102008-08-04T11:04:00.000-07:002008-08-04T11:04:00.000-07:00Ben,You said:"Well Cheryl we certainly have very d...Ben,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"Well Cheryl we certainly have very different views of the Trinity. What early Christianity always argued was that the Trinity is three persons sharing one divine essence, not that God is 'one being'. As Richard Bauckham has shown at length in his book God Crucified, the statement God is One in the Shema and elsewhere was not understood to mean that God is one person or one being necessarily but that God is unified."<BR/><BR/>One essence is one being. This allows God to call Himself "I" or "We". This is why there is only one Savior not two or three. This is why God has only one forever name (Exodus 3:14, 15) and not two or three. <BR/><BR/>This is why the Nicene Creed says that the Son is one being with the Father:<BR/><BR/>We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,<BR/>the only Son of God,<BR/>eternally begotten of the Father,<BR/>God from God, Light from Light,<BR/>true God from true God,<BR/>begotten, not made,<BR/><B>of one Being </B>with the Father. <BR/><BR/>The Athanasian Creed shows that the substance of God is not divided:<BR/><BR/>"Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance."<BR/><BR/>The Christians Creeds affirm that God is one essence, one Being, one substance and in that one Being is three persons.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-7531498803097180782008-08-04T10:48:00.000-07:002008-08-04T10:48:00.000-07:00Ben,Actually I am not wrong at all. When the prop...Ben,<BR/>Actually I am not wrong at all. When the prophets spoke they said "Thus saith the LORD..." They quoted God. They did not speak AS God. Yet the Angel of the LORD does not quote "Thus saith the LORD..." He speaks AS God. <BR/><BR/>Also YHWH says about this Angel of the LORD:<BR/><BR/>Exodus 23:20 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. <BR/>Exodus 23:21 "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him. <BR/><BR/>This is the Angel of the LORD who can forgive sins. But he will not forgive their sins if they are rebellious toward him. YHWH said that his own name is in this Angel of the Lord.<BR/><BR/>The one who has the name of the LORD in them and the One who can forgive sins is YHWH himself.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57669360235265754822008-08-04T03:56:00.000-07:002008-08-04T03:56:00.000-07:00P.S. Not only do angels speak as and for God as hi...P.S. Not only do angels speak as and for God as his mouthpiece, this is also exactly what the prophets do when they say 'thus sayeth Yahweh:' and then speak in the first person for God-- sorry but you are quite wrong about all this.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-23664790971430542008-08-04T03:54:00.000-07:002008-08-04T03:54:00.000-07:00Well Cheryl we certainly have very different views...Well Cheryl we certainly have very different views of the Trinity. What early Christianity always argued was that the Trinity is three persons sharing one divine essence, not that God is 'one being'. As Richard Bauckham has shown at length in his book God Crucified, the statement God is One in the Shema and elsewhere was not understood to mean that God is one person or one being necessarily but that God is unified. More to our point, when the Son says I and the Father are one, what the Aramaic means is that the Son and the Father have one purpose, one will, one plan etc. It certainly does not deny the tri-personal nature of God by asserting that God is one being. Please rethink this.<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-47617436251194436112008-08-03T22:23:00.000-07:002008-08-03T22:23:00.000-07:00Ben,I am glad that you are not one of the theologi...Ben,<BR/><BR/>I am glad that you are not one of the theologians who say that it is not doctrinally correct to pray to Jesus. I give you credit for that.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"But you need to bear in mind that wherever we have Yahweh texts in the OT, Yahweh identifies himself in the first person SINGULAR, not the first person plural."<BR/><BR/>This is because God is One. He at times calls himself "We" and at times "I" because he is only one Being.<BR/><BR/>In Isaiah $$:24 we have two who call themselves a singular "I"<BR/><BR/>Isaiah 44:24<BR/>Thus says the LORD (YHWH) your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb, "I am the LORD (YHWH) who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone. Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself."<BR/><BR/>This singular "I" is the who stretches out the heavens all alone. Yet the New Testament reveals that it was Jesus who stretched out the heavens and who is Creator of all.<BR/><BR/> There is no savior but YHWH (Isaiah 43:11) and there will never be another savior but YHWH. YHWH says that he will never give his glory to another (Isaiah 42:8) yet Jesus shares the Father's glory and His name. Does anyone deny that Jesus has his Father's name by inheritance? <BR/><BR/>The Holy Spirit is also called YHWH. In Exodus 17:2,7 it says that Israel tempted YHWH. Yet Hebrews 3:7-9 quotes this as the Holy Spirit speaking and that He was the one who was tempted.<BR/><BR/>Heb 3:7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, <BR/>Heb 3:8 DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS, <BR/>Heb 3:9 WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me, AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.<BR/><BR/>The Holy Spirit indeed does have a personal name and it is YHWH, the same as the Father's name and the Son's name. The three work as one and they have one authority and one power.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"Jesus' name is indeed Yeshua, but everyone in his context, including his mother (see the Magnificat) would take that to be a form of the name Joshua, and thus a reference to Yahweh who saves, not to Jesus as the savior."<BR/><BR/>It is indeed a reference to Yahweh, because Jesus is Yahweh just as the Father is Yahweh. Jesus is God just as the Father is God. Jesus is Lord just as the Father is Lord. There are not two Yahwehs or two Lords or two Gods. They are united and we cannot separate the Godhead into differing authorities or roles.<BR/><BR/>While Jesus came to the earth to become human, still the Trinity was working in unity. All three were involved in Jesus' birth. Jesus claimed to have the Holy Spirit and the Father and they communed together during Jesus' life here on earth. All three raised Jesus from the dead.<BR/><BR/>Jesus John 2:19-21<BR/>The Holy Spirit Romans 8:11<BR/>The Father Gal 1:1<BR/><BR/>Their works are united.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"The theophany at Mamre involves angels including the famous Malak Yahweh, or angel of the Lord. Since Jesus was not an angel, either before or after the incarnation (read Hebrews 1 carefully), but rather the divine son of God, none of these three visitors are the son of God, nor are these folks members of the Trinity. They are rather God's agents (angels) authorized to speak directly for and as Him."<BR/><BR/>While Jesus was not an angel, meaning a created spirit being called an angel, the term "angel" also means messenger. We know can that the one who was called the Angel of the Lord was not a created angel because he was worshiped and he was called God.<BR/><BR/>We see YHWH on earth raining down fire from YHWH out of heaven.<BR/><BR/>Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, <BR/><BR/>It was no mere angel who promised Hagar to multiply her descendents.<BR/><BR/>Gen 16:10 Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count." <BR/><BR/>Hagar called this YHWH the God who sees.<BR/><BR/>Gen 16:13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" <BR/><BR/>The angel of the LORD revealed himself as God to Abraham.<BR/><BR/>Gen 22:11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." <BR/>Gen 22:12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." <BR/><BR/>It was the angel (messenger) of the LORD (YHWH) who had the right to Abraham's son.<BR/><BR/>The angel of the LORD came again to Abraham:<BR/><BR/>Gen 22:15 Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, <BR/>Gen 22:16 and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, <BR/><BR/>This angel of the LORD is God himself as there is no one higher to swear to but Himself.<BR/><BR/>Do a search on the angel of the LORD and you will find him speaking as God, called God, worshiped and saying things that only God could say.<BR/><BR/>There are no created angels who speak as God. This is impossible for God has said that he will not share his glory with another. No created angel is allowed to be worshiped and no created angel speaks of himself as God.Cheryl Schatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319009906205048912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-50818330318495673922008-08-03T19:15:00.000-07:002008-08-03T19:15:00.000-07:00The Holy Spirit, it would appear does not have a p...The Holy Spirit, it would appear does not have a personal name. Jesus' name is indeed Yeshua, but everyone in his context, including his mother (see the Magnificat) would take that to be a form of the name Joshua, and thus a reference to Yahweh who saves, not to Jesus as the savior.<BR/><BR/>The theophany at Mamre involves angels including the famous Malak Yahweh, or angel of the Lord. Since Jesus was not an angel, either before or after the incarnation (read Hebrews 1 carefully), but rather the divine son of God, none of these three visitors are the son of God, nor are these folks members of the Trinity. They are rather God's agents (angels) authorized to speak directly for and as Him.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-32829110635541841582008-08-03T17:51:00.000-07:002008-08-03T17:51:00.000-07:00I thought I read a chart somewhere where YHWH was ...I thought I read a chart somewhere where YHWH was the name of Father, Son and Spirit, but now I cannot find it, so now I think I might have DREAMED it!<BR/><BR/>But a question is what is the name of the Spirit? I read somewhere that someone thought the Spirit was not named or at least the name was not revealed.<BR/><BR/>I am sure everyone knows Yeshua is "Yah is salvation" or "Yah saves" or similar.<BR/><BR/>When we read a theophany in the OT, how do we KNOW it is the Father? The theophany at Mamre in Gen had 3 individuals.<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that God was revealed as a plural unity in the OT, which while perhaps not a trinity does not disallow it. <BR/><BR/>P.S. Ben, while I am new here, I have read some of your books and thought they were very insightful. And if my post is too scatterbrained, just ignore it.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05247071840577399185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44370709301516958272008-08-03T16:44:00.000-07:002008-08-03T16:44:00.000-07:00Well Jose I could just say yes, but that would not...Well Jose I could just say yes, but that would not satisfy you. The Godhead involves three distinguishable persons who share a common ousia or essence, as the Greek fathers said. A weak analogy would be with Siamese triplets. Each of those three persons who are God do something together and some things that are separate. The Son alone became incarnate, the Son alone died on the cross, the Son alone rose from dead. In the Bible activities are predicated of divine persons, not of the shared common divine nature. It is interesting as well that in the NT the term theos is never used of the Trinity. It is used either of God the Father or of God the Son. This is hardly a surprise since Jews wrote all this stuff and for them God was a person, not merely a divine nature, essence or, force. What is amazing is how what was previously said exclusively of Yahweh the Father came to be said of the Son as well. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit was more fully developed after the NT era, but as I have shown at length in the Shadow of the Almighty, the Spirit is indeed treated as a divine person not merely a power or a force, and a divine person who is distinguishable from the Father or the Son. So, for instance in John, the Spirit is called 'another parakletos', with Jesus being the first one. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.com