NWL, where did I say in any of this that I relied on a Trinity doctrine (or assumption for support?) I thought I was pretty straightforward in my opening that Hebrews wasn't about a Trinity. It was about Jesus, the Son of God. You may have reflexes prepared for anti-Trinity arguments, but that doesn't help here. Let's stay focused and not waste space. For example...
... the trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus is not the Father but a separate person from the Father. Therefore your rebuttal doesn't even get off the ground.
If you could show me where I requested a "Trinity" doctrine for an assumption for my argument, you would have a valid point. But I never made such a request, and as such we don't want to be talking circles about each other, do we?
Part of honest analysis is to evaluate the other's position consistently, in the light of its own assumptions. You must realize that one of my assumptions is that "Jesus was God manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16) and in light of that, as God appearing as the central character of his own creation, there is going to be some unusual pronoun usage and self-reference. How else would God, manifest in the flesh, refer to the Creator so that whomever he is talking to would understand?
Afraid that I've got you on the ten-year old factor. A ten year old would understand how God could be his God, and how he could be on earth at the same time in heaven above. Modern video games offer us a model where we have artificial worlds with creators, and the creators of those worlds sometimes enter their own worlds subjecting themselves to the rules of their creation. They are outside and above their world, yet enter their world at the same time.
A ten-year old is likely to understand that if you tangle with someone who says that they will have the SysAdmin take action, it's especially likely to happen if the player of that character IS the SysAdmin. Perhaps a sixty-year old might have trouble with the concept, but the ten-year old will get it.
So let's take stock of this discussion. You are concerned over whether God could (or would) speak of himself in the third person (grammatically, not in a Trinity sense) when we have a whole factor of magnitude of evidence that surpasses that. "God was manifest in the flesh" and "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, I Jesus have sent mine angel..." Given the unusual situation of God walking among us, it can be expected that there might be a confusing bit here and there. That is understandable. However, we are told straight out who Jesus actually was, without room for confusion, for the purpose of clarification. Let's cut to the chase here.
No but the statements regarding Jesus do deny Jesus is part of the trinity. No Bible book is regarding the trinity since the trinity is not taught in the Bible. Learned trinitarian claim that the trinity can be understood from the scriptures, but no learned trinitarian I've ever spoken to has expressed that its taught.
Your reasoning here is plain bad. First of all you state God is his own God but Jesus made it clear the Father was his God (1 Peter 1:3), the trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus is not the Father but a separate person from the Father. Therefore your rebuttal doesn't even get off the ground.
Secondly, to state that since the Bible
doesn't say "God does not have a God" doesn't rule out that
God can have a God is like me saying that since the Bible
doesn't state God is a flying spaghetti monster who lives on the moon and eats moon dust for supper and is married to Mary and fathered children with her in heaven, that it doesn't rule out the prospect of those things being true.
From the vast majority of peoples understanding of the bible, anyone, including a ten year old will tell you that almighty God cannot be God and yet have a God over him. Just because the Bible doesn't directly state something doesn't mean it is not true.
Please show me from the bible where these statements that were made by you were derived from:
- "Sometimes a person has themselves as their own god"
- "God is his own God"
The term angel simply means messenger, there was no word for "Angel" as we understand the word today. I don't even think your own reasoning since in your post you have no issue with understanding the Jehovah in the OT, who appeared to Abraham, as an angel, but now you seperate them and say there are two classes.
The word angel does not simply mean messenger. I can mean messenger, it can also mean a created spirit. It can also be any spirit of God. It is hardly controversial that angel is a word dependent on context. God himself is called an Angel (see Genesis 48:15) and Joshua is called an angel (Exodus 23:20) but in my context I think it is obvious that I meant "created spirits." There is a Creator of spirits, and there are the spirits he created.
Hebrews 12:9 KJV
(9) Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto
the Father of spirits, and live?
The fact that Jesus receives an inheritance should firstly tell you he can't be God since Almighty God doesn't need to receive an inheritance because he already owns all things. Regardless, the inheritance Jesus receives is in regards to him being the "firstborn", the context of the surrounding verses clearly show this.
One receives an inheritance not by having special accomplishment, but because the possession is yours by right. Because God owns all things, is precisely why he inherits all things upon earth.
It was not a gift, it was not received by grace, it was not earned, it was not won, it was not stolen, it was not seized as a prize of war. Inheritance is the word to describe how Jesus, who is revealed as none other than our Creator in more than a few places, has the right to rule the earth.
The act of proskuneó/worship/obeisance given to Jesus was in regards to him being the "firstborn" and not because he was God. Since Jesus was the firstborn he, out of all the angels, inherited more power and authority than the rest of them, much like a firstborn in a Jewish family would inherited more than the rest of his household since he held the "right of the firstborn" (see Deut 21:17). Look at v4 of the text, Jesus became better than the angels to what extent and for what reason??? He became better than the angels "as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs". Are you trying to say that Almighty God is ONLY superior to the angels simply due to his name being better than theirs!? I think not. The verse makes no sense with the understanding Jesus was almighty God in the flesh here. But is it possible that Jesus, was a spirit, like the angels are spirits and who is separate from God ontologically, better than the angels to the extent that he inherited a name better than theirs? Does that reasoning fit in with Hebrews 1:4? It sure does!
Your reasoning runs into problems because the scriptures tell us that Jesus created all things, and Jesus himself, to make sure we don't misunderstand, repeatedly takes the most solid names and titles of God for Himself in his book of revelation. You are debating tiny things, arguing that they could be interpreted one way instead of another, and ignoring evidence that is clear cut and exceeds those little skirmish movements by orders of Magnitude.
Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV
Re-read what is said:
(Hebrews 7:1-3) "..For this Mel•chizʹe•dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time.."
How about the explanation I gave, which the vast majority of the scholarly community understand the text to mean, that when it says "fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life" it was in reference to there being no records of any of those things stated.
Moreover the text applies the fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life statement as belonging to Melchizedek, nowhere in the sciptures is it applied to Jesus. Read the account, since you're obviously reading incorrectly, as the account never applied that epithet to Jesus. The only corolation between Jesus and the King of salem is that they both remain a priest for all time. The fact that v11 states that Jesus is "another" priest should tell you that God was not that priest back in the OT, if he were then he wouldn't be another priest but the same priest. Moreover, since you believe God was Melchizedek in the OT, and regarding Melchizedek it says he would remain priest forever, then why would Jesus need become another Melchizedek?? Unless! Melchizedek was simply a human, and the things said about him were in reference to there being any records of the things mentioned to in Hebrews 7:1-3 as I've already stated.
Ah, but it does apply to Jesus, I guess you must have missed it, but Paul specifies "made like onto the Son of God" (Hebrews 7:3). Notice that it doesn't say, "made like unto a son of God" but "the Son of God" or in other words, Jesus.
John 9:35-38 KJV
(35) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him,
Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
(36) He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
(37) And Jesus said unto him,
Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
(38) And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
John 19:7 KJV
(7) The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because
he made himself the Son of God.
The Son of God is God, it is God manifest in the flesh. The Jews understood what it meant, that's why they identified it as blasphemy. So there's only two options here: the Jews were right, and Jesus was a liar and a blasphemer, or Jesus was right, because he was the Son of God and not a blasphemer.
As I see the description of Melchizadek, this looks like another instance of God appearing in the flesh in times past. It says he was made like unto the Son of God (who is plainly defined as Jesus) and there isn't anyone else who immortality of themselves without end of life.
Thats the thing, those two angels who go down to Sodom are spoken of as Jehovah, thus your reasoning fails. YOU need to explain why the Angels are referred to as Jehovah and reevaluate who those three men are.
Gen 18:20,21 states he Jehovah was going to Sodom
Gen 18:22 states the two other “men/messengers” left for Sodom but “Jehovah remained with Abraham”.
Gen 18:33 states Jehovah “went his way”.
Gen 19:1 states The two messengers arrive at Sodom
Gen 19:13 states the Messengers said that Jehovah had sent them to destroy Sodom
Gen 19:14 states Lot stated that "Jehovah" was about to destroy city
Gen 19:16 states due to Jehovah’s compassion the men seized hold of lots hand”
Gen 19:18 has Lot calling the two messengers Jehovah
Gen 19:21 has Jehovah talking back to Lot responding to the request made in v18
Gen 19:24 states Jehovah destroyed S&G by Jehovah in the heavens
NWL, it seems like your argument slipped a gear here. The angels aren't referred to as Jehovah, only one person among them is needed to satisfy that requirement. I know you really want it to read a certain way, but you're forcing it past what it actually says. The normal way of writing is that when you say a person speaks, and it refers to in the singular, it means a single person is speaking, not a Trinity of Three Angels.
So what's going wrong here? Here's some thoughts:
1) Why do you say that Lot called the messengers Jehovah in Genesis 19:18? Genesis 18:33 it says that Abraham spoke with the LORD (Jehovah). Adonai is not specific, it is a respectful title that one could use when talking with God or an angel, but Jehovah is very specific. It's in chapter 18 with Abraham, not chapter 19 with Lot.
2) Yes, that LORD Jehovah did go down to see what would happen, that doesn't mean he has to remain in physical form to do the seeing. Three people saw Abraham, and were visible and in the flesh for Abraham's benefit. The LORD Jehovah spoke with Abraham. When they left, two people entered Sodom, and it does not say that the LORD was among them anymore.
Simple math here, 3 - 2 = 1.
(LORD + 2 Angels) - (2 Angels) = LORD
I think the burden of proof would be for you to show that the two angels were ever called Jehovah in Sodom, chapter 19. Look here, the angels even speak of the LORD in the third person, as if he is not among their group any longer.
Genesis 19:12-13 KJV
(12)
And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:
(13)
For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD;
and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
I'm not sure why you wanted to ask about this question, but I presume it's about whether God can manifest in the flesh without imploding or the like. Some folk seem to have an idea that God is "so holy" that he cannot touch or enter his creation. It's a rather Gnostic idea that has more in common with Greek philosophy than anything else. I am making an assumption about why you wanted to talk about this... but if you would tell me why, I wouldn't have to guess.
