Did you know Charles Spurgeon believed that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?

Charles Spurgeon (1834 – 1892) remains highly influential among Christians of various denominations, among whom he is known as the "Prince of Preachers". He was a strong figure in the Reformed Baptist tradition, defending the Church in agreement with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith understanding, and opposing the liberal and pragmatic theological tendencies in the Church of his day.

In 1866, Spurgeon stated: “You remember how our Lord, who is the true Michael, the only great Archangel, said at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, ‘I beheld Satan as lightning falling from Heaven.’” (Our Lord’s Transcendent Greatness, Dec. 2, 1866) Then, in 1868 he mentioned: “We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. . .Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” (The Angelic Life, Nov. 22, 1868) Finally, Spurgeon stated, “We rejoice in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Michael of the angels, the Redeemer of men. For by Him we see Satan cast out and all the powers of evil hurled from their places of power and eminence.” (The Blood of the Lamb, The Conquering Weapon, Sept. 9, 1888)

Links:

• Our Lord’s Transcendent Greatness
  www.spurgeongems.org/vols58-60/chs3382.pdf
• The Angelic Life
  answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/842-the-angelic-life/
• The Blood of the Lamb, The Conquering Weapon
  answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/2043-blood-of-lamb-conquering-weapon/

LINK

Additional reading:

• Did you know that Baptist Theologian John Gill connected Michael with Jesus?
  jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2016/03/did-you-know-that-baptist-theologian.html
• Who did Jesus say he was?
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/09/who-did-jesus-say-he-was-did-jesus-ever.html

Protestants: Do you know what the "Protestant's Burden" is?

See pages 163-4 of Truth in Translation:
books.google.com link

Update: Hi [name removed]! Thanks for posting. However, I'm afraid his book is far more credible and serious than you are allowing for.
Update 2: Same goes for "[name removed]." He's very objective and for the most part very reliable. (He's not perfect however, but he doesn't need to be and none of us are.)

Best Answer: 

Yes, BeDuhn's book has far more value than many wish it to have. It was favorable to the NWT, and critical of the most popular English translations. Therefore it is understandable that Protestants or Catholics would be critical of BeDuhn's book.

BeDuhn's analysis is often misrepresented - his book was about *bias* in translation and how it affects accuracy - not translation accuracy in general. He said he picked the verses he analysed because those were the most talked about and controversial - they were the ones that others brought to his attention. They tended to be verses that were theologically important, so much so that bias would color the translation. Basically, the NWT was accused of bias in a certain verse, BeDuhn would investigate, and found that the NWT was actually the most accurate compared to other Bibles. BeDuhn did not say that the NWT was the most accurate Bible translation, bar none, but that it was the most accurate in the verses analysed.

BeDuhn found what he calls the Protestant Burden - the burden that Protestants have to make their teachings conform to the Bible - their supposed ultimate authority. Catholics don't have this because their church has equal or more authority. So, for example, Protestants need Trinitarian proof texts, but the Catholics are fine with church creeds that proclaim the Trinity. I have found that many Catholics are Ok with the Trinity not being formulated until 325 CE, for they think the Church had God's backing to proclaim the Athanasian Creed. But Protestants want Paul and John to be writing about the Trinity in the first century.

Basically, Protestants will color their translation in such a way that supports the Trinity - a doctrine they're not willing to abandon. On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses are interested in what the Bible itself says, stripped of tradition.

I agree with BeDuhn. JWs would believe in the Trinity if it was biblical, but I don't think Protestants are willing to disbelieve the Trinity if not biblical.

LINK


Related blog entries:

• A Response to Karen Konnection’s Paper on Jehovah’s Witnesses
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-response-to-karen-konnections-paper.html
• Sundry Dissembling Asunder Appendix B: Total Truth Transition To Truth in Translation
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/06/sundry-dissembling-asunder.html#App-B

Why does the King James Version retain Jehovah four times?

The King James Version uses the name "Jehovah" four times (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) out of the nearly 7,000 times it appears in the OT, (6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia).

Why were they left in these four (4) places? Is there any significance in this, or is it random?

Please note that while a few place-names which include "Jehovah" are also left intact (see Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24), I'm not referring to these, but to these four places where Jehovah is a name:

Exodus 6:3
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18
That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2
Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4
Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH [is] everlasting strength:

Best Answer:

1) Why does the King James Version retain Jehovah four times?

Consistency in translation (when appropriate) is an important issue in modern translation - but was deemed much less important in 1611. Different individuals translated different portions of the KJV without extensive guidelines regarding translation consistency. (Ideally, consistency in translation means that a particular word in the source language is always rendered in the same way in the target language. In practice the best translations implement consistency when it benefits the accuracy and precision of the translation, but not at other times.)

A good example of inconsistency in the KJV is in the transliteration of names. Several names that are identical in Hebrew are rendered differently by the various translators.

However, probably an even more important reason is that "Jehovah" was used in the Bishops' Bible. The translators of the KJV were under strict orders to use the same wording as the Bishops' Bible whenever accuracy would allow.

So: I think the real answer is:
a) The KJV translators had to follow the Bishops' Bible, which used "Jehovah" in Exo 6:3
b) Because there was only a minimal attempt (by today's standards) to ensure consistency of translation in the KJV


Note that the translators were instructed to follow the wording of older Bible versions when the Bishops' Bible was inaccurate; it may be that in those 3 other verses the word "Jehovah" appears in older Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible.
http://studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=I... 

(Bible Research Tools)

Another contributor (the late Solomon Landers) said:

It is probably random. There is no indication in the Hebrew text that "Jehovah" should only be represented in these four places, and not elsewhere.

If the KJV translators had followed their Hebrew text, they would have used "Jehovah" consistently throughout their Bible, as the later KJV revision, the American Standard Version (1901) does.

The use of "Lord" in Bibles as a substitute title for God's name (YHWH, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in English) is based on a tradition that is not found in the Bible itself, where people from all walks of life freely speak God's name openly.

If the KJV were accurately translated, the fact of the frequent and customary reference to God by name would be evident.

LINK

Did you know that Baptist Theologian John Gill connected Michael with Jesus?

John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a staunch Calvinistic soteriology.^[1]

His magnum opus, John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, has this comment on 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

with the voice of the archangel;
so Michael is called, in (Jude 1:9) with which compare (Revelation 12:7) and who perhaps is no other than Christ himself, who is the head of all principality and power; and the sense be, that Christ shall descend from heaven with a voice, or shall then utter such a voice, as will show him to be the archangel.^[2]

Additionally, he made the same connection for Revelation 12:7, while maintaining his Trinitarianism:

[I]t seems best to interpret it of Jesus Christ, who is equal with God, is his fellow, is one with the Father, and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily: he is the Archangel, the first of the chief princes, the head of all principality and power, who is on the side of the Lord's people, pleads their cause, defends their persons, and saves them; see (Jude 1:9) (Daniel 10:13) (12:1).^[3]

While he did not deny the Trinity, did you know that he still made the connection of Michael the archangel with Jesus Christ?

Sources:

^[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gill_(theologian)
^[2] http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=1th&chapter=004&verse=016
^[3] http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=012&verse=007

See related question:
Why does Christ come to raise the dead with the archangel's voice?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuUVPk0R3ZUfMMKa8vYqL84jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100727085806AANv8uV [See Appendix B]

See also: http://jehovah.to/xlation/ar.html under "What Some Commentators Have Said".

Best Answer:

Does it really matter to them? It doesn't seem to be that way!

Several others had come to that conclusion as well, like John Wesley, founder of the Methodists. I'm sure they have no clue that John Wesley believed that Jesus IS Michael.

LINK

Appendix

1. Confessions of Clerics
2. From Y!A
3. The Works of Jonathan Edwards
4. Related blog entries

Confessions of Clerics

John Calvin:

"Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." 'Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ have the same role.'

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25.vii.iii.html


John Wesley:

"Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ."
"Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."
"Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation."

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/notes-on-the-book-of-daniel

Geneva Bible Commentary:

"God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel."

http://www.ccel.org/g/geneva/notes/Daniel/12.html


John Gill:

"with the voice of the archangel; so Michael is called, in Jude 1:9 with which compare Revelation 12:7 and who perhaps is no other than Christ himself, who is the head of all principality and power; and the sense be, that Christ shall descend from heaven with a voice, or shall then utter such a voice, as will show him to be the archangel; or as the Syriac version renders it, "the head", or "prince of angels";"

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/1-thessalonians-4.html#16

While maintaining his Trinitarianism, he added:

"it seems best to interpret it [Michael] of Jesus Christ, ... he is the Archangel, the first of the chief princes, the head of all principality and power, who is on the side of the Lord's people, pleads their cause, defends their persons, and saves them."

(Note, the "..." cuts out his wordy Trinitarian explanation, removed for clarity.)

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/revelation-12.html#7

From Y!A

Question:
Why does Christ come to raise the dead with the archangel's voice?

Would not more command and authority be with his own voice?

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:16, NET Bible

Why did some Christian theologians, like John Calvin, (Calvin’s Commentaries on The Prophet Daniel, Vol. II, Baker reprint, vol. XIII, pp. 369, 370), John Gill (A Complete Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity, The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987 reprint, p. 617), and Johathan Edwards (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Banner of Truth, 1979 reprint, p. 606.), postulate that the archangel was Christ himself?

Best Answer:
It is evident that these Christian theologians postulated that the archangel was Christ himself because of the scriptural evidence. They concluded that because the prefix "arch," means "chief" or "principal," and the word "Archangel" is never found in the plural, that this implies that there is only ONE Archangel (Compare Jude 9, "Michael THE Archangel"). So when the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is also described as being that of the "Archangel" at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, this suggests to them that he is, in fact, himself the Archangel.

Today, Jehovah Witnesses are widely associated with this belief. BUT THEY WEREN'T THE FIRST TO REASON that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Note what early Christian scholar Origen wrote:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably ANGELS]; AND OF THESE CHRIST WAS THE HIGHEST and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

"The EARLIER PROTESTANT SCHOLARS usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl." - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, John A. Lees (1930, Vol. III), p. 2048.

"ARCHANGEL. This word is only twice used in the Bible, 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9. In the last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish Nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So EXALTED are the POSITION and offices ASCRIBED TO MICHAEL, THAT MANY THINK THE MESSIAH IS MEANT." - Inter-National Bible Dictionary, published by Logos International, Plainfield, New Jersey, p. 35.

Even MODERN TRINITARIANS sometimes admit that Jesus in his pre-human existence appeared as an angel.

Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:

"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.

And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was

"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.

"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982.

"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.

"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuUVPk0R3ZUfMMKa8vYqL84jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100727085806AANv8uV

The Works of Jonathan Edwards

Satan has ever had a peculiar enmity against the Son of God. Probably his first rebellion, which was his condemnation, was his proudly taking it in disdain, when God declared the decree in heaven, that his Son in man’s nature, should be the King of heaven, and that all the angels should worship him. However that was, yet it is certain that his strife has ever been especially against the Son of God. The enmity has always been between the seed of the woman, and the serpent. And therefore that war which the devil maintains against God is represented by the devil and his angels fighting against Michael and his angels (Rev. 12:7). This Michael is Christ (Dan. 10:21 and 12:1).
(Christ Exalted Section III)

When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and set himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of angels, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for thought he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable, state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined him, and then was that literally true that fulfilled afterwards figuratively. Rev xii. “When there was war in heaven : Michael and his angels fought against the dragon ; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not ; neither was there place found any more heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world ; he was case out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
(The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Banner of Truth, 1979 reprint, p. 606.)

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/82062-Is-Michael-Jesus-Edwards-Calvin-Revelation?s=d821c3d2464d4591f27f55c6c572ffc1

§ 45. Overcoming Satan ... But it is the special work of Christ to bruise the serpent’s head; to destroy the works of the devil; and that by his own strength. For he is represented as conquering him, because he is stronger than the strong man armed, and so overcoming him and taking from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and spoiling his goods. It is he that has spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them. He is the spiritual Samson, that has rent the roaring lion as he would have rent a kid; and the spiritual David, that has delivered the lamb out of his mouth, and has slain that great Goliath. He is that Michael who fights with the dragon and casts him out; and at last will judge Satan, and will utterly destroy him; and will inflict those everlasting torments on him spoken of in Rev. 20:10. In the apprehension of which he now trembles, and trembled for fear that Christ would inflict those torments on him, when he cried out and fell down before him, saying, “Art thou come to torment me before the time?” and, “I beseech thee, torment me not.”
(The works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2. Originally published in 1834. (507). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 2008)


VI. ... The glorious majesty of God appears in conquering all those mighty enemies of the church one age after another; in conquering Satan, that proud and strong spirit, and all his hellish host; in bringing him down under foot, long after he had vaunted himself as god of this world, and when he did his utmost to support himself in his kingdom. Christ, our Michael, has overcome him, the devil was cast out, and there was found no more place for him in heaven; but he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(The works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 1. Originally published in 1834. (618). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 2008)

Related blog entries:

• Did you know Charles Spurgeon believed that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?
  jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2018/03/did-you-know-charles-spurgeon-believed.html
• Who was the Interceding Angel?
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/01/who-was-interceding-angel.html
• Who did Jesus say he was?
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/09/who-did-jesus-say-he-was-did-jesus-ever.html
• The Person of Christ
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-person-of-christ-as-introduced-on.html

Why did the mob sent to arrest Jesus retreat and fall down when he said "I am he"?

John 18:6 tells us that when Jesus said “I am the man” (J.B. Phillips) that the mob of soldiers and officials “retreated and fell to the ground.” (J.B. Phillips; NET Bible) The expression “I am the man” is literally “I am” from Ἐγώ εἰμι. Jesus said that because he asked them ‘Who are you looking for?’ and they replied ‘Jesus the Nazarene,’ and thus Jesus replied, ‘I am him, I’m the one you’re looking for.’

A NET Bible footnote tells us that “L. Morris says that “it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus’ unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall” (John [NICNT], 743-44).” But the rest of the footnote claims that Ἐγώ εἰμι is a Divine Name and then connects it to their preferred English translation of Exodus 3:14, of “I AM.”

But we can test that interpretation by replacing “I am” with another divine designation:

Test:
Jesus: “Who are you looking for?”
Police: “Jesus.”
Jesus: “YHWH!”
End of test.

Result: Nonsense.

So why did they fall to the ground since Jesus was not using a divine name but simply affirming that he was the man they were seeking?

Best Answer:

The mob, or at least some of them, fell back because Jesus’ confident and forthright response caught them off guard. It may have seemed as if he were prepared to fight with a mob of disciples himself. His courageous response despite the formidable mob before him surprised them, causing them to brace themselves for what could have been an ambush of Jesus’ own device against them. Besides, there were possibly two swords possessed by his present disciples that may have been visible to the mob, even one of the disciples did cut off an ear of one of the members of the mob! Quickly they realized that no such attack was intended. Jesus taught peace and love, not violence and hate. :)

Another answer:

I have to agree with the footnote concerning the unexpected response of Jesus.

This is not a well lighted park as we have to day. Torch light is not very powerful.

On the other hand the second half of the commentary about the "I Am" is wrong.

Though the greek does say: "I am" the correct translation is "I am he"

NASB: 5 They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He *said to them, “I am He.”
NIV: 5 *said to them, “I am He.”
KJV: 5 Jesus saith unto them, I am he.
YLT: 5 Jesus saith to them, `I am [he];'
NCV: 5 “Jesus from Nazareth.”“I am he,”

Add to this "I am" at Exodus 3:14 is translated from the Latin Vulgate and not the original Hebrew.

scripture4all.org translates it as: "I shall prove to be whom I am becoming"

Jehovah in Ex. 3:14 is not telling Moses that He exists, but that he will prove whom he is.

.J Washington Watts, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968. A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretative Outline, 1977, pp.140,1.

"Such a translation [in English] as "I am what I am" appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the [Hebrew] verbs here are imperfects. "I am" is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect... This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description "I shall continue to be what I have always been." This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh's faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfill the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".

LINK


Related blog entry:

• Trinitarians, do you see the flawed reasoning of "I AM" in John 8:58?
  http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2015/02/trinitarians-do-you-see-flawed.html

Mormons: Do you believe the Apostle John is still alive?

As stated in D&C 7: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/7?lang=eng

Are Peter and James alive too?

If so, are they all Mormons now serving as Mormon Apostles?

(By alive, I mean never died per D&C 7.)

Related video: A humorous look at this question: http://jimspace-comic-relief.blogspot.com/2015/03/meet-donall-and-conall.html

LINK

While I chose a "best answer," I was amazed, although not surprised, at the amount of Mormon circular reasoning and dismissive comments. This is a real problem that is simply unaccounted for in Mormonism. Claiming the Apostle John never died is a patent absurdity contained in the Mormon scriptures.

Sober and objective people see this as a fatal flaw removing Mormonism from divine revelation.

Related link:

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng
See if you can find the Apostle John.

What does the apostate antichrist believe about Jesus?

1 John 4:2-3: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
(RSV)

The phrase "the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh" refers to Jesus' birth on earth (Galatians 4:4), not to his future coming. The NET Bible in its footnote concurs, saying: "This is the same confession as in 1 John 4:2 except the perfect participle used there is replaced by a present participle here. It is not clear why the author changed from a perfect participle in 1 John 4:2 to a present participle here. The perfect participle suggests a reference to the incarnation [Jesus' birth and life on earth] (past). The present participle could suggest a reference to the (future) second advent, but based on the similarity to 1 John 4:2 it is probably best to take it as referring to the incarnation [Jesus' birth and life on earth]." Thus, the point of 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 is the same: Denying that Jesus was human in his earthly life and ministry is apostate and of the antichrist.

Yet, some still say that 2 John 7 refers to Jesus' future coming in the flesh, thus (unwittingly?) disagreeing with the scholar(s) behind the NET Bible footnote.

Update : Hi XXX! Thanks for contributing. Well, as the NET Bible footnote said, it is probably best to take it as referring to Jesus' birth and life on earth. This agrees with the NWT-Reference footnote, which says in part: "referring to Christ’s past coming. It refers to past time, as in the case of the Gr. participle in 3Jo 3."

Regarding the two scriptures you used for support for 'dual time reference,' let me point out that "man" in 1 Timothy 2:5 would naturally refer to Jesus' experience as a man on earth during his ministry. Colossians 2:9 merely confirms that Christ's diety or divine nature exists or dwells in bodily form. Thus, all this is conveying is that Jesus' divine nature has a body. So these really do not contribute to the idea that Jesus has a physical human body outside of earth's life-sustaining atmosphere. Spirit beings such as angels and God dwell in what Jesus Christ called "the above" or "realms above" at John 8:23, a transcendent realm that Jesus said humans cannot enter at John 8:21.

Both the NET and NWT footnotes noted above harmonize with John's use of Greek, as well as with the laws of physics.

XXX asks: "Did not ALL of Jesus' miracles attest to the fact that he was above and outside of (not subject to) the laws that govern our physical universe?" Not one. Just a manipulator. [What I clearly meant by this is that Jesus was not breaking the laws of physics with his miracles, but he was temporarily manipulating mater as he used the power from his Father and God, including resurrecting others like his disciples later did.] Retaining a human body in outer space that Trinitarianism teaches per Chalcydonian dyophysitism does indeed mark a clear violation of the laws of physics that the Trinitarian Jesus must now continue to violate in micromanaging his physical human body for all eternity, just to make the Trinitarians feel all warm and fuzzy. :-) Also read Psalm 115:16 that Jesus Christ agreed with: human bodies belong on earth in accords with both the will of God and with the laws of physics that God established. Thanks for playing.

Best Answer

Asker's Choice

BAR- ANERGES

Greetings,

First, what is interesting is that even if Trinitarians apply these verses to the future coming, they cannot save themselves from being identified as Antichrist and deceivers. Because these verses clearly would apply to any religion which claimed that Jesus was both "God and man," or holding a "dual nature" instead of only "flesh"!!


Yes, there are some scholars who think 2Jn7 refers to both the past and future comings. But, as you point out Greek scholars generally agree that this refers to Christ's *past* coming:

"Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. Present middle participle of erchomai...because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ."–Robertson’s Word Pictures

"Naturally this cannot refer to the coming of Jesus Christ at his future parousia, since that is not a coming en sarki [in the flesh], but en doxe [in glory] (cf. Heb 4:13, etc.). Rather, the present tense of erchomenon [coming] is a timeless characteristic of Jesus (as the one sent by God into the world), as in Jn 3:31; 6:14; 11:27.—Rudolf Bultmann, A Commentary on The Johnannine Epistles, p. 112.

The word "coming" is a participle, so even though it is the "present tense" form it doesn't inherently have a tense but is dependent on the main verb (cf. 3 Jn 3).

Theologians who use this verse in an attempt to support their personal theology that Christ will return in the flesh require their hearers to be ignorant of the original Greek and the context of Scripture.


Here are some edited statements from various articles:

From these verses, we can see that the antichrist is a liar and a deceiver, bent on destroying a person’s relationship with Christ and with God.

“Antichrist” means ‘against (or instead of) Christ.’ So in its broadest sense, the term refers to all who oppose or lyingly claim to be the Christ or his representatives. Jesus himself said: “He that is not on my side is against me [or is antichrist], and he that does not gather with me scatters”(Lk 11:23).

The words of both Jesus and John plainly indicate that the antichrist is not a single person but is made up of many individual antichrists. Moreover, because they are false prophets, one of their main objectives is religious deception.

John specifically mentions apostates as among those of the antichrist by referring to those who "went out from us," abandoning the Christian congregation. (1Jo 2:18, 19) It therefore includes "the man of lawlessness" or "son of destruction" described by Paul, as well as the "false teachers" Peter denounces for forming destructive sects and who "disown even the owner that bought them" (2Th 2:3-5; 2Pt 2:1).

Kingdoms, nations, and organizations are similarly shown to be part of the antichrist in the symbolic description at Revelation 17:8-15; 19:19-21.-Compare Ps 2:1, 2.

From those words it is evident that the antichrist, the apostate man of lawlessness is Satan's masterpiece. It is an imitation of organized Christianity and so an opposer of it. As a replacement of true organized Christianity, it finds its expression in present-day Christendom.

The word "Christendom" is a compound word meaning "Christ's domain" or "Christ's jurisdiction." Christendom has claimed this and has sent out missionaries to pagan lands in an effort to convert all the earth to become the territory of Christendom. Their missionaries have had a part, knowingly or unknowingly, in advancing the political control as well as the commercial control of Christendom in many of these countries.

This was directly contrary to Christ's words: "My kingdom is no part of this world," and "they [Jesus' disciples] are no part of the world."—John 18:36; 17:14.


Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts. People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side.

But, the definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do": WWJD (1Pt.2:21). That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Mt.26:52). It is truly an identification of the Antichrist!

Apostate Christianity has neither the spiritual strength nor the support of God's holy spirit to motivate people to follow the truthful teachings of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the result in Christendom is not true Christianity but in actuality antichrists, "weeds" unfit for the Kingdom (Mt13:24ff).


Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

Source:

• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110211143440AAG6Wje
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai0hwMtGxPq0J0W.yLrb4frty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110501172531AAAucNd
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110601071649AANtAnT
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqDrR0E9EHicPd2XPQKY7JLq1KIX;_ylv=3?qid=20110612203446AAQE9UC
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110622165147AAn5lzd
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgqolQAD1KXRRrqum6jOvBzq1KIX;_ylv=3?qid=20110121152948AABqrYp
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtvoKQvbAWwRwyY9OpVTJH_q1KIX;_ylv=3?qid=20110121163800AA4Ezvz

Asker's rating & comment
Thanks, that was my thought too that the Trinitarian Jesus being 100% God on earth is in accords with the teaching of the Antichrist. Yet, Trinitarians try to say that Jesus not coming in the flesh from outer space is in accords with the teaching of the Antichrist. Irony of astronomical proportions!

LINK

Trinitarians, do you see the flawed reasoning of "I AM" in John 8:58?

Trinitarianism teaches that "I AM" is a divine name, and that it is used at John 8:58, where Jesus said according to many translations: "Before Abraham was, I am." As one apologetic Trinitarian explained:

"This is a very important verse to Trinitarians because it is one of the places we use to show that Jesus is God. We maintain that Jesus attributed the divine name of God ("I AM" from Exodus 3:14), to Himself."[1]

Now this claim can be easily tested by replacing "I AM" with another divine name or designation, like God, and observing the results.

[test]
"Before Abraham was, God."
[end of test]

This declaration as it stands is nonsensical. To make sense, it needs the words "I existed as" or "I was", or something similar: "Before Abraham was, I was God."

Does that make sense? If so, please continue reading.

The same is true with "Before Abraham was, I am." It needs more words to be complete, like "Before Abraham was, I was I AM." But, the Greek text does not say that. Therefore the Greek words 'ego eimi', translated according to many translations as "I am," are part of the sentence and should be translated likewise. "I am" is an interlinear translation or a hyper-literal translation, therefore not completing the translation process. If a Bible says something like "I have been,"[2] it shows an attempt to do just that, complete the translation process into a literal translation.

So can you see how flawed and ridiculous Trinitarian teaching is on John 8:58, regardless of its popularity?

Footnotes:
[1] Slick, Matt. John 8:58 and 10:30-33, "I am." http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-858-and-1030-33-i-am

[2] The 1996 ed. New Living Translation has “Jesus answered, ‘The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!’” It places “I am” in a footnote. (Seen here.)

Another test in context:
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, Lord.

Best Answer

Asker's Choice

Ginosko92

The is probably one of the lamest "proof text" that trinitarians use to prove the divinity of Christ!

To make a connection between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58 is beyond ridiculous!

First of all the correct rendition of Ex 3:14 is "I will be what I will be" as the footnote in the NIV correctly states. Ex 3:12 uses the same verb "eh·yeh" and is translated "I will". I AM THAT I AM is not the correct meaning of the divine name, it's not static as if God were waiting to do something. But God is ALWAYS in action and maneuvering things according to his will.

Second the Greek LXX (septuagint) renders Ex 3:14 as "ego emi ho on" or "I am THE ONE or THE BEING". The same vs adds that "THE ONE or THE BEING", not "I am" as trinitarians lamely argue, "has sent you"!

So to connect Ex 3:14 with John 8:58 is pure fiction and desperation to prove a man made doctrine!

Asker's rating & comment

Thank you! I'm sorry to report that no Trinitarians addressed my question. The Trinitarian use of John 8:58 is alarmingly unsophisticated, as were the Trinitarian responses. If you think Trinitarianism uses John 8:58 correctly, then you need to study this question.

LINK


Related blog entries:

• Why did the mob sent to arrest Jesus retreat and fall down when he said "I am he"?
  http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-did-mob-sent-to-arrest-jesus.html
• Identifying Jesus
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/identifying-jesus.html
• A case of smoke and mirrors
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-case-of-smoke-and-mirrors.html
• Exploring a Trinitarian Black Box
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/12/exploring-trinitarian-black-box.html

Question on the "Immortal Soul" doctrine?

Our body has a mind. For those who believe we have an immortal soul, does it have a mind too?
If Yes, does that mean we have two minds? If No, how does it do anything after the body dies?

The question seems inevitable to consider.

------------------
My preemptive responses to anticipated answers:
'No. The soul takes our body's mind.'
Response: Our body's mind is tied-into our brain, so when our brain dies, so does the mind.
'Yes, it has a mind of its own too.'
Response: How can we have two minds?
------------------

If you could use the Bible to document your answers, that would be great.

Best Answer
Those who believe in an immortal soul believe that when we die, we take with us our thoughts, personality, memories, etc.

But we know that all that stuff is tied physically to our brain.

So those who hold to this doctrine have to explain why, if the soul has the capability to carry our mind away from the body, why does the physical body even have a brain to handle these function? It is needlessly redundant.

Either we have a functioning physical brain, plus a non-functioning spiritual "brain" that starts working immediately at death, downloading information from the physical brain then taking over.

Or we have two functioning brains - a physical and spiritual - carrying on redundant double duty.

LINK

Note: The primary reasoning I use for dismissing the immortal soul doctrine is due to the Passion Narratives. See:

A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html

Trinitarians: Why didn't Jesus describe the Trinity for us at John 16:27-28?

Here Jesus was speaking 'plainly' about theology. The NET Bible has it like this:
"16:27 For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 16:28 I came from the Father and entered into the world, but in turn, I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.” Footnote: "The statement I am leaving the world and going to the Father is a summary of the entire Gospel of John. It summarizes the earthly career of the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, on his mission from the Father to be the Savior of the world, beginning with his entry into the world as he came forth from God and concluding with his departure from the world as he returned to the Father."

Thus both Jesus and the NET Bible here equate God with Father. Thus Jesus came from the Father and God and will return to Him. But according to Trinitarian theology, the Father shares the impersonal godhead with the divine person of Jesus as well as the holy spirit. So why then didn't Jesus say he was a person of the impersonal Trinitarian godhead? Why did he lead us to believe that God is the Father and not a Trinity?

He was speaking plainly and had a perfect opportunity to explain the Trinity. Instead, he told us that the Father is God.

[Trinitarian]: You said: "2) Thus both Jesus and the NET Bible here equate God with Father.
As does the doctrine of trinity, of course."

Actually it teaches that the Father is not alone in the impersonal Trinitarian godhead. So I'm afraid you misrepresented Trinitarian theology.

According to Trinitarianism, three people exist within the impersonal Trinitarian godhead, including the divine nature of Jesus.

So, why when Jesus switched from speaking in "figures of speech" (16:25) to speaking "plainly" did Jesus say that the Father is God and NOT describe the Trinity while speaking plainly?

@ TeeM, I like what you said: "According to these verses only the Father is God, because Jesus is the one sent by God, and is telling us that he is returning to God. … Jesus isn't speaking in riddles or figuratively, but 'plainly' so that we can understand Jesus' position with his God and Father." This is the crux of my question I wish Trinitarians would address.

Best Answer:

This scripture is teaching us how close God the Father is to his only begotten Son (3:16)

According to these verses only the Father is God, because Jesus is the one sent by God, and is telling us that he is returning to God.

Vs 13 tells us that the spirit can not speak a single thing of its own initiative.

NASB13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative,.

Again showing the submissive position of the holy spirit. (the spirit is always 'of God' or "God's" denoting ownership)

29 His disciples *said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. 30 Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

Jesus isn't speaking in riddles or figuratively, but 'plainly' so that we can understand Jesus' position with his God and Father. There is not mystery or 2 Jesus' one fleshly and one Godly.

32 and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me."

If Jesus and the Father are the same God, then Jesus would be alone, but he isn't because God is with him.

.

The entire context of John 16 refutes the idea that the Father, Son and holy spirit are all one and equal.

LINK

Trinitarians: how was Jesus strengthened by an angel?

At Luke 22:42 Jesus is praying to the Father for strength, and verse 43 has an angel strengthening him.

• Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is a divine person with human and divine natures.
• Trinitarianism teaches that it was Jesus' human nature that needed strengthening.

So why wasn't the divine person of Jesus able to strengthen his human nature?

One answer:

When you read the commentary on this scripture, they say those exact words. They say his human nature, being lower than his divine nature, needed cheering and support.

This makes no sense when you think about it. It means the divine nature was incapable of doing anything. Notice, this is the second time angels came to strengthen him. The first is at Matt 4:11.

Me:
Excellent reference. Mat. 4:11 says "angels came and began to minister to him." If Trinitarianism were true, then surely those angels would not be so indiscreet to presume that they could encourage the human nature of the divine person of Jesus!

An answer from a Trinitarian:

1) Trinitarians: how was Jesus strengthened by an angel?

Supernaturally, of course. The Bible doesn't give the details - so how would anyone know the details? You don't; I don't. Jesus knows.

2) So why wasn't the divine person of Jesus able to strengthen his human nature?

Who told you that it wasn't? Why did you believe them? The Bible certainly does not teach that the divine person of Jesus was unable to strengthen his human nature. Are you saying that non-Biblical doctrine is one you accept as true?

Me:
Hi! "Who told you that it wasn't?" Luke 22:43.

"The Bible certainly does not teach that the divine person of Jesus was unable to strengthen his human nature." Then why did he rely on an angel?

If the Trinitarian paradigm is true, then it is most inappropriate for a mere angel to strengthen Jesus' human nature when his divine person was fully capable of doing so. Hence, my question.

Trinitarian response:
I don't know why he relied on an angel - and neither do you. Why did God rely on an angel for anything? God relies on angels throughout the Bible - though the Bible never tells us why he does so, and it is absolutely certain that he does not NEED to do so.

Me:
God uses angels in the OT but never to receive strength. But I'm glad to see you say that you don't know, that was humble of you.

Related reading:
Could Jesus Have Had Faith in God?

Related blog entries:
Defending Trinitarianism
Who was the Interceding Angel?

Link

When Jesus said "No one is good except God alone"?

Based on these three scriptures, especially the last two:

Matthew 19:17
“Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good."
Mark 10:18
“Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."
Luke 18:19
“Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

(All from the New American Standard Bible)

Thus we have a question followed by a clarification.

Can the question be understood as:

(1) A Repellent Question indicating an objection?
Jesus was no stranger to Repellent Questions, as he used one on his own mother in John 2:4, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” Meaning, “Don't tell me what to do, it's not time yet.” Thus, as applied to this question, Jesus said: "Don't call me good, for only God is good (and I'm not God)!"

(2) Or can the question be understood in the Trinitarian sense of Jesus making us "stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was." (NET Bible footnote for Mark 10:18) As in, "Stop and think, if I'm good and God is good, then I must be God in the sense of God being an impersonal construct and me being the second person within it in hypostatic union with my human nature!"

But Jesus also declared that the Father is the "only true God," thus God is a singular person, the Father at John 17:1-5.

So, which option is more reasonable with scriptural precedent?

Update: If #1, Jesus is calling God good in the sense of recognizing his Father as the ultimate standard of what is good. (Not that everyone else is evil as someone suggested. Their post is now gone for some reason.)

@ XXX1, hi there. Philippians 2:6 can be translated differently and that chapter actually does not support Trinitarianism, but that's a separate subject. Seeing Jesus is seeing the Father in the sense that Jesus perfectly represents his Father, and actually works against the Trinity the way you're using it as Jesus is not his Father. John 17:5 confirms Jesus' prehuman existence in heaven. No support for the Trinity there either.

Update: @ XXX2: Please be advised that 1+1+1=3, not 1. I also note that your comment is mere spam for the Trinity and actually does nothing to address this question.

Update: @ XXX3: As I wrote above, Jesus is calling God good in the sense of recognizing his Father as the ultimate standard of what is good, not that Jesus and everyone else are evil--they are just excluded from being the ultimate standard of what is good.

Jesus Christ ALWAYS deflected attention away from himself and directed it towards his Father. (John 7:16-18; 12:28; 17:6)* Could the same be true with this question I'm asking?

* Look up Scriptures here: http://tinyurl.com/au2mfwx

And as you know, Jesus and his Father are one in purpose just like Christians and Jesus are one--John 17:21.

Best Answer Asker's Choice

Greetings,

Some Trinitarians say that Christ wanted the man to realize that his calling Jesus "good" meant Jesus was God since only God is good.

Non-Trinitarians interpret this as an example of Jesus denying that he was equal to God: the man was using the title improperly in an absolute sense and Jesus corrected him showing that only God should be considered to be supremely good, and not Christ.


What is clear is that the Trinitarian interpretation must arbitrarily import ideas into the text. Nothing in the context leads to the conclusion that Jesus wanted the man to believe Christ was equal to God. This conclusion has to be forced into the text by a presupposed theological bias. Further, the grammar argues against it. This is noted even by many Trinitarian scholars:

Interpreter's Bible:
"Why do you call me good? ...later theologians interpreted it otherwise: 'If you call me good, you imply that I am God'--but this is wholly impossible, both in the original setting and for Mark." (7:801).

The Catholic NAB:
"Why do you call me good?: Jesus repudiates the term "good" for himself and directs it to God, the source of all goodness who alone can grant the gift of eternal life; cf. Mt 19:16-17"--(ftn. on Mk. 10:18).

John A.T. Robinson:
Footnote:"Indeed, by implication he DENIED being God: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone'" (Mk 10:18)--(Honest To God, pp. 72-73).

The literal rendering of Luke 18:19 is: "There is none good, but the one God" (EI MH EIS hO QEOS). Use of the article (hO QEOS) here is significant. In Mark only the Father is hO QEOS, never Jesus (cf. 15:34). Christ's words then specifically identify God the Father as the only one who is good and explicitly excludes himself (and all others). Jesus could not have used this syntax to mean what Trinitarians claim. This fact is placed beyond debate when we notice the same exact Greek expression in other passages that have no theological baggage.

For instance: Mk. 2:7: "Why is this man talking in this manner? ...Who can forgive sins except one, God?"

This question and answer is almost an exact parallel, making it very clear that the grammatical structure is designed to exclude the subject from the identification in the response. The Pharisees certainly wanted to explicitly exclude Jesus from being God. Their argument was explicit: "This man is NOT God since ONLY God can forgive sins."

If Jesus meant to imply that he be considered "good" in the sense the man used why would Jesus use syntax which could only be understood as excluding himself?

The ultimate and final authority on what Jesus meant lies in how the man understood the correction. We get a definite answer when the man in his very next words dropped the "Good" and addressed Jesus simply as "Teacher." It was obviously very clear to the man that Jesus was excluding himself from being called good since he was not God. Jesus obviously thought the man got the correct point since he did not correct the man this time. Rather, Jesus "loved him" and invited him to be his follower! Would Jesus have done this if the man was so obtuse as to miss or reject Jesus' point?


In conclusion, it is first clear that the context and the grammar shows that Jesus gave no indication that the man must recognize he was Almighty God. To the contrary Jesus' response was a clear correction of what was said, rejecting the application of the term "good" to himself in this circumstance.


The fact that others are properly called "good" in the Scriptures proves that Christ was obviously applying "Good" in an absolute sense here. If he wasn't using it in an absolute sense, then his statement that "No one is good except God alone" would be a lie. This is because the word "good" (Grk. agathos) is properly used in Scripture of many things, even by Jesus Himself as a generic term for others. (Matt. 5:45; 12:35; 13:38; 22:10; 25:21,23).

Normally, calling Jesus "good" was appropriate. Yet, in this context the man was placing Jesus as ultimate/supreme judge of what is required for eternal life. The man seemed to be assuming Christ was so "good" that he could decide the requirements for salvation on his own.

Colin Brown Theological Dictionary:
"What stands out is what has been asserted in every period of Israel's history,... namely that God himself is the One who is really and exclusively good. In the language of the LXX, he is the highest good....However, this does not prevent a natural application of the predicate "good" to the moral differences between men, who do good as well as evil (Matt. 12:35; 25:21; and par. Lk. 6:45; 19:17)."

Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

Asker's rating & comment

5 out of 5
Thank you, the Colin Brown Theological Dictionary quote was excellent! Why Trinitarians can't understand this is quite revealing...

LINK

Is Behemoth a dinosaur? Is this based on Job 40:17 only?

Job 40:17 states that it moves or bends its tail like a cedar. Based on this, some identify Behemoth with a sauropod dinosaur. But notice:

40:21 states that it lies under the lotus tree, is concealed by reeds, and lies in swamps. Verse 23 adds that it lives in a raging river. Both conditions are physically impossible for a sauropod dinosaur. Note that in verse 17 it's the actions of its tail that are compared to a cedar, not that it looked like a cedar, otherwise its long neck would look like a tree too, but no mention is made of that.

Plus, verse 19 indicates that it has a "sword," understood to be tusks. The NET Bible in its footnote states: “The sword is apparently a reference to the teeth or tusks of the animal, which cut vegetation like a sword. But the idea of a weapon is easier to see ... The [Revised Standard Version] probably has the safest: ‘He that made him has furnished him with his sword’ (the sword being a reference to the sharp tusks with which he can attack).” It must be noted that sauropods do not have tusks, but the hippopotamus does have two dangerous tusks that can penetrate crocodile hide. Likewise, the hippopotamus uses its tail for a variety of important functions, thus it acts as a strong and stiff appendage.

Thus, considering all the verses that exclude a dinosaur identification, is it only verse 17 that dinosaur-proponents use?

Related point:
Have dinosaur and man footprints been found together? Creationists say no:
"In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had *serious problems*. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could *no longer be safely used as evidence* ... that man and dinosaur lived at the same time."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n2/magic-bullet

Select responses to an interlocutor:

It's not necessarily about one's worldview, but about reading comprehension and honesty. The habitat of both Behemoth and Leviathan is described as being associated with water, so they cannot be dinosaurs since dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial. Some could have visited watery places, but they could not have lived there like Behemoth and Leviathan. About Job 40:17: You're evidently confusing "looking like" with "acting like." Being stiff like a cedar matches a hippo tail just fine. Like I said, it's not about worldview but about reading comprehension. Also, animal death and human death are different per Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 and Psalm 49:12. Since man has fallen into sin and death, he is now at the same level as the beast.

I am not arguing semantics. I am arguing for accuracy. Dinosaurs do not match the descriptions in Job 40-41. 40:23 certainly does show that Behemoth withstood rushing rivers. Otherwise, it could have said anything no matter how unrelated. And I have a professional library on paleontology, so your quote there is either outdated or from an inaccurate source. The quote from Faussett, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown is reading way too much into a simple verse. Again, it's not about worldviews, but about responsible reading comprehension.

(I had another response, but Yahoo! deleted it when it switched over to a new format. It went something like this:)

About Mokele-mbembe, I noticed that in 2006 National Geographic had an expedition that failed to find it. I believe it remains elusive.

Thanks for posting that website. It appears to answer my question that the sauropod identification is based solely on Job 40:17. Also, concerning Leviathan, it compares the description of pyrotechnics in Job 41:18-21 with a bombardier beetle that sprays a high-temperature jet of gas out of its hind end. Problem: the Leviathan's pyrotechnics come from its head, not behind. Wrong end!
============================

Let me include the entire discussion log. At the time of me originally posting this, it appeared to be truncated as I commented on above, but it is all included now:

Update:
@ Donald: Hi there! Even a child can see that sauropods do not have horns or tusks.

@ Robert: Hi there! You're playing fast-and-loose with those definitions.

Update 2:
@ I worship Jehovah: Hi there! Actually the crocodile has been identified as Leviathan. Since we're on that subject, the Leviathan spends time in the water per 41:31-32, thus also not a dinosaur to educated people.

Update 3:
@ Donald again: ironically, what's "patently absurd" is that definition which ignores the entire description of Behemoth. Very dishonest and sensational in fact.

Update 4:
@ Alex de Alex: Hi there! It's not necessarily about one's worldview, but about reading comprehension and honesty. The habitat of both Behemoth and Leviathan is described as being associated with water, so they cannot be dinosaurs since dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial. Some could have visited watery places, but they could not have lived there like Behemoth and Leviathan. About Job 40:17: You're evidently confusing "looking like" with "acting like." Being stiff like a cedar matches a hippo tail just fine. Like I said, it's not about worldview but about reading comprehension. Also, animal death and human death are different per Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 and Psalm 49:12. Since man has fallen into sin and death, he is now at the same level as the beast.

@ a Real Truthseeker: Looks like your answer is a blind cut-and-paste job that has nothing to do with seeking truth. Step one in truth seeking is READING.

Update 5:
@ Alex de Alex again: I am not arguing semantics. I am arguing for accuracy. Dinosaurs do not match the descriptions in Job 40-41. 40:23 certainly does show that Behemoth withstood rushing rivers. Otherwise, it could have said anything no matter how unrelated. And I have a professional library on paleontology, so your quote there is either outdated or from an inaccurate source. The quote from Faussett, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown is reading way too much into a simple verse. Again, its not about worldviews, but about responsible reading comprehension.

Update 6:
You're welcome Alex, and thank you for the dialog. About Mokele-mbembe, its identification remains elusive, so it really cannot be called a sauropod. Wikipedia has a nice summary too. It says that in May 2006, National Geographic tried to find it, but failed. The "Dinosaurs and the Bible" site answers my question, that the dinosaur identification is based solely on verse 17, and a misreading of it at that, and dismissing the other the verses that exclude a dinosaur identification. (Dismissing verses in God's word!) It says it was brachiosaurus, yet it is known that it did not have tusks or horns and it is much too large to have found shade under the lotus tree. Good reading comprehension would have saved them from that egregious blunder.

Update 7:
(As an aside, that site, like other YECs, identifies Leviathan with Kronosaurus, not a dinosaur but an aquatic pliosaur. The pyrotechnics in Job 41:18-21 are hyperboles like elsewhere in Job's descriptions [see how the horse is described with exaggerations in Job 39:20, 22, 24]. But the site compares these pyrotechnics to the bombardier beetle's. One problem with this: The beetle is specifically designed to dispense with its noxious chemical spray in a rapid burst of pulses from special glands in its abdomen, not in its mouth. Wrong end. Thus, Leviathan's pyrotechnics are hyperbolic for the fear of death it gives its observer. Their exegesis is thus seen to be cartoonish.)



LINK

See also:

• Identifying Behemoth www.jimspace.000space.com/YEC/EB.htm

Are dragon legends evidence that dinosaurs lived with man, or?

Are dragon legends evidence that man found dinosaur bones and told legends about them?

Which is more reasonable?

(And the Bible book of Job does not describe dinosaurs, so please do not use that reasoning.)

Dino and man footprints found together? Creationists say no:
"In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence ... that man and dinosaur lived at the same time." (emphasis added) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n2/magic-bullet

About Behemoth in Job, please read in 40:21 that it lies under the lotus tree, is concealed by reeds, and lies in swamps. Verse 23 adds that it lives in a raging river. Both are physically impossible for a sauropod dinosaur. The actions of its tail in verse 17 are compared to a cedar, not that it looked like a cedar, otherwise its neck would look like a tree too, but no mention is made of that.

LINK

See also:

• Identifying Behemoth www.jimspace.000space.com/YEC/EB.htm

Credits:

• Picture from the young-earth creationist book Dinosaurs of Eden.

Trinitarians: what exactly did Jesus sacrifice?

Trinitarians have told me that Jesus took back the same body that was crucified and that Jesus didn't die because he is the immortal second person of the Trinitarian Godhead and that he also has an immortal soul.

So, the person of Jesus didn't die, it was his human nature that died, but he got that back when that was resurrected and rejoined with his immortal soul and divine nature which obviously never died.

So since Jesus AS A PERSON never died (as he was conscious as a divine person and an immortal soul while his human nature was dead) and since he got his same body back, then what exactly did Jesus sacrifice?

References:

“Jesus died physically, but remained alive spiritually,” and that Jesus’ “essence did not die, nor could it” and “His physical body died, but His inner being is eternal and could not die.” (Houdmann, S. Michael. “Did God die? If Jesus was God, and Jesus died on the cross, does that mean God died?” www.gotquestions.org/did-God-die.html) This position was also presented by one of the brightest minds of Trinitarianism, Dr. William Lane Craig, in this video: “Was God Dead for Three Days?” youtu.be/g4uhWvEpAvk [1]

Also, blood is liquid flesh so when the resurrected Jesus said he was "flesh and bones" blood was clearly included as he was not a zombie.

To review:
What did Jesus sacrifice that he did not still have or get back per the Trinitarian paradigm?

[The Trinitarian responses were that Jesus sacrificed his blood and that he was separated from the Father. But they also openly and publicly declare (wittingly or unwittingly) that Jesus still had blood and that he was NEVER separated from the Father as he was the second person of the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead the entire time. Thus, my question remains open.]

Footnote:
[1] Specifically from 0:55 to the end. Here he stated:

“So when Jesus died on the cross, his human nature died, not his divine nature, he died as a man. Human death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that's what happened when Jesus expired on the cross. His soul was separated from his body, which then became a lifeless corpse and was laid in the tomb, and then later we Christians believe was raised from the dead. So you can see that the divine nature, the divine person of Christ, is not in any way, um, extinguished in the death of the human nature of Christ on the cross.”

Thus he confirms the Trinitarian position that the person of Jesus never died, it was just his human nature on earth that expired. See also “Do You Reject Trinitarianism? (Point 1).” jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html

Link

Are Jehovah's Witnesses outlawed from witnessing online?

Does the Our Kingdom Ministry flier of November 1997 p. 3 "Good News on the Internet" article outlaw Jehovah's Witnesses from witnessing online?

It says:
Our Internet Web site has the address http://www.watchtower.org and contains a selection of tracts, brochures, and Watchtower and Awake! articles in English, Chinese (Simplified), German, Russian, and Spanish, as well as in other languages. The publications on this Web site are already available through the congregations and are in use in the ministry. The purpose of our Web site is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. There is no need for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. Our official site presents accurate information for any who want it. (end quote)

Someone claimed on this question http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am84oIrzoFkCDfEupHOrIjnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120120080726AAj3HgF that this outlaws Witnesses from witnessing online.

Does it do that, OR does it mean that there is no vacuum to fill as there is an official website?


Additional Details
Edit: XXXXX said: "It keeps hammering in how you should not associate online, even with fellow witnesses." Actually, it does no such thing. Discussing dangers is not the same as outlawing. The article also said: "Jehovah wants you to exercise discernment. Why? Because he knows that it will safeguard you from various dangers." That's the whole point of that article. Thanks for your encouragement!

Hi -----! You said: "This does not say anything about witnessing". Well, having a witnessing website is an act of witnessing. Additionally, you said "we are not to create sites about our beliefs because the site www.watchtower.org does a much better job than we can do." That's what my question is about. Are we outlawed from making websites or blogs of a witnessing nature OR is it just that there is no rush to fill a vacuum as there is an official website? (Whether or not the official website does a better job is outside the scope of this question.)

Let me illustrate: If the US government in 1961 said: "Since we have NASA and its Apollo program, there is no need for any individual or corporation in the US to try to beat the Soviets to the moon," would that be the same as outlawing the construction of a rocket to go to the moon? Or say the government issued a brochure discussing the dangers of cell-phone use. Would this be the same as a ban on all cell-phones? :-)

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The specific part of the quote in question is as follows:

"The purpose of our Web site (the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses) is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. THERE IS NO NEED for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs."

The Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses have made "information available to the public in electronic format." But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition* on anyone who would also desire to make "information available to the public in electronic format." The wording "there is no need" means exactly what it says - that additional information posted on-line concerning Jehovah's Witnesses is *NOT NECESSARY* when one can simply refer an interested one toward the relevant article already available at the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses pertaining to the topic at hand. What better place to refer interested ones than to the Official or Authorized Websites of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves?

One thing about the internet is the problem of anonymity. I have seen many websites that claim to be favorable toward Jehovah's Witnesses but were actually set up by apostates looking to fool unsuspecting ones. If one wishes to not fall for this trap, then they should by all means always stick to what they know they can depend on - the *Official* Website of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Because the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not have any control over the content of other websites on the internet, it is very understandable that the WBTS does not want to be associated in any way with unauthorized websites, favorable or unfavorable. With this in mind, the managers of several pro-Witness websites have posted the following disclaimer (or wording like it):

"This website is NOT an official website of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website.

"Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research.

"To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org." [Now jw.org]

ME:
"But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition*." Thank you! We have a "fire shut up on our bones" as Jeremiah said. So of course some will want to express themselves online!

(Names have been replaced.)
Link

Trinitarians who hold that Jesus is divine only: do you realize that your position is heretical?

"Chalcedonian Box" by a Trinitarian

I've noticed here on Y!A that some Trinitarians reject the duality of Christ: they reject the Hypostatic Union, and say Jesus is only fully divine. (They thus reject the Trinitarian apologetics of Matt Slick on carm.org.) Perhaps they do not realize that this denial may amount to monophysitism, the position that Christ has only one nature: divine. The orthodox Chalcedonian position however is that Christ maintains two natures: divine and human in one person. Trinitarian Christology is dyophysite not monophysite, and as monophysitism is contrary to the orthodox dyophysite Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451), it has always been considered heretical by the Western Church and most of the Eastern Church.

Thus, I'm wondering if the Trinitarians who reject the Hypostatic Union here on Y!A know that they are spreading monophysite heresy?

Note: I'm talking about Trinitarians who reject the Hypostatic Union, not Oneness believers.
Quotes from Trinitarians I'm referring to:

"after the resurrection, he had a "glorified" body, a body made not of flesh, and not subject to the same laws of physics"

"he had blood when human but not anymore...HE WAS BOTH but now spirit.."

[Found in response to my question "Two questions for Trinitarians?"]

(Not included is one who deleted his comment and another who had his comment deleted when the question he was responding to was deleted.)
[Referring first to my question "Trinitarians: How can Jesus be fully man outside of earth's atmosphere?" and second to my question "Jehovah's Witnesses, why do you reject the Trinity?", where user Surfari [AKA Crosseyed] said according to what I remember, in substance: "As if he (Slick) is the authority of the church!"]

Additional Details

@ David H: I'm not talking about "sincere ignorance" but willful rejection of the Hypostatic Union. They read Trinitarian apologetics like Matt Slick's on carm.org on the Hypostatic Union and reject it. One vocal Trinitarian [Surfari/Crosseyed]  here even mocked him and his apologetics.

Link

Two questions for Trinitarians?

I've read different stances coming from different Trinitarians on these two questions:

1) Are the persons of the Trinity separate and distinct or distinct only in the Godhead?

2) Does Jesus' full human nature have red blood or spirit? 2a) If you say spirit, how is that full human nature?

Thank you.

Additional Details

Thank you for the replies thus far.

To repeat and clarify:

--I've read different stances coming from different Trinitarians only, not Trinitarians and Oneness believers.

--Jesus' full human nature now according to the Hypostatic Union doctrine. As Jesus is "100% man" now,[1] does he have red blood now? (It seems like he would have to in order to be fully or 100% man.)

[1] Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g., The Hypostatic Union. http://pluto.matrix49.com/15697/?subpages/Hypostatic-Union.shtml

----------------------------------------
Let me repeat question 1 using parentheses to make it clearer:

1) Are the persons of the Trinity (separate and distinct) or (distinct only) in the Godhead?

(FTR I have not thumbed down replies.)

Trinitarian Dr. William Lane Craig said that the holy spirit is "separate and distinct" as a person.[2] But Trinitarian apologist Matt Slick says the three persons of the Trinity "are three distinct persons."[3]

[2] Does The Trinity Make Sense? Rabbi Tovia Singer vs William Lane Craig Debate (9:25). http://youtu.be/2lwRTki1js0

[3] The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum. http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/trinity-hypostatic-union-and-communicatio-idiomatum

Also, I've noticed that some Trinitarians reject the Hypostatic Union and say Jesus is only fully divine. Perhaps they do not realize that this denial may amount to monophysitism, "the Christological position that Christ has only one nature, his humanity being absorbed by his Deity, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ maintains two natures, one divine and one human. As monophysitism is contrary to the orthodox Chalcedonian Creed it has always been considered heretical by the Western Church and most of the Eastern Church." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism

=====

Unfortunately, none of the Trinitarians who responded were able to resolve my two questions, nor were any able to edit their replies in accords with my additional details. So, I was left with little choice but to choose this as "BA". [Click on link below to see the "Best Answer."]

Link

Related links:

• "What a tangled web we weave..." http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html
• "Are the Persons of the Trinity separate and distinct or distinct only?" http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-persons-of-trinity-separate-and.html
• "Do You Reject Trinitarianism?" http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html
• Does The Trinity Make Sense? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/07/blog-post.html