<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trinity Debate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/</link>
	<description>Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:51:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry S</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-89815</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-89815</guid>
		<description>&quot;Therefore, the fact that SOIL is the comparative parent of Adam, who, again, could not pass Satanic test, sinned and was demoted; and Mary, the SUPERIOR among all women, is the comparative parent of Jesus, who, again, passed all the Satanic tests, did not sin and therefore was NEVER demoted, given that both Adam and Jesus got their souls unbiologically from God directly; it follows that whatever type of soul God gave Adam was originally INFERIOR to the one He gave Jesus. Thus Jesus would still have been superior to Adam even if he (Adam) had been able to defend his INITIAL STATUS, (and thus Jesus was very superior to the demoted Adam (and, by the way, EXTREMELY superior to Adam’s descendants including MUHAMMAD, whom Allah found STRAY: Qur’an 12:3, 93:6-8).&quot; 

These posts by Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq appear to be part of a larger conversation between Christian/Islamic theology and make for an interesting read. 

However, I don&#039;t believe orthodox biblical Christian thought would speak of God &#039;giving&#039; Jesus a soul. I think Christian theology tends to focus on the eternal nature of Jesus who existed in perfect unity/equality with the Father before the existence of what we think of as time. 

Perhaps other posters may wish to comment on the notion of God giving Jesus a soul. 

Also the first post of has several declarative statements which I believe could be challenged or at least the term Soul seems quite odd. For example the NT texts cited to support #2 in my mind don&#039;t speak of Jesus as the Soul of God.

2.God-the-SON, means the SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God inside His (GOD’S) WORD, which was physically born as a human body. (Col. 1:15, 19; John 1:1, 14-18, 17:5; Phil. 2:5-7; Mt. 1:18; Isa. 9:6; John 14:10; Pls. 82:6)

3. God-the-HOLY-SPIRIT, means just SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God, i.e. when, or as, not inside any bodily form.

-----
We egals get painted as unorthodox by our brothers/sisters on the comp side so it seems important to speak to this post - or at least ask for clarification. Please know I am not trying to be argumentative, merely pointing out what appear to be odd expressions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Therefore, the fact that SOIL is the comparative parent of Adam, who, again, could not pass Satanic test, sinned and was demoted; and Mary, the SUPERIOR among all women, is the comparative parent of Jesus, who, again, passed all the Satanic tests, did not sin and therefore was NEVER demoted, given that both Adam and Jesus got their souls unbiologically from God directly; it follows that whatever type of soul God gave Adam was originally INFERIOR to the one He gave Jesus. Thus Jesus would still have been superior to Adam even if he (Adam) had been able to defend his INITIAL STATUS, (and thus Jesus was very superior to the demoted Adam (and, by the way, EXTREMELY superior to Adam’s descendants including MUHAMMAD, whom Allah found STRAY: Qur’an 12:3, 93:6-8).&#8221; </p>
<p>These posts by Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq appear to be part of a larger conversation between Christian/Islamic theology and make for an interesting read. </p>
<p>However, I don&#8217;t believe orthodox biblical Christian thought would speak of God &#8216;giving&#8217; Jesus a soul. I think Christian theology tends to focus on the eternal nature of Jesus who existed in perfect unity/equality with the Father before the existence of what we think of as time. </p>
<p>Perhaps other posters may wish to comment on the notion of God giving Jesus a soul. </p>
<p>Also the first post of has several declarative statements which I believe could be challenged or at least the term Soul seems quite odd. For example the NT texts cited to support #2 in my mind don&#8217;t speak of Jesus as the Soul of God.</p>
<p>2.God-the-SON, means the SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God inside His (GOD’S) WORD, which was physically born as a human body. (Col. 1:15, 19; John 1:1, 14-18, 17:5; Phil. 2:5-7; Mt. 1:18; Isa. 9:6; John 14:10; Pls. 82:6)</p>
<p>3. God-the-HOLY-SPIRIT, means just SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God, i.e. when, or as, not inside any bodily form.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8211;<br />
We egals get painted as unorthodox by our brothers/sisters on the comp side so it seems important to speak to this post &#8211; or at least ask for clarification. Please know I am not trying to be argumentative, merely pointing out what appear to be odd expressions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-89807</link>
		<dc:creator>Jamie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-89807</guid>
		<description>Those are very interesting comments, Nur-El-Masih Ben Haq.

You mentioned the equation: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

The best I heard it described is that for the Trinity the equation is NOT 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 but rather:

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

It&#039;s a kind of hyper reality I suppose, not ours.  We see exponentiation in the Kingdom of God, such as those who have will be given even more and those who don&#039;t have will have what they have taken away from them . . .   This isn&#039;t our (human) law of understanding or way of existence.

I think most regrettably some Christians (unconsciously, I assume) can&#039;t fully accept Jesus IS God.

I know that sounds incredible, but at its heart I think that&#039;s the problem.  Some form of Arianism or Semi-Arianism from what I understand continues to spring up in the Church from time to time.

The Trinity is to me the greatest of all Christian mysteries . . .  Therefore, it&#039;s not easy to comprehend because of our limited minds and natures.

That doesn&#039;t excuse however a basic, foundational, &lt;i&gt;traditional&lt;/i&gt; understanding of our faith (most especially by those in leadership positions).

It just continues to amaze me that those who believe they are believing in what &lt;i&gt;traditionally&lt;/i&gt; has been taught about the nature of God aren&#039;t doing that yet think they are being ever so &lt;i&gt;traditional&lt;/i&gt; . . .  And then they go on and attack those for &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; holding on to the traditional faith??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those are very interesting comments, Nur-El-Masih Ben Haq.</p>
<p>You mentioned the equation: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3</p>
<p>The best I heard it described is that for the Trinity the equation is NOT 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 but rather:</p>
<p>1 x 1 x 1 = 1</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a kind of hyper reality I suppose, not ours.  We see exponentiation in the Kingdom of God, such as those who have will be given even more and those who don&#8217;t have will have what they have taken away from them . . .   This isn&#8217;t our (human) law of understanding or way of existence.</p>
<p>I think most regrettably some Christians (unconsciously, I assume) can&#8217;t fully accept Jesus IS God.</p>
<p>I know that sounds incredible, but at its heart I think that&#8217;s the problem.  Some form of Arianism or Semi-Arianism from what I understand continues to spring up in the Church from time to time.</p>
<p>The Trinity is to me the greatest of all Christian mysteries . . .  Therefore, it&#8217;s not easy to comprehend because of our limited minds and natures.</p>
<p>That doesn&#8217;t excuse however a basic, foundational, <i>traditional</i> understanding of our faith (most especially by those in leadership positions).</p>
<p>It just continues to amaze me that those who believe they are believing in what <i>traditionally</i> has been taught about the nature of God aren&#8217;t doing that yet think they are being ever so <i>traditional</i> . . .  And then they go on and attack those for <i>not</i> holding on to the traditional faith??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-89806</link>
		<dc:creator>Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-89806</guid>
		<description>TRINITY: Islam initially recognized three Arabian Gods. 

The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was born in a pagan community that believed in three Gods: Al-lat, Manat, and Uzza. Prophet Muhammad and, therefore, Islam initially declared it recognition of the deityship of these pagan Gods (or Goddess) via a supposed Allah&#039;s revelation to Muhammad that, according to &#039;hoarded&#039; Hadith, went thus: 

Qur?an 53:13, ?And he (Muhammad) saw him (angel Gabriel) yet 

Another time. 

14. By the lote-tree at the furthest boundary. 

15. Near unto which is the Garden of Abode. 

16. When that which covers the tree does cover it. 

17. The sight turned not aside, nor did it extend beyond the 

Limit. 

18. Indeed he saw some of the greater signs of his Lord 

19. Have ye seen al-lat and Uzza? 

20. And Manat the third one besides? 

* These are the Exalted Gharaniq (Damsels) 

* And verily their intercession (with Allah) is to be hoped 

For? 

When the pagan Arabs heard such a Qur&#039;anic endorsement of their deities, they massively converted to Islam. But that the story of their conversion was so exaggerated that the Muslim refugees confidently returned home from Abyssinia (Ethiopia). 

The returnee refugees and Muhammad himself were disappointed to discover that the story of the massive conversion was largely a hoax. The angry Muhammad then withdrew his recognition of the deityship of the Three Goddesses and blamed Satan for making him include in the recitation false words, &quot; *These are the Exalted Gharaniq. *And their intercession (with Allah) is to be hoped for&quot;. 

Thus Muhammad expunged these &quot;Satanic Verses&quot; (as they are now called by Muslim scholars) and replaced them with a supposed reaction from Allah: 

21.&quot;What! For you the *male sex, and for Him (Allah) the 

Female? 

22. Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! 

23. These are nothing but names which ye have devised, ye 

And your fathers?&quot; 

(*Allah supposedly rejected the pagans&#039; recognition of Him, at this stage, as being the father of the three goddesses) See Hadith al-Gharaniq al-Ula gotten from al-Waqidi, ibn Hantab, Abu Jaafar Ibn at-Tabari etc for details. 

I know many Muslim readers would dismiss this as lies because must of these sensitive issues are hidden away from them. But whoever cares to do research on this or ask renowned Islamic scholars will be shocked to discover that the &quot;Satanic Verses&quot; scandal is a historical fact. 

In fact , the nature of the early chapters of the Qur&#039;an tends to confirm the historicity of the &quot;Satanic Verses&quot; scandal for, as Encyclopedia Britanica 15 page 342 puts it, &quot;(In the Qur&#039;an) strangely enough, there is NO REFERENCE TO THE ONENESS OF GOD (The premier Islamic doctrine now) in these early chapters. According to one tradition, on one occasion Mohammed even acknowledged the relative authorities of three goddesses: Al-lat, Manat and Uzza, but later on abolished the passage in which the reference occurred&quot; said the Encyclopedia 

Thus Islam&#039;s belated attacks on Christianity with respect to the TRINITY is just a cover-up to this scandal of an attempt to &quot;Trinitinize&quot; the three pagan Arab goddesses which (the attempt) failed. 

Christian TRINITY does not imply three Gods at all. It is a logical and scientific phenomenon that expresses the three major ways that personifies Himself. 

The greatest Christian Law is the perfect belief in the oneness of God (Mk. 12:28-32; 1 Cor. 8:3-6; Jms. 2:18-21). 

Since in the Old Testament time God demonstrated His kind of &quot;spirito- allotropy&quot;: (Let US, OUR image, OUR likeness, one of US: Gen. 1:26, 3:22, Jer. 23:23), and also Qur&#039;an 2:1, 6:9 ete. 

In fact not only Muslims -- Jehovah Witness and the Jews too should realize that the concept of &quot;God-The-Son&quot; scripturally predated the times of Jesus Christ (Pls. 82:6; John 10:34-38); likewise &quot;God-The-Father&quot; (Deut. 32:6); and ?God-the-Holy-Spirit? (Job 32:4, Pls 139:7-12).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TRINITY: Islam initially recognized three Arabian Gods. </p>
<p>The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was born in a pagan community that believed in three Gods: Al-lat, Manat, and Uzza. Prophet Muhammad and, therefore, Islam initially declared it recognition of the deityship of these pagan Gods (or Goddess) via a supposed Allah&#8217;s revelation to Muhammad that, according to &#8216;hoarded&#8217; Hadith, went thus: </p>
<p>Qur?an 53:13, ?And he (Muhammad) saw him (angel Gabriel) yet </p>
<p>Another time. </p>
<p>14. By the lote-tree at the furthest boundary. </p>
<p>15. Near unto which is the Garden of Abode. </p>
<p>16. When that which covers the tree does cover it. </p>
<p>17. The sight turned not aside, nor did it extend beyond the </p>
<p>Limit. </p>
<p>18. Indeed he saw some of the greater signs of his Lord </p>
<p>19. Have ye seen al-lat and Uzza? </p>
<p>20. And Manat the third one besides? </p>
<p>* These are the Exalted Gharaniq (Damsels) </p>
<p>* And verily their intercession (with Allah) is to be hoped </p>
<p>For? </p>
<p>When the pagan Arabs heard such a Qur&#8217;anic endorsement of their deities, they massively converted to Islam. But that the story of their conversion was so exaggerated that the Muslim refugees confidently returned home from Abyssinia (Ethiopia). </p>
<p>The returnee refugees and Muhammad himself were disappointed to discover that the story of the massive conversion was largely a hoax. The angry Muhammad then withdrew his recognition of the deityship of the Three Goddesses and blamed Satan for making him include in the recitation false words, &#8221; *These are the Exalted Gharaniq. *And their intercession (with Allah) is to be hoped for&#8221;. </p>
<p>Thus Muhammad expunged these &#8220;Satanic Verses&#8221; (as they are now called by Muslim scholars) and replaced them with a supposed reaction from Allah: </p>
<p>21.&#8221;What! For you the *male sex, and for Him (Allah) the </p>
<p>Female? </p>
<p>22. Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! </p>
<p>23. These are nothing but names which ye have devised, ye </p>
<p>And your fathers?&#8221; </p>
<p>(*Allah supposedly rejected the pagans&#8217; recognition of Him, at this stage, as being the father of the three goddesses) See Hadith al-Gharaniq al-Ula gotten from al-Waqidi, ibn Hantab, Abu Jaafar Ibn at-Tabari etc for details. </p>
<p>I know many Muslim readers would dismiss this as lies because must of these sensitive issues are hidden away from them. But whoever cares to do research on this or ask renowned Islamic scholars will be shocked to discover that the &#8220;Satanic Verses&#8221; scandal is a historical fact. </p>
<p>In fact , the nature of the early chapters of the Qur&#8217;an tends to confirm the historicity of the &#8220;Satanic Verses&#8221; scandal for, as Encyclopedia Britanica 15 page 342 puts it, &#8220;(In the Qur&#8217;an) strangely enough, there is NO REFERENCE TO THE ONENESS OF GOD (The premier Islamic doctrine now) in these early chapters. According to one tradition, on one occasion Mohammed even acknowledged the relative authorities of three goddesses: Al-lat, Manat and Uzza, but later on abolished the passage in which the reference occurred&#8221; said the Encyclopedia </p>
<p>Thus Islam&#8217;s belated attacks on Christianity with respect to the TRINITY is just a cover-up to this scandal of an attempt to &#8220;Trinitinize&#8221; the three pagan Arab goddesses which (the attempt) failed. </p>
<p>Christian TRINITY does not imply three Gods at all. It is a logical and scientific phenomenon that expresses the three major ways that personifies Himself. </p>
<p>The greatest Christian Law is the perfect belief in the oneness of God (Mk. 12:28-32; 1 Cor. 8:3-6; Jms. 2:18-21). </p>
<p>Since in the Old Testament time God demonstrated His kind of &#8220;spirito- allotropy&#8221;: (Let US, OUR image, OUR likeness, one of US: Gen. 1:26, 3:22, Jer. 23:23), and also Qur&#8217;an 2:1, 6:9 ete. </p>
<p>In fact not only Muslims &#8212; Jehovah Witness and the Jews too should realize that the concept of &#8220;God-The-Son&#8221; scripturally predated the times of Jesus Christ (Pls. 82:6; John 10:34-38); likewise &#8220;God-The-Father&#8221; (Deut. 32:6); and ?God-the-Holy-Spirit? (Job 32:4, Pls 139:7-12).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-89805</link>
		<dc:creator>Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:24:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-89805</guid>
		<description>PROOF OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS From the Koran and the Bible and the Concept of TRINITY. 

God began by choosing a chaste woman, Mary (Maryam). To qualify her, He necessarily exalted her in advance ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION, for birth is the women&#039;s GREATEST pride and, yet Mary would EXTRA-ORDINARILY give the birth that is the GREATEST of all times. See Luke 1:28, 30:34, 41-44, 48-49, and 54-55. Also says Qur&#039;an 3:42, &quot;....O Mary! Allah has CHOSEN thee, and PURIFIED thee, and PREFERRED thee ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION&quot;.

After that, God settled His soul (Ruh) inside His word (Kalimat) which he had put in the womb of Mary, who had been spiritually qualified as we have seen earlier. That was how Mary conceived Jesus. That was to enable the divine attribute have human features through her for the humans to understand Him better (Hence only Jesus is Biblicaly and Qur&#039;anically declared as GOD&#039;s WORD and GOD&#039;s RUH (Spirit): John 1:1, 14:8:23, Phl. 2:5-8; and the Qur&#039;an 4:171, 2:252 etc. (By implication, Jesus&#039; flesh is not actually biological but God&#039;s Word; similarly, his life is not actually human&#039;s but from God&#039;s own as we will see more later).

Therefore, even after his humanly birth, Jesus was declared as much superior to angels and, in fact, God said, &quot;Let ALL God&#039;s angels WORSHIP him (Jesus)&quot; (Heb. 1:6; 1Pet. 3:22; Mat. 4:11), as was Adam, of course, in Qur&#039;an 2:30-34.

Thus, apparently, Jesus was a human, the rationality and aim of his humanized birth. See Rom. 8:3-6; Heb. 2:16-18. Also, says Allah according to Qur&#039;an 6:9, &quot;Had We appointed an ANGEL our messenger, We ASSUREDLY had made him LIKE A MAN SO THAT HE MIGHT SPEAK TO (associate with) MEN....&quot;

Muslims often cite John 5:30-31; Mark 13:32-33 and John 1428 etc as disproofs of Christ&#039;s divinity. But, logically, these verses, rather than disprove Jesus&#039; divinity, expressed the anticipated and expected demonstrations of the character that was Jesus-in-exemplary-typical-human-nature and , therefore , in accordance with God&#039;s programme as stated in the Qur&#039;an 6:9 and:-

(1) Phil. 2:6, &quot;Who (Jesus) being in very nature God, did NOT consider equality with God something to grasp, 7 But made himself NOTHING, taking the very nature of a SERVANT, being made in human likeness 8, and found in appearance as a MAN, he HUMBLED himself and became OBEDIENT to the death, even death in the cross&quot;

(2) Heb. 2:16, &quot;For surely it is NOT ANGELS that he (Jesus) helps, but Abraham&#039;s descendants. 17 FOR THIS REASON HE (GOD) HAD TO MAKE HIM (JESUS) LIKE HIS BROTHERS IN EVERY WAY in order that......&quot; (Compare Qur&#039;an 6:9)

(3) Rom. 8:3, &quot;(Jesus)....in the LIKENESS OF A SINFUL MAN..........&quot;
So, in the light of these verses, it should be clear that Jesus&#039; humanized acts did not mean that he was actually a human being (John 8:23) but were the divinely designs that were to make Jesus not unnecessarily scare the humans but, rather be their SOURCE OF INSPIRATIONS.

In other words, if Jesus were to act God-the-father again even when haven purposely transformed into a man, the transformation would logically be nonsense.
The Holy Bible reveals relationship between Adam and Jesus thus, &quot;The FIRST Adam became a LIVING SOUL, the LAST Adam (Jesus) a QUICKENING SPIRIT&quot;, 1 Cor. 15:45. Therefore, to understand the nature of Jesus more, we must go back to the Adam&#039;s case.

Thus, when God breathed life into Adam (Qur&#039;an 38:73-78 and Gen. 2:7), he (God) declared him His (God&#039;s) own IMAGE/LIKENESS (Gen. 2:7) or His VICEROY (Qur&#039;an 2:30). Also, according to Qur&#039;an 28:37-38, 15:39-44; 17:61-62; 7:11-13 and 2:34, Allah instructed ALL the angels to WORSHIP Adam on the ground that He (Allah) had breathed something of His SpIRIT into Adam for a soul (see Heb. 1:2-6, for the same instruction in respect of Jesus). In fact, according to these Qur&#039;anic verses, Satan&#039;s curse and demotion are God&#039;s reaction to his (Satan&#039;s) refusal to prostrate himself before Adam.

Therefore, Biblically and Qur&#039;anically Adam, whose flesh was made from just the sand (Gen. 2:7, Qur&#039;an 28:72), was notwithstanding such GLORIOUS initially. And, logically, the glorious qualification came from what God breathed in him.

However, Adam did not pass Satanic test but sinned (that shows some relative weakness in him), thereby lost his INITIAL STATUS and therefore was ordered out of MOST EXALTED DWELLING, the Garden of Eden(Qur&#039;an 7:19-24, Gen. 3:1-24). But Jesus passed all the Satanic tests (Mt.4:1-11, Heb. 4:15; Qur&#039;an 19:19), which logically implies comparative superiority in him.

Therefore, the fact that SOIL is the comparative parent of Adam, who, again, could not pass Satanic test, sinned and was demoted; and Mary, the SUPERIOR among all women, is the comparative parent of Jesus, who, again, passed all the Satanic tests, did not sin and therefore was NEVER demoted, given that both Adam and Jesus got their souls unbiologically from God directly; it follows that whatever type of soul God gave Adam was originally INFERIOR to the one He gave Jesus. Thus Jesus would still have been superior to Adam even if he (Adam) had been able to defend his INITIAL STATUS, (and thus Jesus was very superior to the demoted Adam (and, by the way, EXTREMELY superior to Adam&#039;s descendants including MUHAMMAD, whom Allah found STRAY: Qur&#039;an 12:3, 93:6-8). 

So if initially Adam, made from soil, was inter-alia, QUALIFIED to be God&#039;s IMAGE/LIKENESS (Biblically) or GOd&#039;s VICEROY and WORTHY OF A WORSHIP BY THE ANGELS OF GOD (Qur&#039;anically), all because his soul was God-breathed, then Jesus, who has much greater of these qualifications and miraculousness (Bible, Qur&#039;an 5:113), is logically divine.

Thus to Jesus&#039; divinity God did order the angels to worship; indeed, only divinity can be worshiped (Mt. 4:8-10; Qur&#039;an 16:36; Heb. 1:2-6).

That was why when Jesus was asked to disclose God he said, &quot;Have I been with you so long and yet you do not know me...? He who has seen me has seen the Father (God); how can you say, &#039;show us the Father?..I do not speak on my (the human) authority, but the Father who DWELLS IN ME DOES HIS WORKS&quot;, John 14:8-10.

That is why Jesus was Biblically likened to (or understood to be) The Great Spirit Priest, Melchizedek who (being a spirit), has no biological father, mother, genealogy and dates of birth and death, but remains an eternal priest; Heb. 7:1-3, (i.e. the genealogy and date of birth of the ever living Jesus were but symbolic as earlier seen).

And, that is why when Jesus accomplished his mission on the Earth naturally, he went back to where he came from, Qur&#039;an 4:158, &quot;God has raised him up unto HIMSELF&quot;. See also John 6:28, 62, and Mk. 16:19. John 8:23.
Yes! Jesus is, according to both the Bible and the Qur&#039;an, back to his origin, God. 

This brings us to the issue of Trinity.

The TRINITY

The term &#039;Trinity&#039; is not of Biblical origin but the concept is. Thus, as any Biblically foreign word, it is not necessary to employ it in particular in whatever situation. However, the word &#039;Trinity&#039; is relevantly expressive, thus it was employed as a term by some Bible interpreters just because it was the best word that simply expressed the ONENESS of the Almighty God, His soul in a born human body, and His soul when , or as, not inside a body. Thus:

1. God-the-FATHER, means the ALMIGHTY God.
(Deut.32:6; Mt.5:48,6:9-14; 1Cor.8:4-6)

2.God-the-SON, means the SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God inside His (GOD&#039;S) WORD, which was physically born as a human body. (Col. 1:15, 19; John 1:1, 14-18, 17:5; Phil. 2:5-7; Mt. 1:18; Isa. 9:6; John 14:10; Pls. 82:6)

3. God-the-HOLY-SPIRIT, means just SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God, i.e. when, or as, not inside any bodily form. (John 4:24; MK. 3:28-29; Job 33:4; Gen.. 1:2; Pls. 139:7-12; Hab 3:3; 2Cor. 3:17-18). 

It is, therefore simplistic to think that Christian Trinitarian concept originated from paganism just because the pagans had &quot;similar&quot; doctrine before the word &quot;Trinity&quot; was employed by some Bible interpreters. Pagan &quot;Trinity&quot; differs from the Christian own in the sense that it has always referred to three entities whereas that of Christian referred to only one entity who acted in three ways. 

Science also suggests the possibility of the Christian TRINITY. Thus: some matters can exist in many physically different capacities and chemically remain their exact selves nevertheless. See ALLOTROPY. Allotropy is the EXISTENCE OF AN ELEMENT IN MANY PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES AND CHEMICALLY REMAINS IT EXACT SELF, just as Trinity is the EXISTENSE OF THE GOD IN THREE PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES BUT SPIRITUALLY REMAINS HIS EXACT SELF. Of course, if matter can exhibit such a rare capacity as the allotropy, how much more can the creator himself do? Hence the exceptional ?allotropy?, the Trinity. 

Therefore, those who think the TRINITY necessarily implies three Gods simply because 1+1+1=3 and not 1 are just simpletons, as science has once again, shown. You know, Christianity is a religion that makes you to think more about the complexity of life, reality, relativity, time and space etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PROOF OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS From the Koran and the Bible and the Concept of TRINITY. </p>
<p>God began by choosing a chaste woman, Mary (Maryam). To qualify her, He necessarily exalted her in advance ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION, for birth is the women&#8217;s GREATEST pride and, yet Mary would EXTRA-ORDINARILY give the birth that is the GREATEST of all times. See Luke 1:28, 30:34, 41-44, 48-49, and 54-55. Also says Qur&#8217;an 3:42, &#8220;&#8230;.O Mary! Allah has CHOSEN thee, and PURIFIED thee, and PREFERRED thee ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION&#8221;.</p>
<p>After that, God settled His soul (Ruh) inside His word (Kalimat) which he had put in the womb of Mary, who had been spiritually qualified as we have seen earlier. That was how Mary conceived Jesus. That was to enable the divine attribute have human features through her for the humans to understand Him better (Hence only Jesus is Biblicaly and Qur&#8217;anically declared as GOD&#8217;s WORD and GOD&#8217;s RUH (Spirit): John 1:1, 14:8:23, Phl. 2:5-8; and the Qur&#8217;an 4:171, 2:252 etc. (By implication, Jesus&#8217; flesh is not actually biological but God&#8217;s Word; similarly, his life is not actually human&#8217;s but from God&#8217;s own as we will see more later).</p>
<p>Therefore, even after his humanly birth, Jesus was declared as much superior to angels and, in fact, God said, &#8220;Let ALL God&#8217;s angels WORSHIP him (Jesus)&#8221; (Heb. 1:6; 1Pet. 3:22; Mat. 4:11), as was Adam, of course, in Qur&#8217;an 2:30-34.</p>
<p>Thus, apparently, Jesus was a human, the rationality and aim of his humanized birth. See Rom. 8:3-6; Heb. 2:16-18. Also, says Allah according to Qur&#8217;an 6:9, &#8220;Had We appointed an ANGEL our messenger, We ASSUREDLY had made him LIKE A MAN SO THAT HE MIGHT SPEAK TO (associate with) MEN&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
<p>Muslims often cite John 5:30-31; Mark 13:32-33 and John 1428 etc as disproofs of Christ&#8217;s divinity. But, logically, these verses, rather than disprove Jesus&#8217; divinity, expressed the anticipated and expected demonstrations of the character that was Jesus-in-exemplary-typical-human-nature and , therefore , in accordance with God&#8217;s programme as stated in the Qur&#8217;an 6:9 and:-</p>
<p>(1) Phil. 2:6, &#8220;Who (Jesus) being in very nature God, did NOT consider equality with God something to grasp, 7 But made himself NOTHING, taking the very nature of a SERVANT, being made in human likeness 8, and found in appearance as a MAN, he HUMBLED himself and became OBEDIENT to the death, even death in the cross&#8221;</p>
<p>(2) Heb. 2:16, &#8220;For surely it is NOT ANGELS that he (Jesus) helps, but Abraham&#8217;s descendants. 17 FOR THIS REASON HE (GOD) HAD TO MAKE HIM (JESUS) LIKE HIS BROTHERS IN EVERY WAY in order that&#8230;&#8230;&#8221; (Compare Qur&#8217;an 6:9)</p>
<p>(3) Rom. 8:3, &#8220;(Jesus)&#8230;.in the LIKENESS OF A SINFUL MAN&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;<br />
So, in the light of these verses, it should be clear that Jesus&#8217; humanized acts did not mean that he was actually a human being (John 8:23) but were the divinely designs that were to make Jesus not unnecessarily scare the humans but, rather be their SOURCE OF INSPIRATIONS.</p>
<p>In other words, if Jesus were to act God-the-father again even when haven purposely transformed into a man, the transformation would logically be nonsense.<br />
The Holy Bible reveals relationship between Adam and Jesus thus, &#8220;The FIRST Adam became a LIVING SOUL, the LAST Adam (Jesus) a QUICKENING SPIRIT&#8221;, 1 Cor. 15:45. Therefore, to understand the nature of Jesus more, we must go back to the Adam&#8217;s case.</p>
<p>Thus, when God breathed life into Adam (Qur&#8217;an 38:73-78 and Gen. 2:7), he (God) declared him His (God&#8217;s) own IMAGE/LIKENESS (Gen. 2:7) or His VICEROY (Qur&#8217;an 2:30). Also, according to Qur&#8217;an 28:37-38, 15:39-44; 17:61-62; 7:11-13 and 2:34, Allah instructed ALL the angels to WORSHIP Adam on the ground that He (Allah) had breathed something of His SpIRIT into Adam for a soul (see Heb. 1:2-6, for the same instruction in respect of Jesus). In fact, according to these Qur&#8217;anic verses, Satan&#8217;s curse and demotion are God&#8217;s reaction to his (Satan&#8217;s) refusal to prostrate himself before Adam.</p>
<p>Therefore, Biblically and Qur&#8217;anically Adam, whose flesh was made from just the sand (Gen. 2:7, Qur&#8217;an 28:72), was notwithstanding such GLORIOUS initially. And, logically, the glorious qualification came from what God breathed in him.</p>
<p>However, Adam did not pass Satanic test but sinned (that shows some relative weakness in him), thereby lost his INITIAL STATUS and therefore was ordered out of MOST EXALTED DWELLING, the Garden of Eden(Qur&#8217;an 7:19-24, Gen. 3:1-24). But Jesus passed all the Satanic tests (Mt.4:1-11, Heb. 4:15; Qur&#8217;an 19:19), which logically implies comparative superiority in him.</p>
<p>Therefore, the fact that SOIL is the comparative parent of Adam, who, again, could not pass Satanic test, sinned and was demoted; and Mary, the SUPERIOR among all women, is the comparative parent of Jesus, who, again, passed all the Satanic tests, did not sin and therefore was NEVER demoted, given that both Adam and Jesus got their souls unbiologically from God directly; it follows that whatever type of soul God gave Adam was originally INFERIOR to the one He gave Jesus. Thus Jesus would still have been superior to Adam even if he (Adam) had been able to defend his INITIAL STATUS, (and thus Jesus was very superior to the demoted Adam (and, by the way, EXTREMELY superior to Adam&#8217;s descendants including MUHAMMAD, whom Allah found STRAY: Qur&#8217;an 12:3, 93:6-8). </p>
<p>So if initially Adam, made from soil, was inter-alia, QUALIFIED to be God&#8217;s IMAGE/LIKENESS (Biblically) or GOd&#8217;s VICEROY and WORTHY OF A WORSHIP BY THE ANGELS OF GOD (Qur&#8217;anically), all because his soul was God-breathed, then Jesus, who has much greater of these qualifications and miraculousness (Bible, Qur&#8217;an 5:113), is logically divine.</p>
<p>Thus to Jesus&#8217; divinity God did order the angels to worship; indeed, only divinity can be worshiped (Mt. 4:8-10; Qur&#8217;an 16:36; Heb. 1:2-6).</p>
<p>That was why when Jesus was asked to disclose God he said, &#8220;Have I been with you so long and yet you do not know me&#8230;? He who has seen me has seen the Father (God); how can you say, &#8216;show us the Father?..I do not speak on my (the human) authority, but the Father who DWELLS IN ME DOES HIS WORKS&#8221;, John 14:8-10.</p>
<p>That is why Jesus was Biblically likened to (or understood to be) The Great Spirit Priest, Melchizedek who (being a spirit), has no biological father, mother, genealogy and dates of birth and death, but remains an eternal priest; Heb. 7:1-3, (i.e. the genealogy and date of birth of the ever living Jesus were but symbolic as earlier seen).</p>
<p>And, that is why when Jesus accomplished his mission on the Earth naturally, he went back to where he came from, Qur&#8217;an 4:158, &#8220;God has raised him up unto HIMSELF&#8221;. See also John 6:28, 62, and Mk. 16:19. John 8:23.<br />
Yes! Jesus is, according to both the Bible and the Qur&#8217;an, back to his origin, God. </p>
<p>This brings us to the issue of Trinity.</p>
<p>The TRINITY</p>
<p>The term &#8216;Trinity&#8217; is not of Biblical origin but the concept is. Thus, as any Biblically foreign word, it is not necessary to employ it in particular in whatever situation. However, the word &#8216;Trinity&#8217; is relevantly expressive, thus it was employed as a term by some Bible interpreters just because it was the best word that simply expressed the ONENESS of the Almighty God, His soul in a born human body, and His soul when , or as, not inside a body. Thus:</p>
<p>1. God-the-FATHER, means the ALMIGHTY God.<br />
(Deut.32:6; Mt.5:48,6:9-14; 1Cor.8:4-6)</p>
<p>2.God-the-SON, means the SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God inside His (GOD&#8217;S) WORD, which was physically born as a human body. (Col. 1:15, 19; John 1:1, 14-18, 17:5; Phil. 2:5-7; Mt. 1:18; Isa. 9:6; John 14:10; Pls. 82:6)</p>
<p>3. God-the-HOLY-SPIRIT, means just SOUL-of-the-Almighty-God, i.e. when, or as, not inside any bodily form. (John 4:24; MK. 3:28-29; Job 33:4; Gen.. 1:2; Pls. 139:7-12; Hab 3:3; 2Cor. 3:17-18). </p>
<p>It is, therefore simplistic to think that Christian Trinitarian concept originated from paganism just because the pagans had &#8220;similar&#8221; doctrine before the word &#8220;Trinity&#8221; was employed by some Bible interpreters. Pagan &#8220;Trinity&#8221; differs from the Christian own in the sense that it has always referred to three entities whereas that of Christian referred to only one entity who acted in three ways. </p>
<p>Science also suggests the possibility of the Christian TRINITY. Thus: some matters can exist in many physically different capacities and chemically remain their exact selves nevertheless. See ALLOTROPY. Allotropy is the EXISTENCE OF AN ELEMENT IN MANY PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES AND CHEMICALLY REMAINS IT EXACT SELF, just as Trinity is the EXISTENSE OF THE GOD IN THREE PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES BUT SPIRITUALLY REMAINS HIS EXACT SELF. Of course, if matter can exhibit such a rare capacity as the allotropy, how much more can the creator himself do? Hence the exceptional ?allotropy?, the Trinity. </p>
<p>Therefore, those who think the TRINITY necessarily implies three Gods simply because 1+1+1=3 and not 1 are just simpletons, as science has once again, shown. You know, Christianity is a religion that makes you to think more about the complexity of life, reality, relativity, time and space etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-87577</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-87577</guid>
		<description>I wonder if anyone else has received and read the latest issue of the Priscilla Papers, Vol.22, No.4? It contains some marvelous articles on the Trinity and the various issues connected with the current debate over this central Christian doctrine. And when I read Pam Morrison&#039;s article, &quot;The Holy Spirit, Neglected Person of the Trinity, and Women&#039;s Leadership,&quot; I was struck by her analysis, p.22, of what William Law said about how when churches divorce the Scriptures from the Spirit as their True Interpreter, they pervert the Scriptures, transforming them from a manual for solid Christian thinking and living, into a deadening legal and theological text. &quot;Our Scriptures,&#039;the letter,&#039; are God-inspired for our good, of course, and are provided for &#039;teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training&#039; (2 Tim. 3:16), but, by themselves, without Spirit-quickening interpretation, the power to comprehend and to live them out, we can fall into legalism and dryness, into interpretations based upon wrong motives that do not give life.&quot;  And so I pray the Spirit will work in us who are now discussing the Trinity, and give us all a true and life transforming interpretation and application of this doctrine.
     And it is with the above understanding that I have a fresh insight, I think, on 1 Cor. 12:7-11.  If, as we believe, that the Father, Son and Spirit are of one heart, mind and will when cooperating in the works of creation, revelation, and redemption, then one of the logical implications of this passage is that not only does the Spirit gift and call men and women to ministry and leadership as &quot;he determines,&quot; but does so in full agreement with both the Father and the Son.  How about that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if anyone else has received and read the latest issue of the Priscilla Papers, Vol.22, No.4? It contains some marvelous articles on the Trinity and the various issues connected with the current debate over this central Christian doctrine. And when I read Pam Morrison&#8217;s article, &#8220;The Holy Spirit, Neglected Person of the Trinity, and Women&#8217;s Leadership,&#8221; I was struck by her analysis, p.22, of what William Law said about how when churches divorce the Scriptures from the Spirit as their True Interpreter, they pervert the Scriptures, transforming them from a manual for solid Christian thinking and living, into a deadening legal and theological text. &#8220;Our Scriptures,&#8217;the letter,&#8217; are God-inspired for our good, of course, and are provided for &#8216;teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training&#8217; (2 Tim. 3:16), but, by themselves, without Spirit-quickening interpretation, the power to comprehend and to live them out, we can fall into legalism and dryness, into interpretations based upon wrong motives that do not give life.&#8221;  And so I pray the Spirit will work in us who are now discussing the Trinity, and give us all a true and life transforming interpretation and application of this doctrine.<br />
     And it is with the above understanding that I have a fresh insight, I think, on 1 Cor. 12:7-11.  If, as we believe, that the Father, Son and Spirit are of one heart, mind and will when cooperating in the works of creation, revelation, and redemption, then one of the logical implications of this passage is that not only does the Spirit gift and call men and women to ministry and leadership as &#8220;he determines,&#8221; but does so in full agreement with both the Father and the Son.  How about that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-87557</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:09:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-87557</guid>
		<description>Liz, I agree with you that not much is specifically said by these people about the Holy Spirit as regards his full deity or coequality with the Father and the Son.  Usually what happens, if you look at the history of the debate over the Trinity, heretics either regarded the Spirit as superior to the Son, or in the majority of the cases, as both inferior to both the Father and Son, since he is in the third rank of what they consider a hierarchical order.
    And even when the coequality and coeterninty of the Father and Son had been agreed on by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., there were church leaders, like Paul of Macedon, who thought the Holy Spirit was a creation of the Son and sent by him to empower believers.  These heretics, who reasoned about the inferior status of the Spirit as Arius had reasoned about the Son, became known as Macedonians and were also fiercely opposed by Athanasius in the Eastern church and Damasus in the Western church. 
    And it was on the basis of shared divine titles, Jesus&#039; teaching that the Spirit was another counselor of the same kind (cf. John 14:16-17), the full participation of the Spirit with the Father and Son in the divine works of creation, revelation, and salvation--that Athanasius and others forcefully argued that the Spirit was the third person of the Triune God, coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son in every essential.  As a consequence, the fourth clause of the Nicene Creed was revised and expanded in 381 A.D. to read as follows: &quot;And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.&quot;  And it was this revised edition of the Nicene Creed that, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D., over which Damasus presided, was confirmed and ratified and which became the form of the Creed Christians in the West recite and affirm to this day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Liz, I agree with you that not much is specifically said by these people about the Holy Spirit as regards his full deity or coequality with the Father and the Son.  Usually what happens, if you look at the history of the debate over the Trinity, heretics either regarded the Spirit as superior to the Son, or in the majority of the cases, as both inferior to both the Father and Son, since he is in the third rank of what they consider a hierarchical order.<br />
    And even when the coequality and coeterninty of the Father and Son had been agreed on by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., there were church leaders, like Paul of Macedon, who thought the Holy Spirit was a creation of the Son and sent by him to empower believers.  These heretics, who reasoned about the inferior status of the Spirit as Arius had reasoned about the Son, became known as Macedonians and were also fiercely opposed by Athanasius in the Eastern church and Damasus in the Western church.<br />
    And it was on the basis of shared divine titles, Jesus&#8217; teaching that the Spirit was another counselor of the same kind (cf. John 14:16-17), the full participation of the Spirit with the Father and Son in the divine works of creation, revelation, and salvation&#8211;that Athanasius and others forcefully argued that the Spirit was the third person of the Triune God, coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son in every essential.  As a consequence, the fourth clause of the Nicene Creed was revised and expanded in 381 A.D. to read as follows: &#8220;And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.&#8221;  And it was this revised edition of the Nicene Creed that, at the Roman Council of 382 A.D., over which Damasus presided, was confirmed and ratified and which became the form of the Creed Christians in the West recite and affirm to this day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liz</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-87554</link>
		<dc:creator>Liz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-87554</guid>
		<description>Also..I haven&#039;t read much by those who teach subordination in the Godhead about the Holy Spirit but they could come dangerously close to the belief of groups such as JWs and Christadelphians who see the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also..I haven&#8217;t read much by those who teach subordination in the Godhead about the Holy Spirit but they could come dangerously close to the belief of groups such as JWs and Christadelphians who see the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liz</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-87553</link>
		<dc:creator>Liz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-87553</guid>
		<description>Thanks Frank for pointing this out. There are just so many instances throughout the NT where names previously associated with God the Father are used to describe God the Son. There is a useful diagram which quotes many of these texts and I have often used it to show that these 2 persons of the Godhead are indeed &#039;one&#039; in every sense of the word.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Frank for pointing this out. There are just so many instances throughout the NT where names previously associated with God the Father are used to describe God the Son. There is a useful diagram which quotes many of these texts and I have often used it to show that these 2 persons of the Godhead are indeed &#8216;one&#8217; in every sense of the word.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2008/10/trinity-debate/comment-page-2/#comment-87551</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:54:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=294#comment-87551</guid>
		<description>Just the other day, I was reviewing the manuscript of my commentary on Jude when I was afresh reminded that the Scriptures use common divine names and titles for each of the 3 persons of the Triune God that not only confirm they are coequal and coeternal in their divine being and attributes, but which also should serve to restrain attempts to lower their divine status.  And two of these names or titles are used of Jesus by Jude himself.
    In verse 4, he says that the heretics pervert the Gospel of grace and that they &quot;deny Jesus Christ, who alone is our Sovereign and Lord&quot; (my translation).  The Greek text, ton monon despotes kai kyrion hemon Yesun Christon arnoumenoi (literally, &quot;the only Sovereign and Lord of us, Jesus Christ, they are denying&quot;)by its grammatical construction, indicates that this is a denial of Jesus&#039; identity-rooted authority.  That is, because they deny Jesus Christ is both depostes and kyrios, the false teachers also deny his authority over their teaching and life-style.  But Jude is here affirming that because Jesus is indeed despotes and kyrios, he has universal authority over eveything and everyone.  
    In general usage, both in the Greek OT and in the NT itself, when kyrios is used of a human teacher, landowner, or ruler, it denotes both their superiority and their legal right to rule over the property and to exercise authority over people subject to them.  But when used of God and Jesus, this word takes on even greater meaning and significance.  This is because, in both the Greek OT and in the NT, Kyrios is used as the equivalent translation for Yahweh, the ineffable name of the Covenant God of Israel.  And so Kyrios, as an equivalent translation of this divine name, comes to designate that Jesus, as well as the Father, is not only our Creator and Redeemer, who is ever present to watch over and care for us as his redeemed people, but that he also has the legal right, as Creator and Redeemer, to require our love, worship, and service.
     But perhaps even more surprising is Jude&#039;s designating Jesus, the Son, as despotes.  In secular Greek, this name or title was used of both good and bad rulers, and it pointed to their natural, unrestricted and unquestionable power to do as they pleased, rewarding and punishing, preserving life or putting to death, as they saw fit.  And most often in both the Greek OT and the NT, it is a title used for God the Father and designates his absolute power and authority as Creator, Ruler and Judge.  Yet here, boldly and unapologetically, Jude identifies Jesus&#039; unity with the Father so as to say he also shares this absolute, divine power and authority to do as he pleases.  This is a stumbling block for those who would make Jesus less divine than the Father, I would say.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just the other day, I was reviewing the manuscript of my commentary on Jude when I was afresh reminded that the Scriptures use common divine names and titles for each of the 3 persons of the Triune God that not only confirm they are coequal and coeternal in their divine being and attributes, but which also should serve to restrain attempts to lower their divine status.  And two of these names or titles are used of Jesus by Jude himself.<br />
    In verse 4, he says that the heretics pervert the Gospel of grace and that they &#8220;deny Jesus Christ, who alone is our Sovereign and Lord&#8221; (my translation).  The Greek text, ton monon despotes kai kyrion hemon Yesun Christon arnoumenoi (literally, &#8220;the only Sovereign and Lord of us, Jesus Christ, they are denying&#8221;)by its grammatical construction, indicates that this is a denial of Jesus&#8217; identity-rooted authority.  That is, because they deny Jesus Christ is both depostes and kyrios, the false teachers also deny his authority over their teaching and life-style.  But Jude is here affirming that because Jesus is indeed despotes and kyrios, he has universal authority over eveything and everyone.<br />
    In general usage, both in the Greek OT and in the NT itself, when kyrios is used of a human teacher, landowner, or ruler, it denotes both their superiority and their legal right to rule over the property and to exercise authority over people subject to them.  But when used of God and Jesus, this word takes on even greater meaning and significance.  This is because, in both the Greek OT and in the NT, Kyrios is used as the equivalent translation for Yahweh, the ineffable name of the Covenant God of Israel.  And so Kyrios, as an equivalent translation of this divine name, comes to designate that Jesus, as well as the Father, is not only our Creator and Redeemer, who is ever present to watch over and care for us as his redeemed people, but that he also has the legal right, as Creator and Redeemer, to require our love, worship, and service.<br />
     But perhaps even more surprising is Jude&#8217;s designating Jesus, the Son, as despotes.  In secular Greek, this name or title was used of both good and bad rulers, and it pointed to their natural, unrestricted and unquestionable power to do as they pleased, rewarding and punishing, preserving life or putting to death, as they saw fit.  And most often in both the Greek OT and the NT, it is a title used for God the Father and designates his absolute power and authority as Creator, Ruler and Judge.  Yet here, boldly and unapologetically, Jude identifies Jesus&#8217; unity with the Father so as to say he also shares this absolute, divine power and authority to do as he pleases.  This is a stumbling block for those who would make Jesus less divine than the Father, I would say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

