PDA

View Full Version : This is a test



tgallison
Apr 15th 2009, 12:53 AM
Read the following presentation and see if you can say Jesus is the right hand and arm of God.

IS JESUS THE RIGHT HAND AND ARM OF GOD?

The following is not a complete number, only approximately. The actual number will be greater, but not less than.

15 times in scripture the hand and arm of God are found together.

20 times the right hand of God is found.

33 times the arm of God is found in scripture.

17 times the hand or arm of God is outstretched.

52 separate times either the hand of God or the arm of God or both are found in scripture.

12 times it specifically refers to salvation.

10 different Books in the Old Testament, the hand and arm of God are found.

Below are some of the attributes of the hand and arm of God.

1. Saves

2. Rules

3. Judges

4. Holds

5. Distributes righteousness

6. Reaps

7. Gathers the sheep

8. Brings light

9. Is Glorious

10. Is Holy

11. Creates

12. Redeems

13. Plants vineyards

14. Purchases (Sanctuary)

15. Obtains victory

16. Shows mercy

17. Is trustworthy

18. Feeds the flock

19. Intercessor

20. Brings the Word

Can you picture the outstretched hand and arm of God which is his Son, reaching out through the Son of man to all mankind?

Jesus is the intercessor directly connected to the Father and directly connected to man.

Jesus is the creator, He is the light, He obtains victory, He feeds the flock, He shows mercy, He saves, He rules, He judges, He holds, He distributes righteousness, He gathers the sheep, He is glorious, He is Holy, He shows mercy, He is the sword, He is the living Word, for He is all things, for all things were made by Him and for Him, for it pleased the Father that it might be so.

Exodus 6:6, 15:6,16----Deuteronomy 4:34, 5:15, 7:19, 9:29, 26:8, 33:2----1 Kings 8:42,----2 Kings 17:36----2 Chronicles 6:32----Job 40:9,14----Psalm 17:7, 18:35, 20:6, 21:8, 44:3, 48:10, 60:5, 74:11, 77:15, 78:42, 78:54, 80:15,17, 89:13,15, 95:7, 98:1, 110:1, 118:15-16, 136:12, 139:10, Proverbs 1:24, Isaiah 30:30, 33:2, 40:10,11, 41:10,20, 48:13, 51:5,9, 52:10, 53:1, 59:1,16, 62:8, 63:5,12. Jeremiah 21:5, 27:5, 32:17,21, Ezekiel 20:33,34.

Terrell

apothanein kerdos
Apr 15th 2009, 01:16 AM
That's way too anthropomorphic - that is the danger of taking the Scripture too literally.

If Jesus is literally the right hand of God then (1) God is spirit and (2) Jesus is not distinct from the Father, merely an extension (Monarchianism).

Rather, these would denote that Jesus is God in essence, but serves a certain role in His personhood. He is one with the Father in essence, but distinct and separate in His personhood.

If we teach that Jesus is merely an extension of the Father, that's not Trinitarian - that's Manarchianism, which was considered a heresy.

tgallison
Apr 15th 2009, 02:04 AM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2045326]That's way too anthropomorphic - that is the danger of taking the Scripture too literally.

Believing that the earthly laws of God are a physical picture of the "Spiritual Heavenly" is anthropomorphic. Yes I take the Scripture literal. I believe that creation was in 24 hr. days.


If Jesus is literally the right hand of God then (1) God is spirit and (2) Jesus is not distinct from the Father, merely an extension (Monarchianism).

IMO your premise is false in stating that because Jesus is presented as the arm of God he cannot be distinct. What heavenly knowledge do you have of the relationship between the Father and the Son.

You can have Siamese twins joined at the hip,and never to be separated, and yet each being distinct from the other.

We have a body, mind, and soul, yet each is distinct from the other. You might say the flesh has no personality, yet how can that be? We fight a war with the flesh, and the flesh can overcome us if we are weak. The flesh is condemned. How then can the flesh be condemned if it lacks personality.

We understand little about earthly things, how is it we can be expected to understand heavenly things.

I believe what I read in the Bible. I do not bend it to fit my views.

Terrell

apothanein kerdos
Apr 15th 2009, 02:18 AM
I think what worries me is that you don't really understand the nature of the Trinity...

Everything you're teaching is modalism and/or monarchianism. My friend, these are heresies. I don't think you've put enough study into the issue to really know better, so I don't hold it against you, but mate, you need to be very careful on this stuff.


Believing that the earthly laws of God are a physical picture of the "Spiritual Heavenly" is anthropomorphic. Yes I take the Scripture literal. I believe that creation was in 24 hr. days.

I'm not talking about Creation. I'm talking about the nature of God.

The Bible isn't always supposed to be taken literally. When concerning prophecy, poetry, and other similar writing styles, it is almost always written in a non-literal fashion. In fact, it's wrong to take it literally at points.

The whole "literal=true" is a Western construct and hasn't always been this way. For instance, in Joshua, did the Sun literally stand still, or was it perspective based? In Revelation, is Jesus Christ literally a lamb, with fur and four legs?

There are times to take the Bible literally (Jesus literally rose from the grave), but other times to realize when poetic language is being used (Jesus is the right hand of God - God doesn't have a hand, He's not a body).


IMO your premise is false in stating that because Jesus is presented as the arm of God he cannot be distinct. What heavenly knowledge do you have of the relationship between the Father and the Son.

You can have Siamese twins joined at the hip,and never to be separated, and yet each being distinct from the other.

Again, that's monarchianism. It limits God to a physical body where Jesus is nothing more than an extension of the Father. The problem with this is it destroys the idea of an incarnation - if Jesus is the extension of the Father, like a hand, then He doesn't really die. Likewise, we run into all sorts of contradictions, concerning how He could pray to Himself, how He could be forsaken by Himself, etc.

Rather, the traditional understanding has been that Jesus and the Father have the same essence, but are two different persons. We know that Jesus emptied Himself of His attributes when He came to earth, but was still the essence of God.


We have a body, mind, and soul, yet each is distinct from the other.

We are body and spirit/soul. The tri-partism is a new belief - no Christian has believed this until the modern age. This is generally due to a lack of understanding of the classical definition of "soul" and "spirit."

Regardless, all of them are still part of the same person. These are two different persons within one essence. Our essence is tied up with our personhood. Thus, the soul and body both make up one person. With God, there is one essence, but three persons.


You might say the flesh has no personality, yet how can that be? We fight a war with the flesh, and the flesh can overcome us if we are weak. The flesh is condemned. How then can the flesh be condemned if it lacks personality.

"Flesh" in the Greek, at least how Paul is using it, refers to our sin nature, not our literal physicality. To assert otherwise is to be Gnostic...if what you're saying is true, then Jesus either (1) didn't have human flesh or (2) had "special" flesh, both of which are Gnostic beliefs.


I believe what I read in the Bible. I do not bend it to fit my views.

You're reading it wrong though...

What you're teaching isn't the Trinity doctrine that has been accepted and taught for 2,000 years mate.

*Hope*
Apr 15th 2009, 02:21 AM
The whole "literal=true" is a Western construct and hasn't always been this way. For instance, in Joshua, did the Sun literally stand still, or was it perspective based? In Revelation, is Jesus Christ literally a lamb, with fur and four legs?


Of course, and He's also a literal Door with hinges and a literal Vine with branches!

tgallison
Apr 15th 2009, 03:10 AM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2045379]
The whole "literal=true" is a Western construct and hasn't always been this way. For instance, in Joshua, did the Sun literally stand still, or was it perspective based? In Revelation, is Jesus Christ literally a lamb, with fur and four legs?

You have a sweet way of distorting everything I say. Maybe you don't believe the sun stood still but I do. I know Jesus isn't a physical lamb but He is a spiritual lamb.


There are times to take the Bible literally (Jesus literally rose from the grave), but other times to realize when poetic language is being used (Jesus is the right hand of God - God doesn't have a hand, He's not a body). When it is physically literal, I believe it to be literal. When it is the physical picture of the spiritual, then I understand it as spiritual.

What you are saying lends itself to picking and choosing what you want to believe.


Again, that's monarchianism. It limits God to a physical body where Jesus is nothing more than an extension of the Father. The problem with this is it destroys the idea of an incarnation - if Jesus is the extension of the Father, like a hand, then He doesn't really die. Likewise, we run into all sorts of contradictions, concerning how He could pray to Himself, how He could be forsaken by Himself, etc. You are presenting something I did not present. I never said Jesus was a physical hand, but He is a spiritual hand.


Rather, the traditional understanding has been that Jesus and the Father have the same essence, but are two different persons. We know that Jesus emptied Himself of His attributes when He came to earth, but was still the essence of God. I do not believe that you understood a word I said. If there is something in particular that you disagree with me please present it as I had stated it.

You are taking what I say and putting your own meaning to it.


We are body and spirit/soul. The tri-partism is a new belief - no Christian has believed this until the modern age. This is generally due to a lack of understanding of the classical definition of "soul" and "spirit." Are you saying we don't have a mind, or that spirit is another name for mind.


Regardless, all of them are still part of the same person. These are two different persons within one essence. Our essence is tied up with our personhood. Thus, the soul and body both make up one person. With God, there is one essence, but three persons. Could you do me a favor and define and explain the essence of the Father, as it relates to Him, the Son, as it relates to Him, and the Holy Spirit, as it relates to Him?


"Flesh" in the Greek, at least how Paul is using it, refers to our sin nature, not our literal physicality. To assert otherwise is to be Gnostic...if what you're saying is true, Could you please explain what it is that I said, in the words I used that you are referring to?

apothanein kerdos
Apr 15th 2009, 03:23 AM
You have a sweet way of distorting everything I say. Maybe you don't believe the sun stood still but I do. I know Jesus isn't a physical lamb but He is a spiritual lamb.So how is this not "picking and choosing" as you call it?

How did I distort what you're saying? If you say that Jesus is the extension of the Father, that's a heresy...

If you're saying He is one in essence, but separate in person, then that's Trinitarian.

As a side note - you believe the earth rotates around the sun, correct?


When it is physically literal, I believe it to be literal. When it is the physical picture of the spiritual, then I understand it as spiritual.

What you are saying lends itself to picking and choosing what you want to believe.Not really. It's just studying and learning what the literary forms are (in the Greek and Hebrew - though it can be seen in the English too, just not as clear) and the purpose of those literary forms are in translation.


You are presenting something I did not present. I never said Jesus was a physical hand, but He is a spiritual hand.But that's a description, not a statement of fact as He is. There's no such thing as a "spiritual hand." The word "hand" denotes physicality - you can't have a "hand" unless you are, in some way, physical. It's using anthropomorphic language so we can understand the purpose of Christ.

He sits at the right hand of the Father - again, this is to denote His ruling position, not His literal "in space and time" position.


You are taking what I say and putting your own meaning to it.How though? You keep saying this, but you're not showing me how. Are you here for a debate or a discussion. Generally, if you're misunderstood in a discussion, you show a bit of courtesy and show the person how you were misunderstood and then elaborate on what you meant.



Are you saying we don't have a mind, or that spirit is another name for mind.Our mind is found within our soul. We have rational souls. But the mind operates with the brain.


Could you do me a favor and define and explain the essence of the Father, as it relates to him, the Son, as it relates to Him, and the Holy Spirit, as it relates to Him?:huh:

All three have the same essence...that's the Trinity. The same essence, but different persons.


Could you please explain what it is that I said, in the words I used that you are referring to?You said that our flesh could have a mind as it works against us. I took this to mean that our literal physical flesh. Is that what you meant?

You know, instead of just playing the card, "You don't understand me!" why don't you actually explain yourself? Otherwise, you're just wasting our (you and I) time in trying to play a game.

Julian
Apr 15th 2009, 03:32 AM
Jesus SITS at the right hand of God - for he has been given all power to act as God's 'right hand man'. He is the head over all things unto the church. Sometimes he even stands on the right hand of God - fighting for us, his own.

Does it ever actually say that Jesus IS the right hand of God? I don't recall. Thanks for getting us thinking about the right hand of God some more - it's a great topic.


Believing that the earthly laws of God are a physical picture of the "Spiritual Heavenly" is anthropomorphic. Yes I take the Scripture literal. I believe that creation was in 24 hr. days.
Even though the sun itself, which is our timepiece for 24 hour days, wasn't made until the 4th day?

That would be odd indeed. The scriptures never say that those were 24 hour periods, but rather evening and morning were the first, second, third, forth...days. See for yourself.

Genesis 1:14-19 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

keck553
Apr 15th 2009, 05:38 PM
That would be odd indeed. The scriptures never say that those were 24 hour periods, but rather evening and morning were the first, second, third, forth...days.
.

You can only make that conclusion if you assume God is lying here:

Exo 20:11
(11) "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

tgallison
Apr 15th 2009, 07:54 PM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2045440]So how is this not "picking and choosing" as you call it?

Huh?


How did I distort what you're saying? If you say that Jesus is the extension of the Father, that's a heresy...You seem to lack a good grasp of the spiritual. God is a Spirit, and he must be worshiped in spirit and truth.

Jesus said destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it. Nobody sees Jesus as a building of wood or clay. When I say he is the arm of God, I am then expressing the spiritual.

If I have a son and he is obedient and follows after me in purpose, then it is appropriate to call him an extension of me. Is not Israel and extension of Jacob.

The Father sent the Son and put all things in his hand, all power, all creation, all judgment. In essence Jesus is an extension of the Father.


As a side note - you believe the earth rotates around the sun, correct?I have to be honest with you, yes.

Do you believe the book of Job is literal, in other words did the story occur as described, did he lose his sons, his wealth, and his health? There are some parts of the book that are spiritual in nature, behemoth an leviathan in particular, I am not referring to them.


But that's a description, not a statement of fact as He is. There's no such thing as a "spiritual hand." The word "hand" denotes physicality - you can't have a "hand" unless you are, in some way, physical. It's using anthropomorphic language so we can understand the purpose of Christ. Describing the spiritual with the physical is anthropomorphic language. That is all I have implied.

One might argue that there is such a thing as a spiritual hand. "In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote." (Daniel 5:5)

You have heard of the term hired hand, well Jesus might possible be described as a Son hand.


He sits at the right hand of the Father - again, this is to denote His ruling position, not His literal "in space and time" position. I agree with you a 100%. Do you agree then that when it says seated, it does not mean in a physical sense as one would set in a chair? Do you also agree then that the English word seated or set does not mean the same thing as the corresponding word in the Greek.


How though? You keep saying this, but you're not showing me how. Are you here for a debate or a discussion. Generally, if you're misunderstood in a discussion, you show a bit of courtesy and show the person how you were misunderstood and then elaborate on what you meant. 1. I never said the hand and arm was physical.

2. I did not use the word extension, it was your word. I have used it in this post.

3. I did not say the flesh had a mind, I said it had a personality. When your hand gets burnt it sends a message to the brain. Various people have various reactions to pain. That is personality of the flesh.


Our mind is found within our soul. We have rational souls. But the mind operates with the brain. OK no problem. Tell me, for I don't know, what is the difference between our spirit and soul?


All three have the same essence...that's the Trinity. The same essence, but different persons. OK, the question was how does each personality relate to the essence?


You said that our flesh could have a mind as it works against us. I took this to mean that our literal physical flesh. Is that what you meant?Never said "mind", again that is your word, the word was "personality" which I described above. Yes literal physical flesh. When referring to God it is always spiritual, unless of course one is referring to the Son of man.

Terrell

RabbiKnife
Apr 15th 2009, 08:45 PM
No, there is absolutely no way that I can read Scripture and reach the conclusions that the Original Poster makes.

Jesus is completely separate and distinct from the Father and the Spirit in personhood while being one in essence.

This is a mystery, but Jesus is not a big right hand.

tgallison
Apr 15th 2009, 09:32 PM
No, there is absolutely no way that I can read Scripture and reach the conclusions that the Original Poster makes.

Jesus is completely separate and distinct from the Father and the Spirit in personhood while being one in essence.

This is a mystery, but Jesus is not a big right hand.

I believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate. Jesus is the Son that is doing the will of the Father because He loves him. When I was born again, I had pleaded for the Father to help me understand, and He sent His Son.

When I say Jesus is the arm of God it means no more than what Isaiah 53:1 means. So what does Isaiah 53:1 mean?

We are in a discussion of the Trinity which was never the intention of this thread. In fact I tend not to go there because my finite mind cannot begin to understand God.

This thread was about what the scripture says about the right hand and arm of God, and how it relates to Jesus. I say let the scripture speak for itself. The intent was never to go outside of scripture.

Terrell

keck553
Apr 15th 2009, 09:50 PM
Jesus is all over the place in the Tanach. Consider these words He said to the Father:

Joh 17:5
(5) Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed.

Why would the Son not have His glory since the world existed? Why did Jacob say he saw God and lived?
Who did Adam walk with?
Who shed the blood of an animal to cover Adam and Eve's sin?
Who was the third person who visited Abraham and didn't accompany the other two to visit Lot?
And many, many more encounters?

When Paul wrote:

Col 2:17
(17) things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Who is the Shadow-Caster?

The answer is:

Who was and Who is and Who is to come. Echad (complex unity) with the Father. The closest I think we can come to understand this is:

Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one (echad) flesh.

And that's why marriage is sacred as Jesus' unity with the Father.

tgallison
Apr 15th 2009, 11:33 PM
[quote=keck553;2046053]Jesus is all over the place in the Tanach. Consider these words He said to the Father:

Joh 17:5
(5) Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed.

Why would the Son not have His glory since the world existed?

When he was manifested in the flesh, he was in the form of a servant and his body was not glorified.

The verse does not state when that glory was diminished. I assume it was when he was manifested in the flesh.

Can you tell me what Greek word your translation translated "alongside" from.


Why did Jacob say he saw God and lived? Whenever you find scripture that seems to be a deviance, you need to wait on the Lord to reveal it through other scripture. There are many things that seem to be a deviance, but are actually not. It is because of our lack of understanding.

When Satan made a challenge to God, he said Job would curse him to his face. Yet Job did not even know where to find God. I have come to understand that that means Job would curse him with his lips. God is omnipresent, so that anywhere Job would curse God with his lips, he was cursing God to his face.

Jacob might have meant he met God, and realized his presents is everywhere. God places a shadow on the word that it is not easily discerned. It takes searching, and not with the mind, but with the heart.


Who did Adam walk with? Eve. Where is the scripture that says God walked with Adam? Perhaps I missed it.

If you look at Genesis 3:8 you will see that Adam and Eve were walking in the Garden and heard the voice of God. This is significant in itself, because Jesus is the Word of God.

It should be noted here that all the new translations that I checked have changed voice to sound in Genesis 3:8 and 3:10. You may say so what? What is most significant is in checking the NASB, they translate the same word to voice the next five times in a row in Genesis. Of the 506 times this word (gowl) appears in the NASB, they translated it voice 383 times.

There is no comma, to distinguish who is walking, but even if sound is correct, does sound walk?


Who shed the blood of an animal to cover Adam and Eve's sin?
Who was the third person who visited Abraham and didn't accompany the other two to visit Lot?
And many, many more encounters?

When Paul wrote:

Col 2:17
(17) things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Who is the Shadow-Caster?

The answer is:

Who was and Who is and Who is to come. Echad (complex unity) with the Father. The closest I think we can come to understand this is:

Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one (echad) flesh.

And that's why marriage is sacred as Jesus' unity with the Father.Terrell

Julian
Apr 16th 2009, 01:13 PM
You can only make that conclusion if you assume God is lying here:

Exo 20:11
(11) "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Not so. The day was evening and morning. Where does it say that before the sun was even made that a day and was 24 hours? I'm not going to put a time line on the day before the timepiece was even created. Did you even read what I posted and consider God's word on the section before replying?

God made the heavens and the earth in six 'evening and mornings' and rested on the 7th.

What part that I posted makes God a liar? You have a strange approach to commenting on my post. :( I didn't say anything wrong, but your assumption has concluded that I think God is lying. Please don't post that way around here.

RabbiKnife
Apr 16th 2009, 01:58 PM
I have read this entire thread since the beginning and for the life of my I don't have a clue as to what the point is.

keck553
Apr 16th 2009, 03:32 PM
Not so. The day was evening and morning. Where does it say that before the sun was even made that a day and was 24 hours? I'm not going to put a time line on the day before the timepiece was even created. Did you even read what I posted and consider God's word on the section before replying?

God made the heavens and the earth in six 'evening and mornings' and rested on the 7th.

What part that I posted makes God a liar? You have a strange approach to commenting on my post. :( I didn't say anything wrong, but your assumption has concluded that I think God is lying. Please don't post that way around here.

You don't need a man made device to understand how long a day is in genesis 1. God created all in 6 days and rested on the 7th and used that exact pattern in Exodus as a commandment. You can't have it both ways. I didn't say you lied. I said that if you don't believe Genesis is 6 literal days, then there is a conflict in Exodus that is unresolved. God doesn't need our understanding of the creation to function in it. Our knowledge is not above His.

Vhayes
Apr 16th 2009, 03:52 PM
I "think" what the original post was saying is this:

The Trinity is expressed in many ways - one way is the following:
The Father is the architect of our salvation
The Son is the builder of our salvation
The Holy Spirit is the maintainer of our salvation

Jesus was/is the active "arm" that did the work.

I may be wrong but that's what I got out of it.
V

keck553
Apr 16th 2009, 04:19 PM
When he was manifested in the flesh, he was in the form of a servant and his body was not glorified.

The verse does not state when that glory was diminished. I assume it was when he was manifested in the flesh.

I know that but He said 'since the creation', not 'since I was born'.


Can you tell me what Greek word your translation translated "alongside" from.

Whenever you find scripture that seems to be a deviance, you need to wait on the Lord to reveal it through other scripture. There are many things that seem to be a deviance, but are actually not. It is because of our lack of understanding.

That part of the Scripture isn't related to my point.



Jacob might have meant he met God, and realized his presents is everywhere. God places a shadow on the word that it is not easily discerned. It takes searching, and not with the mind, but with the heart.

So his hip was dislocated spiritually? hmmm.....although I agree there was also a spiritual 'wrestling' going on here


Eve. Where is the scripture that says God walked with Adam? Perhaps I missed it.

Gen 3:8
(8) They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
[/quote]


If you look at Genesis 3:8 you will see that Adam and Eve were walking in the Garden and heard the voice of God. This is significant in itself, because Jesus is the Word of God.

You just made my point. :)



It should be noted here that all the new translations that I checked have changed voice to sound in Genesis 3:8 and 3:10. You may say so what? What is most significant is in checking the NASB, they translate the same word to voice the next five times in a row in Genesis. Of the 506 times this word (gowl) appears in the NASB, they translated it voice 383 times.

Using Hebrew transliteration for the key words, the verse goes lile this:

kol = voice (from an unused hebrew root menaing 'to call aloud')
panai = face, front (from the hebrew root panah = to turn)
ruach = spirit, wind (from the hebrew root ruach - to smell, inhale)

"And they heard the kol of the LORD God walkiong in the garden in the ruach of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the panai of the LORD God among the trees of the garden - Gen 3:8

refer to Job 37:1-5 and see how it relates to this verse. Then refer to Psalms 29 and see it's relationship with this verse.

The 'voice', as you pointed out is very important. The Aramaic translations of Scirpture (called teh Targumim) of the 1st and 2nd century deal with this issue rather eloquently. Instead of avoiding it like the transaltions do, they insert yet another confusing term. The word the Targamim inserts for 'voice' is 'Memra" (word). You probably know it's Greek equal is "Logos", with all it's obvious Messianic implications.

So, God's creative voice is a manifestation of His being. His Words represent Himself. Man's sin has cut us off from teh Person of God and His abiding Presence, but God promised a Seed, which would come from woman and be bruised by satan and would crush satan's head. The Seed is obviously Jesus.

So, from this, is it possible that the "Voice" in the Garden was Messiah?

This is all I am trying to forward. And yes, God's Holy Spirit certainly can teach us with this, I agree!

God bless!

moonglow
Apr 16th 2009, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by RabbiKnife
No, there is absolutely no way that I can read Scripture and reach the conclusions that the Original Poster makes.

Jesus is completely separate and distinct from the Father and the Spirit in personhood while being one in essence.

This is a mystery, but Jesus is not a big right hand.


I believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate. Jesus is the Son that is doing the will of the Father because He loves him. When I was born again, I had pleaded for the Father to help me understand, and He sent His Son.

When I say Jesus is the arm of God it means no more than what Isaiah 53:1 means. So what does Isaiah 53:1 mean?

We are in a discussion of the Trinity which was never the intention of this thread. In fact I tend not to go there because my finite mind cannot begin to understand God.

This thread was about what the scripture says about the right hand and arm of God, and how it relates to Jesus. I say let the scripture speak for itself. The intent was never to go outside of scripture.

Terrell
tgallison...I think you confused alot of us with your first post because it did sound like you meant that Jesus was literally the arm and hand of God...then things got worse when you responded to a post saying you took everything in the bible literally...then used the 24 day in Genesis as an example.

So of course RabbiKnife and others are thinking you really mean that Jesus is literally and arm and hand...of God...only later then you go on to say you mean spiritually speaking...that should have been in your first post.

You need to clarify things a little bit there...maybe edit your first post because many times people only read it and respond only to it and don't see you explaining more later in the thread. Just an idea...

by the way...what is the test? your title says this is a test but I never saw any test...:confused

God bless

tgallison
Apr 16th 2009, 06:32 PM
[quote=moonglow;2046678]

You need to clarify things a little bit there...maybe edit your first post because many times people only read it and respond only to it and don't see you explaining more later in the thread. Just an idea...

by the way...what is the test? your title says this is a test but I never saw any test...:confused

Sorry I haven't replied to everybody in a timely manner. Family has been visiting from up North and my time has been limited.

The test is, can you see the relationship between the Father and the Son in regards to the right hand and arm.

The thread is intended to go deeper than that, but got sidetracked by some responses. I just assumed that everyone would understand that it was a spiritual relationship.

Sometimes I post things in haste and end up in trouble.

Working on some research for a couple of reply's but it is really getting involved.

Will have some reply's soon.

In Christ, Terrell

BroRog
Apr 16th 2009, 06:48 PM
He sits at the right hand of the Father - again, this is to denote His ruling position, not His literal "in space and time" position.

Hi, I don't mean to butt in, but I'm interested in what you said above and was wondering if you would like to elaborate more, perhaps in terms of the Greek notion of heaven?


Our mind is found within our soul. We have rational souls. But the mind operates with the brain.


Another interesting subject. :)

Would you like to speculate as to whether we retain our memories after our brain dies? Did you discuss this subject in any of your classes?

tgallison
Apr 16th 2009, 10:38 PM
I have read this entire thread since the beginning and for the life of my I don't have a clue as to what the point is.

RabbiKnife greetings

The intention of the thread was to show the relationship between the Father and the Son, in regards to the arm and right hand of God, and how other translations affect it.

The thread was derailed with the talk of a physical arm being attached to God, and the discussion of the Trinity which was never the intent of the thread.

The scripture in Isaiah 53 says that the arm of the Lord that was to be revealed was the Messiah.


There is more than 55 verses that refer to the hand and arm of God, and in the light of that it should deserve some examination. God only has to say something once for it to be established, but in reference to his right hand and arm there is so much, that one would understand that his intent had to be to enlighten us.

Jesus fulfills all of that which is attributed to the right hand and arm of God.

We see Jesus being positioned on the right hand of God (23) times in the New Testament, so it has to have some significance.

I have posted the following a number of times as he was a translator on the team of Westcott and Hort.

Dr. George Vance Smith--
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).
"The old reading [God in 1 Tim. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as `God manifested in the flesh'" (Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39).

What is ironic is that I agree with Smith in the translation rendering of (en) in Philippians 2:10. The preposition (en) could have been rendered “in” as well as “at”. I don’t agree with him, as to it changing the Deity of Christ.

What this does show is that changing a simple preposition can alter the meaning as well as the doctrine of scripture.

Has there been a change “at” the meaning or doctrine, with preposition changes? The “at” is a play on words regarding the rendering of the Greek “en”.

IMO there is an attempt by newer translations to put some distance between the Father and Son.

When you read that Jesus is seated on the right hand of God, most of us see a picture of two chairs, or at least one chair with Jesus sitting in the chair next to the father. That is of course not what the scripture is saying.

It is saying he is in the arms of the father. (KJV) “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18) The Greek word “kolpos” translates to the front between the arms, or bosom.

Before I go further we need to look at two translations in regards to this verse, the NIV and the NASB.

The NIV, “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. The NIV is going from, in the bosom, or father’s arms, to, at the Father’s side. Do you see the picture? “In bosom” versus “at side”.

The NASB, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” Now the NASB has in the bosom, though it is one of the few times it will use the word “in” in describing the relationship between the Father and Son, as will be shown later. What the NASB has done, is to change “he hath declared him” to “He has explained Him.” To explain something is to describe it in written or verbal form. This is the connotation of the NASB, but it limits the meaning of scripture as will be shown in the following verse.

KJV, “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” John 14:9

You see from the KJV you can understand that declared is not limited to verbal or written explanations, for the KJV uses the word declare in other verses that show that it describes the Spirit that declares God, as well as the heavens that declare God.

KJV, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (2 Corinthians 3:3)

KJV, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19:2) Notice that hand is in handywork.

When you read the KJV you can understand that declare means more than just speech, written or verbal, but when Jesus declared the Father, He did it in presence and Spirit, as well as speech. For he was God manifested in the flesh, and risen in the right hand of God.

You can say that the NASB supports the Deity of Christ in this verse, but it should be obvious that it lacks the clarity.

When you read the NASB you will find that “explained” means speech plus nothing, for it lacks the uniqueness of uniting scripture in various books of the Bible as seen in the KJV.

It should be seen that there is a digression from the KJV to the NASB to the NIV. While the NASB has its faults in this verse, the NIV removes Christ from the bosom of the Father and places him alongside.

I have not finished my reply to RabbiKnife and will not be able to reply to other posts until I have. Anyone is welcomed to post in the meantime.


Terrell

tgallison
Apr 18th 2009, 01:46 PM
I have read this entire thread since the beginning and for the life of my I don't have a clue as to what the point is.

Continued answer to Rabbiknife

Digression of the translations


Digression of the translations starts with a little preposition.

The ones that are being examined here are the prepositions (ek) and (en) in regards to the right hand of God.




Transliteration



ek

Pronunciation
ek (Key) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1537&t=KJV)
Part of Speech
preposition
Root Word (Etymology)
a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative
TDNT Reference


n/a (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1537&t=KJV)

Vines


View Entry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1537&t=KJV)

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) out of, from, by, away from
__________________________________________________ ______________________



Transliteration



en

Pronunciation
en (Key) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1722&t=KJV)
Part of Speech
preposition
Root Word (Etymology)
a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1519&t=KJV) and G1537 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1537&t=KJV))
TDNT Reference


2:537,233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1722&t=KJV)

Vines


View Entry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1722&t=KJV)

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) in, by, with etc.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

ek is a root word and denotes origin from which action proceeds.

en is a root word and denotes fixed position which relates to rest.

These prepositions have been altered from the CT translations without justification. Neither new manuscript findings, nor correction in grammar can account for the changes. What stands out in this study is that it puts space between the Son and the Father.

In this examination the KJV, the ASB, the NASB, and the NIV will be looked at.

Nineteen verses with right hand of God will be compared as to what translated word was used for “en” and “ek” in the placement of position with respect to Jesus and his Father

KJV---16 times the prepositions were translated “on”. 3 times they were translated “at”.
ASB---12 times the prepositions were translated “on”. 7 times they were translated “at”
NASB--19 times the prepositions were translated “at”.
NIV---19 times the prepositions were translated “at”

The NASB in the preface to their translation state that the ASB is highly regarded in its scholarship and accuracy, yet evidently not in regards to the prepositions “en” and “ek”.

I am in the path of righteousness.
I am on the path of righteousness.
I am at the path of righteous.

While “at” can mean the same as on or in, it can also mean near or by; while on, or in, cannot.
While the NASB is consistent in regards to placing “at” when the Father and the Son are concerned, look how they changed it when it did not relate to their connection.

The same preposition translated in by the NASB--New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/1.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. (Revelation 1:16)

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/2.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"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: (Rev 2:1)

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/10.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
and he had in his hand a little book which was open. He placed his right foot on the sea and his left on the land; (Revelation 10:2) The “on” that is found twice in this verse is the Greek preposition “epi” and does not carry the meaning of origin or abode.

The NASB consistently held to “at” in regard to the Father and Son, but in so doing, totally disregarded the highly respected translators of the ASB, as well as the actual meaning of the words. While “at” can mean in or on, it can also mean close to, or along side of, whereas, on or in cannot mean close to or along side of.

A comparison of how the NASB and the KJV translated these two prepositions en and ek in the first three chapters of John was done. It may not be completely typical since it only includes three chapters of John. It is a time consuming job since the prepositions occur over 2800 times in the New Testament.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

“en”

NASB--in the first three chapters of John “en” is found 27 times, of that, 24 times it was translated “in”, 2 times it was translated “among”, 1 time it was translated “at”, and 1 time it was omitted due to the phrase, which is in heaven- (Being omitted by the NASB, but added by the NIV.)

KJV----in the first three chapters of John “en” is found 28 times, of that, 23 times it was translated “in”, 2 times is was translated “among”, 1 time it was translated “at”, and 2 times it was translated “with”.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

“ek”

NASB--in the first three chapter of John “ek” is found 25 times, of that, 17 times it was translated “of”, 7 times it was translated “from”, and 1 time “without”.

KJV----in the first three chapters of John “ek” is found 25 times, of that, 17 times it was translated “of” 6 times it was translated “from”, 1 time “by” and 1 time “earthly”. (The KJV translated “ek” earthly, in place of, “of the earth”, which would have been a repeat of , of the earth.) The implication being, “of” was the implied word.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Both translations are quite consistent in these three chapters. Out of the 52 times the 2 Greek prepositions were found, “at” was used only 1 time.


This reply will be completed in the next post.
Terrell

tgallison
Apr 18th 2009, 07:12 PM
I have read this entire thread since the beginning and for the life of my I don't have a clue as to what the point is.

The completion of my post to you.

So what does it matter if the NASB changes the translated word on to at in every verse in the connection between the Father and the Son? It relates directly to the digression of the new translations.

You have the NASB opening the door for translations following it to replace Son in or on the hand of God, and placing Him alongside of the Father.

HOW DOES THIS?
New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him
__________________________________________________ ____________________
BECOME THIS?

International Standard Version (http://isv.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm) (©2008) (http://isv.org/)
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him

CEV No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

NLT No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.

Easy To Read Version No man has ever seen God. But the only Son (Jesus) is God. He is very close to the Father (God). And the Son has shown us what God is like.

Holman Christian Standard Bible®
1:18
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son -- the One who is at the Father's side -- He has revealed Him.

New Century Version
1:18
No one has ever seen God. But God the only Son is very close to the Father, R3 (http://www.studylight.org/par/view.cgi?query=John+1%3A18&section=0&l1=en&t1=hcs&l2=en&t2=ncv&Enter=Search#R3) and he has shown us what God is like.
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Keck553 presented this verse, and he didn’t say what translation it was from.

Joh 17:5
(5) Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed.

Compare to the NASB

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/john/17.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Does it matter whether Jesus is in the arms of the Father, or that he is alongside. If Jesus’s abode is in the arms of the Father, then it makes sense that He is the right hand and arm of God, as presented from the Scripture in the Old Testament.

The test is to see if you can see Jesus as the spiritual working right hand and arms of God from the scripture presented.

In Jesus Christ, Terrell

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77