63 Comments
  1. Dr. Brown has once again done a fine job defending fundamental scriptural truths. I hope and pray the day will come when Sir Anthony receives the Jewish Messiah in His fulness.

    On another note, I look forward to Dr. Brown’s upcoming debate with Bart Ehrman, which should be quite interesting.

  2. Dr Brown

    The Son of God does not become incarnate, according to your views?

    This debate ultimately boils down to this statement. Are we to believe that some preexistent, “God the Son” or “God the Word [logos]” literally transformed [became] into a human being? Or does the NT account describe the incarnation of God Himself?

    Are you familiar with the term “Conception Christology”? If so, would you agree this is what the Mattean [1.1-18], Lukan [1.30-40] and [to some extent] the Johannine account [1.1-18; 1Jn 1.1-5] seem to be describing?

    Note R.E. Brown’s comments regarding the inability of trinitarians to understand the biblical evidence of the NT scriptures in light of the later, Gentile/Catholic [Iraeneus, Ignatius, Martyr, etc.] interpretation:

    Precreational Preexistence. Incarnation means that at his human conception the Son of God did not come into existence[1]; rather he was a previously existing agent in the divine sphere who took on flesh in the womb of Mary. Technically incarnation does not tell us whether this agent was created (as were the angels who exist in the divine sphere) or existed with God before any creation. A fortiori, it does not tell us whether the agent was God or equal to God

    many scholars, influenced by the Prologue to John’s Gospel where the Word who becomes flesh does exist before creation, join the two ideas.

    Footnote

    [1]We do not know how Matt and Luke understood the conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit without a human father. For them was that the becoming of God’s Son? The “therefore” in Luke 1:35 (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the one to be born will be called holy, Son of God”) could be interpreted to point in that direction[?!]. One may not simply assume that Matt or Luke thought in a Johannine incarnation pattern. Although some scholars think Luke knew John’s Gospel, that is far from certain; and John never mentions the conception of Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110) is the first one known to have put together conception and incarnation Christology, for he refers to both Jesus as God’s Word and the birth from a virgin (Magnesians 8:2; Smyrnaeans 1:1).

  3. Dr Brown

    I can’t imagine that anyone, reading Ps 102 in its original context, reading it in Hebrew or Greek, would ever dream that it is speaking of a future creation as opposed to [the the Genesis creation]…

    Most of the biblical commentaries I have looked through say exactly the opposite of what your suggesting here, that this [and many other Messianic Psalms, as you rightly said] refer to the future age to come of Zion and its inhabitants [perhaps Millenial Kingdom?], and not to the Genesis creation. As per the following from the ESV Study Bible

    Ps. 102:18–22 Let Them Always Remember This in Zion. This section further develops the previous section’s reflections on Zion’s future. The days of Zion’s glory lie in the future, in the time of a generation to come (v. 18), who will need this record of God’s promises and faithfulness to his people of all eras. In particular, the psalm allows the singers to see their present troubles, along with God’s help, as a contribution to the praises to be offered in the future.

    The time will come when God’s people will reflect on how God looked down . . . to hear (a past event to them, though still future to the singers!) and lift their voices to declare in Zion the name of the Lord; apparently the Gentiles will also celebrate (cf. v. 15).

  4. Dr Brown

    The other verses which seem clearly to speak of Jesus as “our God and Saviour”…the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour…

    Again, the majority modern biblical concensus [based on the textual evidence helped by modern technology] disagrees with this overstatement:

    The New Testament writers similarly are insistent about the absolute oneness of God and show no tendency to describe Jesus in terms of divinity: the few apparent exceptions are either grammatically or textually uncertain or have an explanation which…brings them within the constraint of Jewish monotheism.

    It was not until the new religion had spread well beyond the confines of its parent Judaism that it became possible to break the constraint and describe Jesus as divine; and it is significant that Jewish Christian churches continued to exist for at least a century which refused to take this step. Jesus and the Constraints of History: The Bampton Lectures, A. E. Harvey, 1980.

  5. Although the debate was way too brilliant for a simple mind like mine. And I could no way match you guys knowledge of scriptures, I could not help the thought from coming to mind… deny the trinity lose your soul explain it lose your mind … was it not the mind that the enemy first corrupted with the tree of knowledge, I am not smart enough to defeat the liar but I believe and now know that Jesus is. By the Faith of Christ I believe (Gal.2:20) this. 1Cr 1:17-21 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
    For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    Where [is] the wise? Where [is] the scribe? Where [is] the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe./ .. Even the writers of the Shema ~ Praying for and loving you both.

  6. tom

    was it not the mind that the enemy first corrupted with the tree of knowledge…

    You are right in part since the text suggests that there was deception involved on the part of “the snake” [the Devil]. But more importantly, the “sin factor” is grounded in disobedience and temptation [absolute power corrupts absolutely]. This mantra is clearly defined by Paul in his comparisons of the Two Adams in 1Cor 15.40f. [cp. Phil 2.1-11].

    Remember also that the true biblical faith [which in turn sets apart the true religion] is marked by understanding! As per the example of the Jewish Bereans in the book of Acts 17.10-12:

    Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of them believed…

  7. Chuck,

    I’m certainly not going to rehash everything that was discussed in the previous threads, and I could easily challenge everything you’ve posted here, but I’ll simply give you one challenge:

    Please provide me with comments from leading scholars on the Psalms and from leading commentaries that vv. 25-26 of Psalm 102 are referring to the new heavens and the new earth as opposed to the present heavens and earth. Your statement is 100% inaccurate, as scores of scholars and commentators would indicate, but I leave it to you just to provide me with your first ten that agree with Sir Anthony’s position.

    Since I won’t be able to follow the full discussion there, once you find your ten top Psalms scholars who interpret Ps 102:25-26 with reference to the new heavens and new earth, drop me a note through my website as well. This way I will be sure not to miss your note.

    In the event that the present heavens and earth wear out before you find those comments, I will not be surprised. 🙂

  8. I think that one text defeats the position that jesus was not the eternal G-D, and that is John 8:28 when jesus himself says before abraham was I AM. This harmonizes with the exodus chapter 3, whjere moses ask G-D name and gets G-D to say His name and that is I AM. I dont jnow why didnt Dr. Brown brought this point up???????????/

  9. Dr Brown

    Please provide me with comments from leading scholars on the Psalms and from leading commentaries that vv. 25-26 of Psalm 102 are referring to the new heavens and the new earth as opposed to the present heavens and earth.

    Again, from the ESV Study Bible:

    Ps. 102:25–27 Hebrews 1:10–12 cites these verses from the Greek Septuagint, which is very close to the Hebrew. Because the book of Hebrews applies the words to Jesus, some interpreters think of this passage as “messianic.”

    If anything, they are divided. Some see it as you do where the “NT authors call Jesus ‘Lord’ (Gk. Kyrios, the lxx rendering of Yahweh)”. Yet you agree that Jesus is not to be absolutely identified as YHWH?? So who is [or was?] he?

    But I digress, if it is as you say, then Jesus is explicitly identified [in the absolute sense] as YHWH Himself in Heb 1.10. And not in some “secondary sense”, as you suggested. That would make 2 YHWHs which would definitley bring all of the present heavens and earth come crashing down!!

    luis

    So everytime anyone says “I AM” in the NT they are saying the Divine Name? Or is this only applicable to Jesus? If so why, when all ego eimi means is a general statement regarding the person?

    BTW the OT was not written in English or any other language apart from Hebrew, where a proper translation of the Divine Name would be “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE”!

  10. Dr. Brown, I really didn’t see the “gloves off” approach that you spoke of in a previous show when it would come to “round two” with sir Anthony Buzzard. And I would like to take a view exceptions with sir Anthony Buzzard’s views. Let’s start with 2 Peter 1:1 where sir Buzzard claimed that it is ambiguous. I really fail to see how this construction is ambiguous. Whenever this construction is used it is used of a singular entity as far as I can see. If we look at verse 11 of 2 Peter 1 we see the same construction. Let’s put them back to back and see how this identical construction is taken to mean two different things when it doesn’t suit the Unitarians:

    2 Peter 1:1 “τοῦ ΘΕΟῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” (tou THEOU hemon kai soteros, Iesou Kristou)
    2 Peter 1:11 “τοῦ ΚΥΡίΟΥ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”(tou KURIOU hemon kai soteros, Iesou Kristou)

    The very same words and the very same construction but yet it is said that the first verse doesn’t have anything to do with Yeshua as “tou Theou emon”, yet Yeshua is “tou Kuriou emon” in verse 11. I find this amazing reasoning! If Yeshua is “our Lord and Savior” in verse 11, then the very same construction in verse 1 demands that he is “our God and Savior” in verse 1. The only thing that will keep someone from reading it this way is the preconceived notion that Yeshua cannot be “our God” in any way shape or form and therefore he cannot be referred to as such. But this is merely circular reasoning: Because I can’t allow Yeshua to be YHWH, I will not allow the text to say just that!

    Then sir Buzzard said that Yeshua never identified himself as YHWH. I surely would disagree. In Matthew 21:14-16, after the children praise him and the scribes object to that praise, telling Yeshua to rebuke the children, Yeshua refuses to do just that and justifies the praise he gets from those children with a quote from Psalm 8:2. There, it is said that YHWH has ordained strength/praise from the mouth of Children for himself. Yet Yeshua says that this verse applies to him, therefore equating himself with YHWH.

    Then sir Buzzard said that in Psalm 102 it is talking about a future creation. I fail to see how this is about a future creation, even though sir Buzzard did so on the basis of verse 18. This reading of that Psalm is quite a stretch. Let’s look at the verses:

    16 For the LORD will rebuild Zion and appear in his glory. 17 He will respond to the prayer of the destitute; he will not despise their plea. 18 Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the LORD : 19 “The LORD looked down from his sanctuary on high, from heaven he viewed the earth, 20 to hear the groans of the prisoners and release those condemned to death.” 21 So the name of the LORD will be declared in Zion and his praise in Jerusalem 22 when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the LORD. 23 In the course of my life he broke my strength; he cut short my days. 24 So I said: “Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations. 25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

    All these verses are saying, including verse 18, is that things should be written for future generations, but this applies to this generation at the time of the Psalm also. This has nothing to do with a specific creation in the future. This is clear from verse 23 and 24, which speak about the Psalmist himself and points back to the beginning of the creations. Unless you are going to hold that the new heavens and earth will be the work of the hands of Yeshua, this means that he will be the creator of the New Heavens and Earth. Yet this will mean that the previous heavens and earth (that we know now) will cease to exist and the work of the hands of YHWH, the Father, will cease to exist, only to make room for the work of the Son. I really don’t see how sir Buzzard’s reading of these passages in either Hebrews 1 or Psalm 102 supports his case at all.

    Then, what I missed in this entire exchange is John 12:39-41 where Yeshua is clearly being identified as YHWH. Let’s look as this scripture also:

    39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” 41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

    How can this be Yeshua’s glory without him being YHWH, when Isaiah said that the only glory he saw was that of YHWH? How can John say that Isaiah saw the glory of Yeshua if he didn’t exist prior to his walk on earth? These points should be stressed and Unitarians should really come with solid answers to these scriptures.

    Then John 1 was addressed also. Sir Buzzard is very vague on the identity of the word. He seems to shift between the Word being an “it” and on the other hand he argues the Word becoming Yeshua. So an “it” became a “he”. But on the same token, sir Buzzard argues that God cannot be viewed as an “it” because he is always a “he”. How can an “it” become a “he” but at the same time a “he” cannot be viewed as an “it“? Sir Buzzard went on to say that the Word became flesh in Yeshua. I fail to see how the eternal Word became Yeshua, i.e. changed identity, without Yeshua always having been the Word in the first place. If the Word is Yeshua, then Yeshua must be the Word. You cannot separate the one from the other. Especially in light of Philippians 2:5-8 and Colossians 1:15-17. If everything came into being through the Word and nothing was made without the Word, as per John 1:1-3, yet the very same things are spoken about Yeshua (NOT the Word) in Colossians 1:15-17 and Philippians 2:5-8, then how can Yeshua and the Word NOT be one and the same?

    15 Yeshua is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Yeshua all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Yeshua and for Yeshua. 17 Yeshua is before all things, and in Yeshua all things hold together. 18 And Yeshua is the head of the body, the church; Yeshua is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything Yeshua might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in Yeshua, 20 and through Yeshua to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through Yeshua’s blood, shed on the cross. (Col 1)

    Note once again, that this is NOT about the Word. You are going to have to do a lot of theological gymnastics to either not acknowledge the pre-existence of Yeshua, or to not see that what is said about Yeshua is also said about the Word. So that you have the Word creating everything and Yeshua creating everything too, without pre-existing. Notice how Paul starts “by him all things WERE created”. What’s even more. How can someone who “existed in the form of God… empty himself” BEFORE he came in the form of a human being, without pre-existing as per Philippians 2:5-8?

    Then sir Buzzard always mentions the “my YHWH” argument. I don’t think sir Buzzard really grasps the argument at hand. When someone says “my Lord” or “my Kurios” it doesn’t have to be “my YHWH”. Sir Buzzard made this mistake in the debate with Dr James White as well and I’m surprised that sir Buzzard hasn’t been corrected on his misunderstanding. It is not a case for “my YHWH” as it is the case for “Adonai” instead of just “Adoni” that is being made. It has been pointed out that the reading of texts such as Psalm 110:1 can easily be “YHWH said to Adonai” instead of “YHWH said to Adoni”. Dr James White made the case that the punctuation in the Hebrew text was made by the Jewish scribes and could as easily have been made as a result of Jewish-Christian polemics seeing that the words “Adonai” and “adoni” without the vowel marks are identical in the Hebrew text. In light of the constant reminder of people like sir Buzzard that the word “Adonai” is always used for YHWH and “adoni” is always used for the profane, this point made by Dr James White is well taken. For without the vowel marks both the readings “Adonai” and “Adoni” are valid readings and both are translated into Greek as “Kurios mou”. Thus this argument also goes for John 20:28 where the “my YHWH” argument is used again by sir Buzzard. What if Thomas actually said “Adonai weElohai” (Hebrew for “my Lord and my God)? The word “Adonai” here would be “ho Kurios mou”, exactly as Thomas says it in regards to Yeshua.

    Then the reading of Revelation of sir Buzzard is also very problematic. This is the bottom line: If Yeshua is NOT God then what happens in Revelation 5 is sheer idolatry! Plain and simple. Doesn’t matter if the word “latria” is not used in reference to Yeshua elsewhere. In fact, it is not used here at all. The word “proskuneo” is used here. What’s more, in the LXX translation of Daniel 7, the Son of Man is referred to as receiving “latria” from the nations forever. So I don’t even know why sir Buzzard even raised this argument. The question becomes “what is the difference between the “praise” that “He that sits on the throne” gets and that which “the Lamb” gets? If there any difference, then please show us where that difference is, where the Father receives worship yet the Son doesn’t. If there is no difference and you are going to claim that they both receive worship, yet don’t think that you can ascribe Deity to the Son, then this is nothing less than idolatry. To claim that in heaven there is mass idolatry being practiced is such a blasphemous statement that I can’t even begin to describe it. Furthermore, notice how John divides the two categories:

    One category is that of the Creator and the worshipped
    One category is that of the created and the worshippers

    Note that John says “Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb”. And with that he places the Lamb in the camp of the CREATOR AND WORSHIPPED, and not in the camp of the created and the worshippers.

    Although there is so much more that can be said about these points, I refrain from flooding the comment section. (insofar I haven’t done that already)

    Shalom,
    Nakdimon

  11. Chuck I think that you are exaggerating your case. You often say that “the majority of modern biblical concensus” disagrees with Dr Brown. I think it is the exact opposite. The translations show a shift to conservative scholarship and therefore conservative readings, and a move away from the liberal scholarship that has tainted the reading of the NT for too long. But be that as it may, you mention a “majority” of scholars, yet you only quote the opinion of one scholar that happens to seem to agree with you. I have seen many scholarly works being quoted to say what the author of the quote never meant to say and actually doesnt even say when the quote is placed in its original context. So I don’t mind your quotes too much.

  12. Nakdimon

    Your suggestion of 2 Who are God and YHWH contradicts the most important commandment of all, which says there is Only One Who is YHWH [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29].

    I have seen many scholarly works being quoted to say what the author of the quote never meant to say and actually doesnt even say when the quote is placed in its original context.

    Have you noticed how mose of these evenagelical scholars say one thing but then contradict their very own conclusions?

    R.E. Brown’s quote is indicative of this when he says things like “We do not know how Matt and Luke understood the conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit without a human father.” Yet the text very clearly describes how Jesus “came into existence” in the womb of a young Jewish virgin by the power of God’s spirit!

    To this he asks: “…was that the becoming of God’s Son?”

    It baffles the mind how they can very clearly teach that Messiah means “the Annointed One of God” yet that same personage is God?!

    Or that “Son of God” is a Messianic title [designating a being of the human race] yet it connotes Deity?!

  13. Chuck,

    You can’t be serious with the ESV Study Bible citation. Of course the passage is taken as Messianic — because Hebrews 1 quotes the LXX to say that the Messiah, the Son of God, was there at the creation of the world (“in the beginning”). That’s the whole point. It does NOT say the text refers to a FUTURE creation of a new heavens and earth. Are you actually missing the point of the argument that severely?

    Anyway, I’ll not reply to your other posts until you actually find the citations you claim are there in abundance. So far, if you’ll look at everything written in the sources you quoted, you’ll find that they say the exact opposite of what you’re trying to claim.

  14. Nakdimon,

    Well, we took the gloves off as much as possible while maintaining a Christian tone and spirit and within the parameters of a live radio show with breaks.

    As for the lack of ambiguity on some of the points that Sir Anthony claimed were ambiguous — like the 2 Pet 1 citation — of course you’re right. Unless there was a compelling theological reason to translate the text differently, the grammar is quite straightforward and used for one and the same person commonly in the related texts.

    Thanks!

  15. Chuch, you wrote.

    “Nakdimon,
    Your suggestion of 2 Who are God and YHWH contradicts the most important commandment of all, which says there is Only One Who is YHWH [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29]. “

    Reply:
    The quotes that you provided don’t say that “there is Only One Who is YHWH”. They say that YHWH is one and that we should love him above anything else. (Note that Yeshua explicitly demands the same love as one should have to the Father in Matthew 10:37-38) How YHWH is one is subject to debate. And I have already shown that, per John 12 and Matthew 21, that Yeshua and the Apostles identify Yeshua as YHWH. In addition, I would love to get into the Tanach with you, starting with the Torah, of course, and deal with specific passages that clearly show that there is not only one that is YHWH. Just give me a holler if you want to go there.

    Peace,
    Nakdimon

  16. Chuch, you wrote.

    “Have you noticed how mose of these evenagelical scholars say one thing but then contradict their very own conclusions? “

    Reply:
    Chuck, I don’t think they contradict their very own conclusions as much as it is you may misunderstand their argumentation. I have been engaging with Muslims for the past few years now, after having been on Jewish anti-missionary forums for years prior to that, and they seem to have the same problem understanding Trinitarian scholars. It too often occurs that the scholar is quoted in the very middle of his argumentation, which might cause the confusion. My conclusion is that it becomes a matter of reading the scholar carefully and subjecting the method of argumentation to the conclusion that the scholar comes to.

    Peace,
    Nakdimon

  17. Dr Brown

    Hebrews 1 quotes the LXX to say that the Messiah, the Son of God, was there at the creation of the world (”in the beginning”).

    The LXX quote suggests that the second kyrie [the “supplicant, petitioner”] is the one who in the future will “lay the foundations of the [new] heavens and earth”! There is nothing to suggest preexistence here or that this second kyrie was the YHWH of the Genesis creation, since that would introduce 2 Who are YHWH!

    If this is true then the opening of the whole chapter does not make sense, where it says that in the past the Son of God was not there since God instead spoke through His prophets!

    The view of the whole Psalm is of a future, Messianic age where a new created people [symbolic of the Christian church, Ps 22.31] will be called to Zion! Surely you cannot ignore this fact, therefore, not ignore the LXX meaning behind vv. 25-26?!

    He [Kyrie, Yahweh God] answered him [kyrie, the petitioner] in the way of his strength, ‘Proclaim the eminence [lit. “fewness”] of my days.

    This suggests that in the OT period Jews would consider passages like this as granting divine activity or privileges to the human king of Israel. For instance, Psalm 45:1, 9 seems to refer to one of Israel’s monarchs (Solomon perhaps?) at one of his weddings (cf. 1 Kings 11:1-8), yet he is called God in possession of an eternal throne (45:6).

    Or as Anthony keeps suggesting, Psalm 110:1 where the LXX has:

    Eipen ho Kyrios tw kyriw…the LORD [YHWH in the MT] spoke to my lord [adoni]

    Suggesting that YHWH invites the Davidic king [Messiah Jesus of the NT] to sit next to him in heaven.

    There is no textual problem [discrepancy] between the LXX and the MT there (or in Psalm 45), and
    one would think that a Jewish scribe or reader would
    have had no difficulty with the text as it stood, even
    though it did ascribe divine activity to the king
    .

    WHY DO YOU?! [In your debate you say you simply cannot accept that the one who is at the righ hand of power is “just a glorified human being”. Just? I do not know about you but I personally have never heard of or even met a glorified human being like Jesus!]

    The Psalm…further speaks of the future of the creation when all will be changed (Psalm 102.26a), revealing that it will be the Son’s resurrected words that will bring about that change when there will be the new heavens and the new earth (Psalm 102.26b)…[the Son] in the future would recreate all things…the Father looks forward to the future work that Messiah would perform [Psalm 102.25-27]… Recognizing Messiah in the Psalms, Bernard E. Northrup, p 67.

    Ps 102:1-28. A Prayer of the afflicted…descriptive of future times. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

    The earth as we know it is spoiled and awaits renewal. Several biblical writers use the image of garments as an image of transience in their prophecies about the earth’s future (Ps 102.25-26; Is 51.6). The writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 102 Dictionary of biblical imagery, Leland Ryken, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas Penney, Daniel G. Reid, p 224.

    The present heavens and earth will be replaced with a new heaven and earth…This is based in part on Psalm 102.25-26The Role of the Spirit in the World and Life, Otis L. Fisher, p 144.

    The reference here [Psalm 102] of course is to the transformation of the heavens and earth which will occur after the MillenniumThe Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament edition, John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, p 782.

    …these verses originally expressed the creative power of God and his permanence as against the transient creation. The LXX [Septuagint translation], however, introduces the vocative kurie, ‘Lord,’ which permits our author to apply the words to the
    Son…the writer is clear that one of the divine functions of the Son was that of being the agent of Creation. This quotation is a graphic way of stating the eternity of the Son’s dominion… The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume XI, p. 607.

    The words in which the psalmist addresses God, however, are here applied to the Son, as clearly as the words of Ps.45:6f. were applied to him in vv.8 and 9. What justification can be pleaded for our author’s applying them thus?

    First, as he has already said in v. 2. It was through the Son that the universe was made. The angels were but worshipping spectators when the earth was founded (Job 38:7), but the Son was the Father’s agent in the work. He therefore could be understood as the one who is addressed in the words:

    Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands.

    Moreover, in the Septuagint text the person to whom these words are spoken is addressed explicitly as ‘Lord’ (‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth’): and it is God who addresses him as thus…

    But to whom (a Christian reader of the Septuagint might well ask) could God speak in words like these? And whom would God himself address as ‘Lord,’ as the maker of earth and heaven?

    Our author knows one person only to whom such terms could be appropriate, and that is the Son of God. The Book of Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 62-63.

    Nakdimon

    How YHWH is one is subject to debate.

    The patriarchs would certainly disagree with this non-sensical statement. I repeat my question, are you suggesting that there are more than 1 YHWH then? If so, please show me from the Tanach that this is so.

    I have been engaging with Muslims for the past few years now, after having been on Jewish anti-missionary forums for years prior to that, and they seem to have the same problem understanding Trinitarian scholars.

    You don’t?! Well, you got one on me.

    When scholars tell their readers that “God [the Father] is the only true God…affirmed supremely in Deut. 6:4 (cf. John 5:44; 1 John 5:20)”, yet that same “One God consists of more than one person…the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” since the Gospel of “John refers to two different persons as ‘God’ [John 1.1]”, it is hard not to disagree simply on the fallacy and non-sensical use of language!

  18. REBOOT

    Dr Brown

    Hebrews 1 quotes the LXX to say that the Messiah, the Son of God, was there at the creation of the world (”in the beginning”).

    The LXX quote suggests that the second kyrie [the “supplicant, petitioner”] is the one who in the future will “lay the foundations of the [new] heavens and earth”! There is nothing to suggest preexistence here or that this second kyrie was the YHWH of the Genesis creation, since that would introduce 2 Who are YHWH!

    If this is true then the opening of the whole chapter does not make sense, where it says that in the past the Son of God was not there since God instead spoke through His prophets!

    The view of the whole Psalm is of a future, Messianic age where a new created people [symbolic of the Christian church, Ps 22.31] will be called to Zion! Surely you cannot ignore this fact, therefore, not ignore the LXX meaning behind vv. 25-26?!

    He [Kyrie, Yahweh God] answered him [kyrie, the petitioner] in the way of his strength, ‘Proclaim the eminence [lit. “fewness”] of my days.

    This suggests that in the OT period Jews would consider passages like this as granting divine activity or privileges to the human king of Israel. For instance, Psalm 45:1, 9 seems to refer to one of Israel’s monarchs (Solomon perhaps?) at one of his weddings (cf. 1 Kings 11:1-8), yet he is called God in possession of an eternal throne (45:6).

    Or as Anthony keeps suggesting, Psalm 110:1 where the LXX has:

    Eipen ho Kyrios tw kyriw…the LORD [YHWH in the MT] spoke to my lord [adoni]

    Suggesting that YHWH invites the Davidic king [Messiah Jesus of the NT] to sit next to him in heaven.

    There is no textual problem [discrepancy] between the LXX and the MT there (or in Psalm 45), and
    one would think that a Jewish scribe or reader would
    have had no difficulty with the text as it stood, even
    though it did ascribe divine activity to the king
    .

    WHY DO YOU?! [In your debate you say you simply cannot accept that the one who is at the righ hand of power is “just a glorified human being”. Just? I do not know about you but I personally have never heard of or even met a glorified human being like Jesus!]

    The Psalm…further speaks of the future of the creation when all will be changed (Psalm 102.26a), revealing that it will be the Son’s resurrected words that will bring about that change when there will be the new heavens and the new earth (Psalm 102.26b)…[the Son] in the future would recreate all things…the Father looks forward to the future work that Messiah would perform [Psalm 102.25-27]… Recognizing Messiah in the Psalms, Bernard E. Northrup, p 67.

    Ps 102:1-28. A Prayer of the afflicted…descriptive of future times. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

    The earth as we know it is spoiled and awaits renewal. Several biblical writers use the image of garments as an image of transience in their prophecies about the earth’s future (Ps 102.25-26; Is 51.6). The writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 102 Dictionary of biblical imagery, Leland Ryken, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas Penney, Daniel G. Reid, p 224.

    The present heavens and earth will be replaced with a new heaven and earth…This is based in part on Psalm 102.25-26The Role of the Spirit in the World and Life, Otis L. Fisher, p 144.

    The reference here [Psalm 102] of course is to the transformation of the heavens and earth which will occur after the MillenniumThe Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament edition, John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, p 782.

    …these verses originally expressed the creative power of God and his permanence as against the transient creation. The LXX [Septuagint translation], however, introduces the vocative kurie, ‘Lord,’ which permits our author to apply the words to the
    Son…the writer is clear that one of the divine functions of the Son was that of being the agent of Creation. This quotation is a graphic way of stating the eternity of the Son’s dominion… The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume XI, p. 607.

    The words in which the psalmist addresses God, however, are here applied to the Son, as clearly as the words of Ps.45:6f. were applied to him in vv.8 and 9. What justification can be pleaded for our author’s applying them thus?

    First, as he has already said in v. 2. It was through the Son that the universe was made. The angels were but worshipping spectators when the earth was founded (Job 38:7), but the Son was the Father’s agent in the work. He therefore could be understood as the one who is addressed in the words:

    Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands.

    Moreover, in the Septuagint text the person to whom these words are spoken is addressed explicitly as ‘Lord’ (‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth’): and it is God who addresses him as thus…

    But to whom (a Christian reader of the Septuagint might well ask) could God speak in words like these? And whom would God himself address as ‘Lord,’ as the maker of earth and heaven?

    Our author knows one person only to whom such terms could be appropriate, and that is the Son of God. The Book of Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 62-63.

    Nakdimon

    How YHWH is one is subject to debate.

    The patriarchs would certainly disagree with this non-sensical statement. I repeat my question, are you suggesting that there are more than 1 YHWH then? If so, please show me from the Tanach that this is so.

    I have been engaging with Muslims for the past few years now, after having been on Jewish anti-missionary forums for years prior to that, and they seem to have the same problem understanding Trinitarian scholars.

    You don’t?! Well, you got one on me.

    When scholars tell their readers that “God [the Father] is the only true God…affirmed supremely in Deut. 6:4 (cf. John 5:44; 1 John 5:20)”, yet that same “One God consists of more than one person…the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” since the Gospel of “John refers to two different persons as ‘God’ [John 1.1]”, it is hard not to disagree simply on the fallacy and non-sensical use of language!

  19. Chuck,

    I really can’t be taking the time to swing at the air, but for the sake of other readers, I will respond very briefly to your post. Do you not realize that the quotes you supply support the very point I was making? That the pre-existent Son of God was present at creation? And, in the future, this present heaven and earth — not some future, still to be created heaven and earth — will waste way, but the Son will remain?

    It boggles my mind that you can quote commentators that support the very point I’m making and yet you misread them so radically that you think they’re supporting your point. And the LXX is quite clear: This was the creation “at the beginning” — the Genesis 1 creation, not some future creation — and this present creation will eventually wear out. Not so the eternal Son!

    You are free to keep posting, but I will really do my very best not to respond even if you keep posting citations that support the point I have been making. The truth-seeking reader will clearly see that you have done the opposite of prove your point. But I will repeat: It is quite troubling to me that you cite comments that support the point I’m making yet misread them sufficiently to think they support yours.

  20. Dr Brown

    You challenged me to provide quotes where others interpret the LXX Ps 102.25-27 citation as referring to “the world to come of which we are speaking” [Heb 2.5]. Yet you have totally subverted this simple fact by saying that I have somehow misinterpreted what these commentaries say.

    It is clear from these and other passages [Ps 45.6; Isa 51.16, NAS] that the OT writers grant a divine “co-creational” activity and privileges to the human king of Israel. Forshadowing of course the future coming of the prophesied Messiah, who seems to be literally given such a role in the restoration of all things.

    What “boggles my mind” [and that of many others, I am sure] is your insistence that the Son is somehow absolutely identified as the YHWH of the Genesis creation here. Yet you said that Jesus is YHWH only in a “secondary sense”? Which is it?

    Again I ask, if your exegesis is correct, then how many YHWHs are we talking about here? YHWH is “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit”?

    I hope that the “truth-seeking reader” will keep asking the right questions we as Christians should be asking. And not just take “Doctors of theology” and “language experts” at their word. Since the mark of a good bible student is to always keep “searching and examining the scriptures to see if these things are true”.

    Also, I am very troubled why an exalted, glorified human being is not a sufficient enough figure for orthodox Christianity, when he clearly is for the writers of the Bible and the early Christian community who “worshipped” him as such: the human lord Messiah and not YHWH, LORD God Almighty:

    Therefore let the whole house of Israel recognize beyond all doubt and acknowledge assuredly that God has made him both lord and Christ (the Messiah)–this Jesus whom you crucified. Acts 2.36

    PS: I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my posts, even if its only to try and subvert all the evidence I am providing you. 🙂

  21. For anyone who agrees with Dr. Brown’s position on Heb 1.10, Jesus is the creator of Genesis, why isn’t this recorded by the Synoptics?

    But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female [Gen 1.27; 5.2]. Mar 10.6

    For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. Mar 13.19

    Jesus answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female? Mat 19.4

    For those who believe that the triune God revealed His true nature only later in history, and not at first, does this mean all of the patriarchs never really knew their God and Creator?

    And does it mean everytime the NT writers refer to “God” with single personal nouns and pronouns, their really saying “the One God in 3 persons”?

  22. Chuck wrote:
    “The patriarchs would certainly disagree with this non-sensical statement. I repeat my question, are you suggesting that there are more than 1 YHWH then? If so, please show me from the Tanach that this is so.”

    I don’t think the Patriarchs would disagree with me. See, I believe in the fullness of scripture. Somehow the orthodox Jews, who claim that are the true successors of the beliefs of the Patriarchs, don’t believe the entirety of the Tanach. For example, those that hold to the teaching that YHWH is absolute ONE cannot account for some of the Theophanies in the Tanach, of which the most are in the Torah. Traditional Judaism, as well as Karaite Judaism, believes that God has no form, yet the scriptures say otherwise! (Exodus 24:1-11) They say God cannot appear in human form, the Scriptures say otherwise! (Genesis 18, Genesis 32:30, Judges 13:20-22)

    They cannot account for these passages. Why in the world would the Patriarchs say they saw God if they either believed that God has no form or that God cannot appear in human form? If this is your strong belief, then how on earth can you identify any form you see as either God or the God of Israel? For how many Gods does Israel have? Just one, right? Well, if no one can see God’s face and live, according to Moses in Exodus 33:20, and since no one has seen God at any time, according to John 1:18, yet people have been reported to have seen God, as per the theophanies in the Torah and the Prophets, then there are only two options:

    Either one of the sources are lying,
    Or there is a complexity to God’s Oneness!

    Since the first proposition is not an option, then that leaves the second proposition wide open.

    But since you don’t think that God can be complex in His unity, then I guess that the Tanach is just as “confusing” as those Trinitarian scholars.

    Peace,
    Nakdimon

  23. Chuck wrote:
    “For anyone who agrees with Dr. Brown’s position on Heb 1.10, Jesus is the creator of Genesis, why isn’t this recorded by the Synoptics?”

    chuck that is like saying “why do we believe in an afterlive or a world to come? The Torah didnt say a word about this so therefore it is an invalid belief, eventhough it was penned down later.”

  24. Nakdimon

    Somehow the orthodox Jews, who claim that are the true successors of the beliefs of the Patriarchs, don’t believe the entirety of the Tanach.

    True, like any other religious group there are differences in practices and certain beliefs. But you cannot tell me that the people of Israel described in the Tanach had differing views when it came to how many YHWH was!

    Jews recognized YHWH’s appearances through His angelic host. As Stephen himself attests to in Acts 7.30-34. Where do you get that the Jews did not belief in the biblical precedent of theophanies, angelology or divine angency? Have you heard of the Jewish law called Shaliach?

    The angels mediate between God and man. They carry the prayers up to the throne of God (Tobit, xii. 12, 15; Baruch Apoc., Greek, xi.). According to Ex. R. xxi., an angel set over the prayers weaves them into crowns for the Most High. Angels intercede for those who dwell on earth (Enoch, xl. 6; compare Job, xxxiii. 23)… Jewish Encyclopedia

    The patriarchs never attributed to YHWH any type of “complex unity” or “plurality of persons within the Godhead” etc. Why? Because the God of Israel keeps referring Himself in personal singular pronouns!

    why do we believe in an afterlive or a world to come? The Torah didnt say a word about this so therefore it is an invalid belief…

    The Torah speaks of several noteworthy people being “gathered to their people.” See, for example, Gen. 25:8 (Abraham), 25:17 (Ishmael), 35:29 (Isaac), 49:33 (Jacob), Deut. 32:50 (Moses and Aaron) II Kings 22:20 (King Josiah). This gathering is described as a separate event from the physical death of the body or the burial.

    Certain sins are punished by the sinner being “cut off from his people.” See, for example, Gen. 17:14 and Ex. 31:14. This punishment is referred to as kareit (kah-REHYT) (literally, “cutting off,” but usually translated as “spiritual excision”).

    The afterlife is referred to in Hebrew as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come, although this term is also used to refer to the messianic age. The Olam Ha-Ba is another, higher state of being.

  25. Chuck wrote:
    “Jews recognized YHWH’s appearances through His angelic host. As Stephen himself attests to in Acts 7.30-34. Where do you get that the Jews did not belief in the biblical precedent of theophanies, angelology or divine angency? Have you heard of the Jewish law called Shaliach?”

    REPLY: Yes, Chuck, I am well aware of the concept of the Sholeach and the Shaliach. But that principle will not work in the instances that I pointed out. It is true that when the Sholeach sends the Shaliach, the Shaliach has the authority of the Sholeach. In other words, when the king sends the clerk, the clerk speaks in the authority of the king. But is SEEING the clerk the same as SEEING the king? I would think not! And this is exactly what is the problem with the explanation of the theophanies if you apply this principle. It makes no sense to say that you have SEEN “the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:9-11) if you have seen an mere angel or a prophet. Remember, Moses was also a shaliach and so was Gabriel. Yet none of them are either called “the God of Israel” or cause people to fear of dying when they are SEEN. There is only one Elohim that causes people to fear death by merely seeing them. That is YHWH, the God of Israel.

    Chuck: “The patriarchs never attributed to YHWH any type of “complex unity” or “plurality of persons within the Godhead” etc. Why? Because the God of Israel keeps referring Himself in personal singular pronouns!”

    REPLY: What they did do is attribute to one particular Mal’ach the status of YHWH, as demonstrated in Genesis 32, Genesis 18, Genesis 48, Judges 6, Judges 13, etc. So although we don’t have the explicit words from the Patriarchs that God is a “complex unity”, they surely hinted to that in the Tanach. But if you are going to use that as an argument against us, then please consider that this backfires against yourself since we have no statement from the same Patriarchs that God is an “absolute unity” either. So if we cannot take the Tanach and sum up the revelations in the above mentioned verses and describe them as the “complex unity of God” then you, by that same token, cannot sum up the verses you like and describe them as the “absolute unity of God” either if you are consistent. If you want an explicit statement like “God is a complex unity” from the Patriarchs, then please hold yourself to the exact same standard and show us the explicit words from the Patriarchs that say “God is an absolute unity”.

    Chuck: “The Torah speaks of several noteworthy people being “gathered to their people.” See, for example, Gen. 25:8 (Abraham), 25:17 (Ishmael), 35:29 (Isaac), 49:33 (Jacob), Deut. 32:50 (Moses and Aaron) II Kings 22:20 (King Josiah). This gathering is described as a separate event from the physical death of the body or the burial.”

    REPLY: Yes, but how this refers to the world to come is a mystery to me. You can easily read it as being gathered to their fathers in the grave! These verses do not speak about the olam haba. So I don’t see how this helps your case at all.

    Chuck: “Certain sins are punished by the sinner being “cut off from his people.” See, for example, Gen. 17:14 and Ex. 31:14. This punishment is referred to as kareit (kah-REHYT) (literally, “cutting off,” but usually translated as “spiritual excision”).”

    REPLY: Yes and these verses only say that they are no longer to be regarded as part of the people. And it doesn’t say “spiritually” cut off. But even if it says that, where is the reference to the afterlife? There is none. You have to imply this meaning to “kareth” in order to get to where you are heading. But, again, this is just an implication on your part and not a specific reference to it from the text itself. But since you demand explicit references from us and will not allow us to sum up theological issues by words that we believe are faithful to the text yet not found in the text (such as “complex unity”) then I will dismiss your arguments as invalid and repeat the question: Where does the Torah refer to an afterlife? Remember, I’m merely holding you to your own standards!

    Peace,
    Nakdimon

  26. Nakdimon

    But is SEEING the clerk the same as SEEING the king?

    Yes! That is what scripture time and time says. That when people thought they were literally not only speaking but physically seeing YHWH Himself, it was an angelic delegate!

    [in Judges 2] the angel of the LORD comes up from Gilgal and speaks in the first person…In disobeying the words of the angel, the people were guilty of disobedience to God Himself (2:4). The principle is: The angel sent or commissioned is regarded as God Himself…Other passages worth checking include Joshua 5:13-6:2; Judges 2:1-4; 1 Samuel 12:5-8 in conjunction with Psalm 77:20; 2 Kings 14:27; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14. They Never Told me This in Church! Appendix 3, Divine Agency, 2nd ed. Greg Deuble.

    Remember, Moses was also a shaliach and so was Gabriel. Yet none of them are either called “the God of Israel”…

    Yet, Moses is explicitly referred to or called “god” [elohim] twice in the Tanach [Ex 4.16; 7.1] yet when it comes to those handful of verses where Jesus might or might not be referred to as as “god” [theos] in this same biblical secondary sense you shout “God-man”! Why? Especially in light of what Jesus himself says in John 10.30f. where anyone who receives God’s word of authority can be called “gods”, as in the Hebrew judges.

    Just because God’s very own unique and “one of a kind” [monogenes] Son is described in such close, intimate terms with the only One God of Israel, does not make the man anymore God than those previous Divine representatives!

    How is it possible for you to believe [how can you learn to believe], you who [are content to seek and] receive praise and honor and glory from one another, and yet do not seek the praise and honor and glory which come from the Only One Who is God? John 5.44

    …we have no statement from the same Patriarchs that God is an “absolute unity” either.

    I see, so just because they don’t say it doesn’t make it not true? This is fallacious reasoning at its best! Yea, they don’t say YHWH is some as yet unknown pagan god either so whose to know?

    Friend, what scripture does explicitly say and make clear time and time again is that YHWH, God is One Person with many attributes, as deserving of He “Who was, Who is, and is yet to come, the LORD Almighty”!

    Fine, it seems you do not believe in an afterlife either, just like the Sadducees. But distractions aside, let’s stick to the topic at hand. So how many YHWHs are you proposing?

  27. Nakdimon

    Are you a Christian or a practicing Jew? Because Jesus himself argues from the Torah regarding the Jewish belief for an afterlife. Even if your not a Chrisitian, Jesus was arguing with his fellow Jews and not Christians as such.

    Now about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ [Ex 3.6]? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”…Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!” Matt 22:31-33; Mark 12:26-27; Lk 20:37-39

  28. Hi Chuck,

    I am a Messianic Jew. And I know Yeshua makes the case for an afterlife based on Torah, but then again, this is His exegesis of the passage. You are demanding explicit references, not implicit references. Which is the standard that I’m holding you to. Remember, your initial argument was that because Hebrews 1:10 doesnt explicitly say its about the creation in Genesis, you dont think its a valid reading. Well then, by that same token, how can you make a case from the Torah about an afterlife without an explicit reference to an afterlife?

    Nakdimon

  29. Chuck: “Yes! That is what scripture time and time says. That when people thought they were literally not only speaking but physically seeing YHWH Himself, it was an angelic delegate!

    Yet, Moses is explicitly referred to or called “god” [elohim] twice in the Tanach [Ex 4.16; 7.1] yet when it comes to those handful of verses where Jesus might or might not be referred to as as “god” [theos] in this same biblical secondary sense you shout “God-man”! Why? Especially in light of what Jesus himself says in John 10.30f. where anyone who receives God’s word of authority can be called “gods”, as in the Hebrew judges.”

    REPLY: I don’t think you are getting my argument. The word “elohim” is a word that doesn’t exclusively mean “God” as in “the God of Israel, YHWH”. So there is no question to what the word means. However, when it comes to those passages where people have said to SEE God AND fear for their lives (notice the combination SEEING AND FEARING DEATH! – btw caps are solely for emphasis) this is something that only makes sense if it’s in reference to YHWH. Seeing an angel is NOT seeing God! And seeing a prophet is NOT seeing God! Although both are agents of God. I will ask the question again: What “elohim” makes people FEAR OF DYING as a result of merely SEEING him? There is only one answer to this question. No other elohiim than YHWH has this attribute!

    As to your question equation of Yeshua and Moses. Sorry, but there is none.

    Yeshua pre-existed as God (John 1:1, Phil 2:5) – Moses didn’t
    Yeshua created everything (John 1:3, Col 1:16-17) – Moses didn’t
    Yeshua has all the attributes of omniscience (Mat 28:19, Rev 2:23) – Moses didn’t
    Yeshua has all the attributes of omnipresence (Mat 18:20) – Moses didn’t
    Yeshua has all the attributes of omnipotence (John 14:14) – Moses didn’t
    Yeshua is of greater importance than the Temple – Moses wasn’t
    Yeshua is Lord of the Shabbat – Moses wasn’t (neither was any angel)

    It is not the mere fact that he is called “god”, but the rest of the testimony that goes with it. Yeshua never identified himself equal with the Prophets of Old, but superior to them. Including Moses! In addition, the disciples identified Yeshua as THEIR God. Unless you are going to say that they were polytheists, this was a clear equation with YHWH, the God of Israel, by Whom and for Whom everything was created. I find it fascinating that you would claim that the disciples called Yeshua “theou emon” (our God ), who created all things and sustains all things, yet thought as him as “god” in the sense of Moses being called “god”. This is just stretching things a lot.

    You went on to write:
    “Just because God’s very own unique and “one of a kind” [monogenes] Son is described in such close, intimate terms with the only One God of Israel, does not make the man anymore God than those previous Divine representatives!”

    REPLY: Divine representatives? Which divine representatives? Angels aren’t divine and neither were the prophets. So which “divine representatives” are you talking about?

    Chuck:
    “I see, so just because they don’t say it doesn’t make it not true? This is fallacious reasoning at its best! Yea, they don’t say YHWH is some as yet unknown pagan god either so whose to know?”

    REPLY:
    Exactly, which is your exact reasoning! You are objecting to your own initial point calling it “fallacious reasoning”! Which is very strange.

    Chuck: “Friend, what scripture does explicitly say and make clear time and time again is that YHWH, God is One Person with many attributes, as deserving of He “Who was, Who is, and is yet to come, the LORD Almighty”!”

    Then, pray tell, what do you make of the passages that speak about YHWH and yet are attributed to Yeshua in the Tanach? Yeshua does it himself in Matthew 21:14-16, John does it in John 12:39-41, the author of Hebrews does it repeatedly in verses 8-12, saying that the Father made “the universe” through the Son in verse 2. This is not a second creation, but the first, in the beginning! Since Isaiah 44:24 explicitly says that YHWH made the universe ALONE using the words “levadi” and “me’iti”, then how can the Son attribute to the creation of the heavens and the earth WITHOUT being YHWH in any sense?

    Chuck:
    “Fine, it seems you do not believe in an afterlife either, just like the Sadducees. But distractions aside, let’s stick to the topic at hand. So how many YHWHs are you proposing?”

    Oh I DO believe in an afterlife. But don’t find fault in me for holding you to your own standards. You were asking for explicit utterances. Please allow me to do the same. As for how many YHWH’s I am proposing. I propose ONE BEING called YHWH, Who exists from eternity of three Persons/Entities (what you may prefer to call it), Who are distinct from one another, yet not separate, so that each individually can be identified as YHWH, the God of Israel. Yes, YHWH is a mind boggling Being indeed!

    Shalom,
    Nakdimon

  30. Nakdimon

    …your initial argument was that because Hebrews 1:10 doesnt explicitly say its about the creation in Genesis, you dont think its a valid reading.

    Yea, it doesn’t explicitly refer to another world apart from this one either, so why should we apply it to this present Earth? Your argument makes no sense at all to me!

    The writer, quoting from the LXX reading of Ps 102, is talking about “the world to come” [Heb 2.5]. Is that too hard to understand?

    I propose ONE BEING called YHWH, Who exists from eternity of three Persons/Entities (what you may prefer to call it)…

    Your propositions and eisegesis of the text have no biblical basis whatsoever. Let alone any common sense logic. Seems this doctrine has boggled [confused] your mind.

    But I guess, one way or another, one day we will all find out who was right or wrong.

    On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more,” declares YHWH the Almighty. “I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land…On that day YHWH will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be YHWH, and his name the only name…one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Zach 13.2; 14.9; Eph 4.6

  31. Chuck: “The writer, quoting from the LXX reading of Ps 102, is talking about “the world to come” [Heb 2.5]. Is that too hard to understand? ”

    REPLY:
    Oh wow. Talk about reading things INTO the text. So because the writer of Hebrews says that we speak of “the world to come” this means that the writer of Hebrews is solely speaking of the world to come and not of the world we are in. So if he starts from creation of the universe in verse 2 of chapter one, that doesnt count? This is what he said:

    “2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”

    Wait…the universe was made through the Son? How does this not apply to the first creation in the beginning? In addition in John 17:5 Yeshua tells the Father to restore him in the position that he was in before the world was! So the fact that all things are subjected to him in the world to come is only because he is restored into the position that he found himself before he took upon himself the form of a slave.

    Nakdimon

  32. Nakdimon

    I am only reading from the text what is there. We know that the Psalm cited is a Messianic, future Zion, eschatological one. We know from the context of the first couple of chapters of Hebrews it is also talking about the “new creation” [and not another new world as such].

    Anyways, agree to disagree. I just do not see 2 YHWHs in the beginning of creation. Nor a ‘God the Son’ being the agent through whom the God of Israel is “speaking” [or acting] through in OT times. Until I do, I guess we will agree.

    Meantime, I’ll stick to the creed of the patriarchs and Jesus himself that there is only One Who is YHWH [Deu 6.4], the only One Who is truly God, the Father [John 17.1, 3].

  33. I was born into a Catholic family. Raised Catholic. Accepted Christ at 21 yo. I could not find a church I consider “home.”

    I happened upon Roy Masters, who was born in England. He shed light and understanding onto my life, and while Roy is not in your face with “Jesus,” make no mistake, as to where he is coming from. Interesting that he too is Jewish.

    Then along comes Sir Anthony Buzzard…interesting that he is from England too, he picks up from where Roy has left off. Anthony brings clarity and maybe more important, simplicity, with out any voodoo or double secret mystery, concerning my relationship with the Father and the Son and Holy Ghost.

    Jesus is the Son of The Most High! He was born of the Virgin Mary. He is the Lamb of God. He shed His blood, died in payment for sin in the world, and rose on the 3rd day to go and sit at the right hand of the Father.

    Jesus didn’t go and sit at the right hand of himself!

  34. Regarding the Divinity of YAHUSHUA (JESUS CHRIST), YAHUSHUA said to the Jews in John 8:58 “…Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.” YAHUSHUA used the same “Name” for Himself that YAHUVEH the Father used before Moses at the Burning Bush. In John 10:30, YAHUSHUA says “I and My Father are ONE.” YAHUSHUA comes in the Name of His Father YAHUVEH. The Sacred Name of “YAH” is in both the Name of the Father and of the Son. Like “Billy, Sr. and Billy, Jr.” (Also, the Name “YAH” is in the Holy Spirit’s Name of “SHKHIN-YAH”) And, for the Holy Trinity: In Genesis 1:26-28, GOD said “Let US make man in OUR Image, after OUR Likeness…in the Image of GOD created HE him; male and female created HE them.” There was more than One Divine Person in the creation process. It was not “a Single Person talking with the holy angels” about creating mankind. “US” and “OUR” implies two or more Persons. GOD is “ONE”, Three Persons in One Unit which we commonly call “GOD”. Likewise, the human family, which was created in the Image of this “Three-in-ONE” GOD, is a group of three or more persons: father, mother and child(ren), a group of three or more persons we commonly call a family unit. One family unit. So, yes, the LORD GOD, HE is ONE. But, not in the sense of being One Individual, Single Person…but, of being ONE UNIT consisting of Three Divine co-existing Persons. YAHUSHUA ascended to the Right Hand of God the Father’s Throne. The Father YAHUVEH is the “Head” or “Leader” of the Trinity. Each Person of the GOD-Head are Equal, but, They Each have different Roles to play. Just like the human family structure, the husband/father is the head of the household, though the wife/mother is his equal, they just have, also, different roles in the household. There is a Hierarchial Structure within the GOD-Head, as within the human family. For the human family hierarchy was patterned after the Hierarchy of the GOD-Head. And, just as a human family can have more than one child, so, likewise, the Holy Trinity has more “adopted” children in the Holy Family, made possible by the shed Blood of the Lamb YAHUSHUA. You brought up some great points regarding the Divinity of YAHUSHUA. I don’t know how one can still doubt. Thanks and I enjoyed very much hearing your program. Blessings to you, Brother!

  35. Just wondering what you all think about a “person” of YHWH having his own God? Is it accurate to say that we worship the same God and Father as Yeshua worships? Would it be true to say there is a person who is God (The Son) who also has a God (The Father)?

    I can see that from the standpoint that since Jesus was (and still is, although immortal) human, he worshipped YHWH. But wouldn’t the hypostatic union require that Christ’s humanity and divinity remain undivided. In other words, we really can’t say, well Jesus worshiped God in his humanity, but not his divinity, can we?

    Even in Revelation (after exaltation, immortality) Jesus is referring to His Father as his God. Any thoughts? I’d appreciate it!

  36. Joe

    But these are written that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

    Amen!

    Gordon

    The simple koine Greek phrase translated “I am” [ego eimi] is used by Jesus 15 times, and in every case (except 8:58) it is rendered “I am he” or “It is I”: Matt. 14:27; Mar 6:50; 14:62; Lu 21:8; 22:70; 24:39; John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8.

    To say that ego eimi refers to the “I AM” of Ex 3:14, is to misread the text.

    Of the ego eimi sayings in the Gospel of John, those with the predicate ‘I am the bread of life,’ ‘the door,’ ‘the way,’ ‘the good shepherd,’ etc. do not imply that the subject is God. But it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms:

    ‘I am the one — the one you must look at, and listen to if you would know God’.

    Of the “absolute” [stand alone] uses of ego eimi, the majority are simply establishing identification: “I am he” [i.e. “I am the one you seek”]. This is so of 4:26 (the Messiah you speak of); 6:20 (confirming Jesus’ identity on the lake at night, exactly as in Mar 6:50; Matt. 14:27); 9:9 (on the lips, not of Jesus, but of the blind man) and 18:5-8 (the “I am your man” at the arrest; cp. Acts 10:21).

    Even though it evokes awe (and not, as per the previous reaction of blasphemy in 8:58) within the arresting party, the reason for such a reaction could simply be due to the “power and majesty” that was with Jesus, as per Psa 45 [the people, nations or troops “fall beneath your feet”]. In any case, its only appearance is in this “higher Christology” of the Gospel of John.

    The phrase is in the resurrection scene of Lu 24:39: ‘it is I myself’ and 3 other occurrences in John 8:24, 28, 13:19 [‘I am what I am,’ namely the truth of what really I am]. They do not carry with them the implication that he is YHWH (indeed in the latter two there is a contrast with the Father who sent him), but instead ‘the Christ, the Son of God’.

    So, it makes no sense that Jesus should be made to say: “I am YHWH, the supreme God of the OT, and being YHWH I do as I am told,” and to 13:19: “I am God, and I am here because someone else sent me”. That Jesus should be assuming the divine name is nowhere stated or implied in this gospel. Even the Jews do not accuse him of this — only of calling God his own father, and thereby implying equality with God. What they take to be blasphemy in making himself ‘a god’ in 10:33, is again made clear to be a misunderstanding of who Jesus actually is: ‘God’s Son’. As a result, the worst that can be said of him at the trial is that he claimed to be “God’s son”:

    The woman said to Him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming, he who is called Christ; when he comes, he will declare all things to us’. Jesus said to her, ‘I [ego] who speak to you am [eimi] he’. John 4:25-26

    But if you are right and my assesment is totally off-base, how many YHWHs are you suggesting here?

    And what does this say about the “third person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit”. Where does “He” claim to be YHWH?

  37. In looking at John 1:1 it helps me to think of it has Logos instead of Word. In the beginning was the Logos or Plan of God. It is a blue print in the mind of God. This is not teaching preexistence of a Godman: Jesus. It is a plan that comes to flesh in Jesus at verus 14. The Hebrew mind can speak of things existing before they exist in real time. Jesus Christ can be slain before the foundation of the world also (but in real time 2000 years ago). If God said it; it is as good as done. Propecy of Jesus foretold 500 years before hand . John the Baptist was said to have come from God also John 1:6, Did John pre-exist with the Father in heaven? The Messiah Jesus is God’s supreme agent/mouthpiece and the fulfillment of God’s salvation plan. He perfectly explains the Father and He alone has the secret of Immortaility in the new kingdom

  38. Shalom to everyone,

    I am a Jew living in Israel with my family. I find Michael Brown’s position very much against what the Tanach and Brit Chadasha tells us about whom is the Messiah. I do believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, and that he is the now exalted human Messiah that has been set down to the right hand of his God, and our God. A resurrected human being, in Psalm 110, next to God. Not two gods, not two YHVHs, one God and one Messiah as Paul so eloquently pointed out in his personal testimony to us in 1 Tim 2:5 and in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and as Yeshua pointed out to us in his personal testimony in John 17:3, John 20:17.

    I pray that Michael can come to see the truth of how God revealed himself and our Messiah unto the world. I thought at one time I understood the Trinity, but all it did was leave a gap in my understanding of the overwhelming message of the Tanach. I was forced to try and not understand the MYSTERY of God because I was told that God is too complex for our understanding. Reasoning like this left for many questions and contradictions in the Trinity Doctrine. And then, after finding out that the Trinity Doctrine has many sister relationships just as confusing and misleading (oneness, Jesus only, ect.), I began my search for the One true God and One true Messiah.

    So, here I am, professing my testimony as a Hebrew speaking Jew living in Israel that I will do all that I can to spread the truth that the Messiah is not God, and to live by an example to my fellow unbelieving Jews around me in this wonderful land. The land that God has promised as the centerpiece to the Kingdom come.

    If someone wants more information into the non-Trinitarian movement of Messiah believers in the land of Israel, you can contact me at… josephvardit@yahoo.com

    Baruch HaShem

  39. I have to say to Anthony for doing a great job at exposing the contradictory position of Dr. Brown at the end of the debate on whom the people were seeing in the OT when it says that God was seen. If God cannot be seen as scripture says, and the people did see God in the Tanach, then who was it? If Dr. Brown says they saw the Son of God as God, then he is contradicting himself because he said that Yeshua is God and can be identified as YHVH. So if Yeshua is God, then that excluded him from being the God that the people of the Tanach saw. Dr. Brown’s own reasoning contradicts himself so plainly and he doesn’t even see it.

    So who did they see? Anthony brought up a great Biblical answer. They saw a representative of God whom has taken on the name of God as understood to have happened in Acts 10 where an Angel is seen as the Shaliach (messenger) and called Lord. Dr. Brown himself agrees with the understanding of Shaliach.

    Anothony finishes it off with a great scripture to bring the debate to a close when he references back to Hebrews 1 where it states that God spoke through (shaliach) through many representatives in the past, and “in these last days” speaks to us through his Messiah. Dr. Brown then replies with a knee-jerk reaction that the “worst place” to go is Hebrews 1 to see if the Son existed in the OT, because to him Hebrews 1:1-2 is talking about the ultimate revelation, although it is clearly speaking about the past events in accordance to the authors idea of “these last days.”

    You decide for yourselves…

    1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
    2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
    3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
    4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

    Notice how vs. 4 says that Yeshua “being made” talking about the time after his death. If Jesus is God, how can he “be made” in position to the Angels in rank? God is always higher than the Angels in rank.

    It seems that Dr. Brown is doing the special pleading here in the wake of the context of Hebrews.

    If you are reading this Anthony, well done!

  40. Amazing, discussing who God is. Satan has done a great job fooling those intellectuals, Brown, into a subtle form of Idolatry.

    People like Anthony have really seen the light exposing this Idolatry by explaining pretty simply the deep things of God so that even simpletons could understand it. Apparently Brown isn’t a child that God wants to understand his personality so Brown goes along with those people deceived for centuries by false doctrine.
    The Bible says when Jesus was baptized that God says TODAY I have become your Father. WHY… If Jesus had a pre-existence why would God say TODAY I have become you Father? It makes no Sense. Jesus HAD to be fully HUMAN in ALL ways.

    God took a HUMAN and exalted that HUMAN to be at his right hand thus deeply striking a blow to Satan who ORIGINALLY had privileges as the Light Bearer in heaven. By having Jesus as a HUMAN stay faithful really showed Satan that God could have faith in humans to keep his will and not as Adam and Eve who failed that test.

    Jesus really destroyed the works of the Devil here.

    Unfortunately the Devil has kept mankind in Idolatry by allowing them to believe in the false doctrine of the Trinity. Satan keeps plugging away but apparently Anthony and a few other have exposed this Lie. God Bless Anthony for helping us understand the simple message of God.

  41. Kevin & Joseph & Joe

    Thank you. I appreciate very much your encouraging comments. Especially the fact that you point to the simplicity of NT teaching about the one God and the man Messiah.

    I have not succeeded, I think, in inviting Michael Brown to see the inherent contradiction in the premise, ‘the Father is YHWH, Jesus is YHWH and that makes 1 YHWH’. That latent contradiction in trinitarianism tends to hide and we must try to expose it!

    The key is to begin with the accounts of the begetting of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Both of these describe explicitly how the Son was “begotten=fathered=brought into existence”. This ought to exclude the possiblity of making John contradict these accounts.

    Alas, a long tradition makes people read John 1.1 as though it said, ‘In the beginning was the Son…’. This multiplies God and destroys the FULL humanity of the man Messiah, Jesus.

    I would encourage any reader to examine the fascinating book by Loofs, a German theologian who lectured in Ohio in 1911, What is the truth about Jesus Christ. Free online at GoogleBooks.

    Loofs shows that all of his colleagues were fully aware of the unintelligibility of the Nicene Christology. That was 100 years ago!!

    Dr. White in his detailed account of the trinity in The Forgotten Trinity [pp 26-27]struggles in vain to avoid the contradiction inherent in trinitarian theology. He insists that 3 YHWHs cannot = 1 YHWH.

    We dare not mix up the [1] What and [3] Who’s regarding the Trinity.

    However, when Dr. White arrives at page 132 of his book, he discusses how he tackles a Jw.

    I believe the name Jehovah refers to the very Divine Being…We can agree, I assume, that the Father is identified as Jehovah. But I believe that the Bible identifies Jesus as YHWH as well.

    So there, Dr. White is calling the Who’s YHWH individually while claiming that the What, all 3 together, is also YHWH. That is a contradiction according to White’s own principle.

    Much better to stay with Jesus’ simple creed:

    The LORD our God is one LORD.

    The scribe who agrees with Jesus confirms that the LORD our God is “He”. “He” of course, as we all know, means 1 single Person.

    It is good to remember that we are going to be judged by the words of Jesus.

  42. Anthony,

    If people can be salt, how is it that it could be always wrong to say the Jesus is God in your opinion?

    Can’t salt and light both be one in Christ?

  43. Dr Brown

    Just saw the following video…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1CXrxdIMEI

    Correct me if I’m wrong but…are you saying that the person described as “begotten” [brought into existence] in Matthew and Luke is “the human being” or “the Son of God”, who you believe to be eternal?

    Also, did the Godhead undergo a change when one of the “Persons” took on flesh at the Incarnation? i.e., 3 Persons + human nature in God.

  44. Dear Jon,

    You said:

    “So my question is, would you call “The Father” father? Or would you call Jesus the father?”

    Jesus is clearly not “the Father” but He is “the Son”, what I was saying was that in the Hebrew Scriptures “Father” and “Creator” can be used as synonyms like Malachi 2:10 for example.

    Jon, you then say in response to my question:
    “John 17:5 – The hour was come for Jesus Christ, (who is God in flesh) to be glorified. He was speaking as an authentic Human being praying to the eternal spirit of God. He wasn’t hanging on the cross before the world was, but he’s Praying to the Father, give me the glory that was in your plan from the very beginning. The only distinction is Jesus in his humanity.
    It is not one God praying to another God, because in verse 3 he says “that they may know thee, the only true God..” So that would leave Jesus outside of the Godhead.”

    John 17:5 is probably the absolute clearest text on this topic. I suppose I’ll specify my question in terms of why I asked it. If you pay close attention to the words used in the passage such as “glorify ‘ME’ ‘TOGETHER’ ‘with YOURSELF’, with the glory which ‘I’ had ‘WITH YOU’..” etc There is clearly a distinction being made here from Jesus and the Father, yet it is also clear that Jesus eternally existed with the Father. No one ever suggested that it was one god praying to another god. That is a profound misunderstanding on your end of what the Trinity is, if you were attempting to represent that position. If I were going to do such a thing to the oneness position I would tell you the text is not saying “Now Me, Glorify me by myself, with the glory I had before the world was.”.. Of course, I don’t believe that accurately represents your position but I am just giving you an example of what your statement sounded like to me.

    As for John 17:3, I affirm that. John 17:3 is very clear that the Father is the one true God, why would that exclude the Son, especially in context of the next few sentences? The only possible way that would exclude the Son is if you presuppose unitarianism, now why would one do that?

  45. Eric,

    This is a great problem that the trinitarian position has. Pay close attention to the words that are given in its original context. The hour had come, what hour? Calvary had come. Jesus Christ was not hanging on a cross before the foundation of the world, but rather in the plan, concept, forethought of God (Logos). The Scripture does not teach that the son was eternal (Lk 1:35, Gal 4:4) In this passage, Jesus Christ as a MAN, is saying, Father now the time has come, give me the glory that was in your plan from the very beginning. I agree with you that the language in this passage is extemely clear.

    Also, if this a 2nd divine co-equal person, did he lose glory? Why is it that he is asking the first divine person to glorify him? Please clarify this.

    Lastly, we obviously don’t mean the same thing when we say we believe in One God. I believe In absolutely one MONOTHEISTIC God, which is consistently repeated from the Old Testament and into the New. Isaiah 42:8 God says that “I will not give my glory to anyone else” So You are saying that One God is sharing glory with another divine person? In regards to John 17:3, so you are saying that the 2nd co-equal, eternal divine person is calling the first co-equal divine person the only true God? I believe Jesus Christ is the Old Testament Jehovah fully manifest in the flesh.

    Therefore, with this passage of Scripture the trinitarian position is not at all established. And when I mentioned about Jesus being outside of the Godhead, I meant to put in the last post that was what you view seemed like, for i know we both are NOT teaching a Unitarian God like the JW’S.

    I appreciate your response, and I look forward to your next.

  46. Dr, Brown

    Absoultely. It seems as if in a sense, “Chuck” is supporting a position that claims that Jesus Christ is not God. Which is what Jehovah Witnesses teach. I do not. I AFFIRM THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST. What I am proposing is that Jesus Christ is the One True God Manifest in the flesh. Not merely a 2nd person, but he is The Old Testament Yahweh who robed himself in human flesh to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. And In him, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2.9. He is 100% God, 100% Man.

    Bless You.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*