1. Good show. I think the many callers unwittingly demonstrated the abberant Kenonsis doctrine which leads to “the patten jesus” which leads to us becoming “little gods”. MSoG teachings throughout the body of Christ are having the intended effect.

  2. I don’t have much to add in the way of doctrine or translations, but I did think briefly about how my faith would change if I thought God and Jesus were not One and I think it would be destroyed. Without Jesus, I don’t feel like I could approach God (in prayer) and I don’t think I could have a personal relationship with Him. I don’t think I know God without Jesus… I definitely wouldn’t understand Him, not that I do necessarily, but I can relate to Jesus.

  3. Marcella: It’s interesting that you say your faith would be destroyed if you were to think that Jesus was not God. I say it’s interesting because so many people think that it’s not important one way or the other, yet when we look to history and study the development of the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and so forth, we come to learn that the primary concern of all the people thinking about these issues (both the heretics and the orthodox) was SALVATION! So I said all this to say that you’re in good company and your concerns are the concerns of many throughout the Christian tradition.

  4. I feel like I finally understood the dichotomy this morning. It is not that Yeshua, a.k.a. Jesus, was either all divine or all human. It wasn’t a mutually exclusive situation.

    Jesus had his divine nature from his father, YHWH, whose Holy Spirit entered Mary. Jesus got his human nature from Mary, his biological mother. I read somewhere, forgive me if it was from Dr. Brown and I don’t remember so I can’t acknowledge that, but I read somewhere that this enabled him to also escape the blood curse that was attached to Joseph’s lineage. I read it on the internet; one could google that and find it, no doubt, wherever I read that.

    So Jesus was both. Both human and divine. I’m not sure what that co-existent dichotomy would be called, but “one-ness” works as a term just fine. Both parts of him were real. The series of temptations he underwent could probably only happen if part of him were human.

    The divine part of him knew how to re-connect with his Father, and it was a RE connection, because as he said and as has already been cited, at one point he asks that His father glorify him with the glory that was his before the world was. So he lowered himself in accepting a human form to navigate on earth. He existed in a higher state with the Father since only God knows when. Like a prince who disguises himself in the rags of the commoners in order to live among them, drink and eat with them, and get to know them on a more personal and intimate level, Jesus allowed himself to come through this birthing process as a half-human being. Now he understands us better than ever. We are not only the creation, but he knows what it is to walk around in skin like ours. Has he done this before? I think it was Paul who wrote something that implies it’s only happened this one time. I personally don’t know. (But — and this is a bit of a tangent, forgive me, but I don’t just believe something because Paul said it anyway. Paul was fully human. And the church has to be based on the cornerstone foundation of Jesus’ teachings. Ergo, if Paul errs, his teachings have to be tossed aside. And they would only err if they didn’t plumb with Jesus’. Paul seems to have constructed a church, but Jesus kept it very basic and simple: the kingdom of God is within you; he stands at the door of our hearts and knocks; he will commune with us, he and his Father, and reside within us if we invite him in. All we need is some privacy for prayer, because he thought public prayer led to the showiness of hypocrisy; our closet does that nicely if we have one. If we don’t, the walls of our hearts are enough of a church. As for fellowship, all we need are two or more gathered in His Name, and He (united with the Father) is there.)

    I feel confident that Jesus could lay this offer of salvation before us; making us able to commune more intimately with the Father because he knew what it was to be human; it knew it could be done. I’m grateful he did not; that’s an understatement.

    Anyway, now I get it: He was simply BOTH human and divine when he walked the earth. When he ascended, he became — fully divine AGAIN. And when He returns, He will do so as a fully divine and glorified being.

  5. woops, typo on the sentence above which says, “I’m grateful he did not; that’s an understatement.” What I actually meant was, “I’m grateful he did that — that’s an understatement.” I.e., I’m glad he did came to earth for our sakes. That’s divine capital “L” love, pure and simple.

  6. The Catholic induced “double nature” Christology is foreign to the NT. No where do we find this teaching nor is it intimated. If anything, it teaches the exact opposite: the human [anthropos] Son of God was born, lived and died for all those who believe that he is who he said he was [cp. John 10.30f.].

    “The doctrine of the double nature of Christ, like that of the Trinity, is a doctrine of inference. Neither doctrine is declared in any verse, nor can they be expressed in the language of Scripture. Scattered verses are assembled in quasi-syllogistic form, inferences are drawn from newly-created contexts, and it is assumed that the Messiah is both a mortal man and the almighty God…

    I know of no allusion in the Bible to the doctrine of the Two Natures, either with or without modification…

    Neither [Jesus] nor his disciples, give the slightest reason to suppose that he or they meant anything but what their words obviously mean…Unless some part of speech requires an unusual interpretation, such as an idiom, we ought to interpret the words according to their normal meanings. But exceptions to this must constantly be made for
    one to accept Trinitarian doctrines as true. Jesus said such things as My Father is greater than I. The obvious meaning must be circumvented in order to sustain the notion that he is co-equal with
    God. The notion of a double nature in Christ was invented to do exactly this. It makes it possible, even acceptable, to cast our Lord’s words in an entirely different sense than they were meant when they were originally spoken” —Donald R. Snedeker, The Doctrine of the Double Nature of Christ (International Scholars Publications, 1998), pp. 6, 7, 9-10

    The Jesus this doctrine espouses is the ‘Gnostic Jesus’ of later Christendome, surviving in the Creedal statements supported by modern Catholic-Protestant churches.

    For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough…For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 11:4; 1 Cor 3:11

  7. Ruth, what you said SOUNDS good but I suggest it’s an embelleshment of what the bible actually teaches.
    Yeshua did not literally pre-exist his birth (no such thing as eternaly begotten) and didn’t put his deity back on at his resurruction. In the book of Revelation 3:12 we read of Yeshua still calling His Father His God. (4 times in that 1 verse!). So ‘Almighty God Yeshua’ has a God ? The scriptures predicted a human messiah. Yeshua is the second Adam.
    Messiah Yeshua = anointed savior. (God has no need to be anointed but does the anointing).
    The Hebrew bible clearly says that God is not a man.
    Let’s stop creating a messiah in an image from gentile paganism.
    1 Tim 2:5 “there is ONE God and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Messiah Yeshua”

  8. Rich L,

    Well put and simply understood, here’s a good quote from the German scholar Friedrich Loofs where he describes the process of the early corruption of biblical Christianity:

    The Apologists [‘church fathers’ like Justin Martyr, mid-2nd century] laid the foundation for the perversion/corruption (Verkehrung) of Christianity into a revealed [philosophical] teaching. Specifically, their Christology affected the later development disastrously. By taking for granted the transfer of the concept of Son of God onto the preexisting Christ, they were the cause of the Christological problem of the fourth century. They caused a shift in the point of departure of Christological thinking—away from the historical Christ and onto the issue of preexistence. They thus shifted attention away from the historical life of Jesus, putting it into the shadow and promoting instead the Incarnation [i.e., of a preexistent Son]. They tied Christology to cosmology and could not tie it to soteriology.

    The Logos teaching is not a ‘higher’ Christology than the customary one. It lags in fact far behind the genuine appreciation of Christ. According to their teaching it is no longer God who reveals Himself in Christ, but the Logos, the inferior God, a God who as God is subordinated to the Highest God (inferiorism or subordinationism).

    In addition, the suppression of economic-trinitarian ideas by metaphysical-pluralistic concepts of the divine triad (trias) can be traced to the Apologists” (Friedrich Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium des Dogmengeschichte [Manual for the Study of the History of Dogma], 1890, part 1 ch. 2, section 18: “Christianity as a Revealed Philosophy. The Greek Apologists,” Niemeyer Verlag, 1951, p. 97).

  9. The Hebrew Bible also states very clearly that most people don’t have a clue about the arm of YHWH (Isaiah 53:1) – and I guess right now that it is especially the Christians (Except for Ruth Smith and some others) that don’t have a clue about Him.

    To Rich: How would you comment on Matthew 22:41-46? Does your logic still apply here or is this simply another proof for YHWH’s complex unity? How can Yeshua be the son of David and the master of David at the same time?? The same way He can be human and divine at the same time!!

  10. Erica, looking at the context of isaish 53,if you are claiming that it is referring to jesus,please explain how at that point because of the person suffering would they now begin to realize? Based on which event would they begin realizing?

  11. If we read through that chapter, we see that at least the majority does not recognize Him as what he actually is. In verse 12 though we read:

    “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
    and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
    because he poured out his soul to death,
    and was numbered with the transgressors;
    yet he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.”

    So we see here that the one who has suffered instead of others will have a special reward. In the German translation they say :

    “…and he will have the strong ones as a spoil”

    What ever translation now might be the more correct one – we can see that in the end his reward will be obvoius to everyone.

    I personally think that Isaiah 53 is talking about Yeshua as well as about his people Israel and especially the tribe of Judah.

    Yeshua was crucified and bore the sins of many. The Jews went through the holocaust and also through many other very difficult times. Although the Jews did not take away the sins of others, the Jews have through their history of suffering a very special identification with Yeshua. That is also why they will reign with Him in the Millenial Kingdom. Not later than then the world will realize that Yeshua still today is a Jew.

    In the end it comes down to this formula for us: Without suffering there will be no kingdom. And Yeshua is the best example for that.

  12. Zvi, thanks for answering about who you think Jesus claimed to be…. BTW, you can capitalize ‘jesus’, that is a proper name you know.
    Jesus reminds me of Joseph in Exodus 41:43 in this sense…. It was required that people ‘bow the knee’ to Joseph which brought respect to Joseph, as the one his boss (lord), Pharaoh exalted.
    One day, we will all ‘bow the knee’ to the Messiah Jesus. This bowing of the knee will not be to bow to him as “God”, but in recognition of the Messiah that God has exalted to His right hand which also honors God himself.
    Sorry, I just realized I’ve gotten off topic… (but I won’t delete it)

    Erika, I will give it a shot to comment on Matt 22:41-46, maybe Xavier can chime in on this one.
    Yeshua was of course referring to Psalm 110:1 which I understand is the most quoted verse in the N.T. (A verse that speaks to Yeshua’s non-deity….see also Acts 2:34-36).
    Yeshua is simply pointing out that not only is the Messiah going to be the Son of David, but David’s lord (as in Messiah, King of the Jews). Yeshua as King of the Jews will be David’s King and ‘adonee’ (my lord) in the 1000 year reign of the Kingdom of God on earth after the resurrection. There is nothing denoting deity in the second ‘lord’ (adonee) of Psalm 110:1. The ‘lordship’ of Yeshua is not to be confused with the lordship of the LORD GOD (the Lord and God of Yeshua)
    Maybe these verses also bring some clarity….

    1 Cor 15:24-28
    24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
    25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
    26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
    27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
    28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

    You also asked:

    Does your logic still apply here or is this simply another proof for YHWH’s complex unity? How can Yeshua be the son of David and the master of David at the same time?? The same way He can be human and divine at the same time!!

    I do my best to take ‘my logic’ from what the scriptures teach us and if ‘complex unity’ are code words for the trinity, I’m not seeing the proof. I find it interesting that Yeshua is what the ‘logos’ became in John 1, yet so many people have made him into such an ‘un-logos’ (illogical) being…

    I gave my answer above on how Yeshua can be the son of David and Master at the same time.
    I disagree with the notion that Yeshua being both human and divine (as in God incarnate divine).
    You can’t have both a finite and infinite mind at the same time, or put another way, be all-knowing yet ignorant of something.

    Thanks for the questions! I hope and pray that what we’ve been discussing, God will use to be more than just the usual back and forth comments, but perhaps even begin to burn inside someones heart and mind. This dialogue is far from being a waste of time.

    Erika, do you believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses knew God as a pluralistic (triune) being? If so, on what basis?

  13. Zvi, as I said, I think that Isaiah 53 is about Yeshua as well as about the Jewish people, and the obvious reward of this is still coming in the future.

    To Rich – I don’t think that complex and pluralistic are the same terms, to begin with. I do believe though that YHWH is complex (NOT pluralistic), as also Paul says in Acts 17:28

    “For in him we live, and move, and have our being”.

  14. P.S. here again we see that “The Angel of YHWH” (verse 2) identifies himself as
    “the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

    So you see here that “The Angel of YHWH” which is preexistent Yeshua, also is “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. Or , to say it in Isaiah’s words “The Arm of YHWH”.

    So this view is not pluralistic, but complex. We get this idea of this being pluralistic by simply looking at it from our human dimension – for YHWH this is not pluralistic.

  15. Erica, Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering servant, it eems from the text that the nations of the world will be surprised that this servant will suffer yet after all end up exalted. The suffering would be at the cross and when will he and up on top,not yet? Does this surprise span a contrast of thousands of years?

  16. Erika,

    “The Angel of YHWH” which is preexistent Yeshua

    Where does scripture back up your statement? If anything, it actually refutes it in Heb 1.5:

    For to which of the angels did God ever say,
    “You are my Son;
    today I have become your Father”?
    Or again,
    “I will be his Father,
    and he will be my Son”?


    Does this surprise span a contrast of thousands of years?

    …scoffers will come j in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of m his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

    But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 1Pe 3

    Now, what God wants or wishes is very different than the reality.

  17. Xavier, there is a vast differnce between “angels of God” and “The Angel of YHWH” – there is always this distinction made in the Old Testament. The Hebrew term here is “Malakh YHWH” for “Angel of YHWH” in contrast to “malakh Elohim” for “angel of God”.

    Angel can also be translated as “messenger”.

  18. Continuing: Elohim can be translated as “God”, but also as “mighty”.

    So in essence “malakh Elohim” could also be translated as “mighty angel / messenger” while “Malakh YHWH” can ONLY be “The Angel / messenger of YHWH”.

  19. Generally,on this blog I’m trying to stay away from the common christian-jewish debate,but rather trying to focus on the question as to the divinity of jesus,and Erica quoted from isaiah 53 that speaks of g-d’s arm,so therefore I was forced to respond about that inthe last post by asking as follows;If in fact this chapter is describing Jesus,then why are the nations so rurprised to see the “servant” go from such a low to such a high,WHEN JESUS DID NOT ULTIMATELY PREVAIL,untill his “alleged” second coming? Further the word “avdi” cannot be referring to a G-d for a G-d is not a “slave to g-d”, in fact moses was called a “slave” a mere human being. Thirdly the verse discussed that he will live long and see seed, and Jesus had none of that! Again, I’m only responding to this chapter to refute the notion of jesus being g-d,but not to dispute christianity,if by default this affects him from being the moshiach,I apoligize.

  20. Erika, doesn’t Hebrews 1:1-2 indicate that ‘the Son’, did not speak to us in times past (the Tanakh) ? And, as Xavier brought out…Heb 1:5.

    Does anyone think that the burning bush passage would be much better described by ‘divine agency’ instead of ‘complex unity’ considering the verses below ?

    Exodus 23:20-21
    20 Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
    21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM.

    Can someone tell me how to copy from earlier posts and paste so that it shows the lines on the left side? A simple CTRL-C, CTRL-V, didn’t work for me before.

  21. Futhermore it says that all jews saw the arm of g-d when they left egypt so to them it was CLEAR who the arm was,and the gentiles did NOT witness this arm,yet 90 percent of jews do NOT recognize this arm as JESUS yet the gentiles consider it to be jesus how ironic!

  22. Zvi,

    I have a few questions for you. You earlier mentioned a “Yeshu” (son of Miriam) who is stated in the Talmud to have been executed for claiming to be God. Given your knowledge of Talmud, what do you think is the likelihood of this Yeshu being Jesus of Nazareth? Is a timeframe/historical context given in the Talmud for when Yeshu son of Miriam was executed? Is the mode of execution indicated? These questions seem pertinent to the topic at hand. Thank you.

  23. If you want to know the origin of the story of “Yeshu” – it is found in Matthew 28:11-15

    To Zvi: Either you believe that whole passage of Isaiah 53 or you forget all of it. In verse 8 the suffering servant dies, which is reiterated in verse 9 and 12, and in verse 10 it says that BECAUSE the suffering servant died he will see his seed, and in verse 12 it says
    “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
    and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
    because he poured out his soul to death,
    and was numbered with the transgressors;
    yet he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.”

    And Paul explains this in 1. Cor. 15:36-36

    “…that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. 15:37 That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind…..”

    And Yeshua says in John 3:6-7
    “That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 3:7 Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ ”

    Yeshua’s seed is a spiritual seed, it is His followers. You think they are not many??

  24. My above question was regarding Zvi’s own views concerning the Talmudic account so I look forward to Zvi’s own answers 🙂

  25. John, You have to understand that to jews, the issue of who jesus was or wasn’t is not too important. I’t’s not like one of the principles of judaism is not to believe in jesus,but rather not believing in Jesus is just a symtom of being a jew,therefore this is more of a historical question to us more than a religious question. Having said that, my personal belief is that the talmud is indeed describing the Jesus as christians know him. The reasons for this are as follows; The talmud tells us that jesus was hanged on the eve of passover as the 3 out of 4 of the accounts of the nt say, so that matches, his mother being Miriam is another similarity we find,and other things that we believe to be true of Mary, one of the student were “mosai’=mathew while the others could have had a hebrew name that christians didnt use,like mark,luke……As far as the timing of that story I believe it fits pretty well because those that claim that the time period is off because the talmud mentions “Yeshu” in company with Reb yihoshua ben prachia who lived over 100 years earlier happen to be christians who count the years differently than we do. So according to us jews,we are over 100 years earlier in creation which goes well with being in the times of Reb yihoshua ben prachya. Another reason I believe so is because today’s modern talmud editions do not include these 3 particular stories because it was censored many years ago,and that would only make sense if it was referring to Jesus.

  26. John, Jews are the only nation that is required to keep track of the years, for example they must rest the land every seven,every 50 years is yovel, every 28 years we bless the sun….etc, so it would make alot more sense that we have the correct year more than anyone else.

  27. Zvi, I think I have answered all your questions, one answer being that the revelation of Yeshua is an ongoing revelation, since Yeshua appeared as a man only about 2000 years ago and even today is not fully revealed yet (hence the book of Revelation, which is a prophetic book).

    But I think that you haven’t answered my questions Zvi, especially if you do believe in Isaiah 53 at all or not.

    I don’t have a problem at all to believe that Yeshua (and His name is Yeshua by the way) is The Angel of YHWH, THE Arm of YHWH, a fire, THE Son of YHWH, THE Servant of YHWH, and has also been a human being for about 29 years.

    What was the fire in Exodus 3:1-6 in your opinion?

  28. Erica, Again,what did people see AT THAT time that WOW’d them other than a death at the cross which was is LOW point, what was the high point? Also, the word “zerah” wasnt answered.As far as the nature of the fie,hopeully after shabbos.

  29. How does the word “zerah” relate to Isaiah 53? I’m thinking right now of Psalm 112:4

    “זָרַח בַּחֹשֶׁךְ אֹור לַיְשָׁרִים חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם וְצַדִּיק – Light arises (zerah) in the darkness for the upright.”

    The meaning here is a clearly spiritual one. Or do you think that the righteous people will enjoy an especially beautiful sunrise?

  30. Erika,

    I asked you earlier about Heb 1:1-2, 5. How do you square that with your premise that Yeshua was the angel in the burning bush ? Perhaps you may want to reconsider your view… I’ve had to do that on a number of things myself.

  31. Zvi, by the terms

    “He SHALL see his seed”, “After the suffering of his soul, he WILL SEE…”, “My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself”, “Therefore WILL I divide him a portion with the great”, “HE SHALL divide the spoil with the strong”,

    You can see that a future event is discussed. At that point in time people will not realize the identity of Messiah, even though

    “he poured out his soul to death,
    and was numbered with the transgressors” (past tense).

  32. Erica there zayin,resh,ayin, which is what we are discussing and zayin,reish,ches, a completely different hebrew word a ches is not an ayin!

  33. To Rich: What is the problem with Heb 1:1-2, 5 ?

    I’ll quote them here:
    “God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 1:2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.”

    It is clear that Yeshua has only been a human for about 29 years, and before that time people had not heard of Him as a human. And since the worlds were made through Yeshua, He is preexistent.

    And verse 5:
    “For to which of the angels did he say at any time,
    “You are my Son.
    Today have I become your father?”* and again, “I will be to him a Father,
    and he will be to me a Son?”

    Well, does this verse determine at what time YHWH spoke this? I think before He created the world. No doubt that Yeshua gained in glory through His mission on earth, but this does not contradict His preexistence.

    In verse 8 Psalm 45 is quoted: “Your throne, O God (which God?), is forever and ever.
    The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your Kingdom.
    You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
    therefore God, your God (which God?), has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.”

  34. Ok, I see that you are talking about the “seed”. No, I disagree with you Zvi. “Seed” has always two meanings in the Torah, since the Torah is a parable for our day-to-day lives. There is a literal meaning in the plain story, and also a spiritual meaning on the spiritual level. There is not only one level in the Torah! (Guess what – the Torah is also a complex unity!!!)

    Bad news for all the replacement theologians.

  35. By the way – how can a physically dead man see his physical seed after his death which he didn’t have before??

  36. Erica, please supply me the verse that seed =non literal. As far as the dead man if it refers to Israel the question doesnt apply.

  37. My example is Isaiah 53:10 – or whose literal seed is this about?
    And also Isaiah 54:1 – How can a desolate woman have more children than a married woman (except out of wedlock)?

  38. erica the word “ben” can be used that way not the word “zerah” and you cant use a proof from the very verse we are debating!

Comments are closed.