In every one of these examples, the comments regarding representative agency apply quite well. Because God neither has been nor can be seen by man (John 1:18; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 6:15-16), whenever someone is said to have seen, spoken to and interacted with God in the OT, the person they actually saw, spoke to and interacted with was an angelic agent acting and speaking on God’s behalf.
None of these prophecies suggest that the Son of God (which implies he is not to be identified with God himself!) pre-existed his birth, or that he should be understood as somehow ontologically equal to Yahweh. The most reasonable and internally consistent way to understand the unique and unprecedented honor, authority and exalted status that the Son was prophesied to have is to understand that it would be given to him by Yahweh. That is, in light of the overwhelming evidence in the OT that Yahweh is a singular divine person (“Yahweh is one”), such prophecies should be understood as revealing that Yahweh would bestow upon his (human) Messiah a “name that is above every name,” thus making him superior to every being except Yahweh himself. For instance, in Psalm 89:26-27, we read: “He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” It is this that would have been the expectation of the believing people of Israel - not that the Messiah would be “100% Man and 100% God” (which, if not an example of a logical contradiction, then nothing else can be).
First, it should be noted that it’s possible that the traditional translation of Isaiah 9:6 is invalid. According to the NET Bible:
"There is great debate over the syntactical structure of the verse. No subject is indicated for the verb “he called.” If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, “one calls.” However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, “and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’” (tn 16 from NET on Isaiah 9:6)
If this is true, then there is no issue at all with Isaiah 9:6 calling the child (Jesus) “Mighty God” (el gibbor) for it would actually be the Mighty God who calls the child “Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” But assuming that the traditional translation is accurate, and that the Messiah is being referred to as el gibbor, the NET Bible goes on to say:
“(Gibbor) is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Scholars have interpreted this title in two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181–82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle…According to proponents of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.” (tn 18 from NET on Isaiah 9:6)
I think their assessment (i.e., that “it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way”) is absolutely correct. Even if the Messiah is being called “mighty God” it could easily be understood in a representational sense (Ex 4:14-16; 7:1-2; 21:5-6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6; 82:1, 6). But it need not even mean that. The word translated “God” (el) can simply mean ruler or leader, as it does in Ezekiel 31:11 where the king of Babylonian is in view. Moreover, the phrase el gibbor appears in the plural form in Ezekiel 32:21, where the dead “heroes” and mighty men are said (by a figure of speech) to speak to others. If here the expression simply means “mighty leaders” or “mighty chiefs” (plural), then there is no reason why it cannot be understood to mean something akin to “mighty leader” or “mighty chief” in Isaiah 9:6.
But what about the phrase, “eternal Father” (or “Father eternal”)? Well, this poses a problem for orthodox trinitarians as well; it is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). That is, the Son can’t also be the Father. Concerning this expression, the NET Bible comments:
“This title [Eternal Father] must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850–800 B.C.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 B.C.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See ANET 499–500.) The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4–6; 61:6–7; 72:5, 17).” (tn 19 from NET Isaiah 9:6)
I would only add that the word translated “eternal” ('ad) need not be understood hyperbolically here (as the NET Bible suggests), since it is possible that 'ad may not carry the idea of absolute endless duration. If I’m not mistaken, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew 'ad with the Greek aion (or its adjective; I’m not sure), which could simply be understood to mean “Father of the age.” That is, the Messiah would here be prophesied as being the “father” (i.e., the leader or originator of) the coming age.
But Isaiah also says, “For to us a child IS born.” So in whatever sense the son had “already been given” the child had “already been born” as well. I think it’s pretty obvious that Isaiah is simply speaking proleptically here.
What I think should remove any and all possible ambiguity here and elsewhere in regards to the identity and nature of the Messiah is the simple and undisputed fact that the Old Testament foretold that he would be a human being. A human Messiah is the only expectation any believing Jew should have had, based on what is revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures (Gen 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; 49:10; Numbers 24:17-19; Deut 18:15; 2Sa 7:12-13; 1 Chronicles 17:13; Psalm 45:2-7, 17; 72:1; 89:3-4; 110: 132:11; Isaiah 7:14; 11:1-5; 52-53; Jeremiah 23:5; 30:21; Dan 7:13; Zech 6:12-13; Micah 5:2). But to be human and to be God are two mutually exclusive experiences and states of being. By definition, God is not a man, and man is not God. To have all the essential properties, attributes and qualities of a human being entirely excludes one from also having all the essential properties, attributes and qualities of God, and vice-versa. It is logically impossible for a man to possess all the essential properties, attributes and qualities of God, because in possessing them he would, by necessity, fall into the category of “God” and not “man.” And it is logically impossible for God to possess all the essential properties, attributes and qualities of a human person, because in possessing them he would, by necessity, fall into the category of “man” and not “God.” This simple, straightforward fact is, I believe, fatal to the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ. Everything else being equal, this concept alone should deter us from even entertaining the possibility that the doctrine of the Trinity is valid.
According to Edmund Fortman (The Triune God, pp. 6, 9, 15),“The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view…Although [the spirit of God] is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person…The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptic gospels (Matt., Mark, Luke) and in Acts as a divine force or power.”
Similarly, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912, Vol. 15, p. 49) states: “Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person.”
In the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. 14, pp. 574, 575), we read: “The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person…God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly…The majority of New Testament texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.”
The Holy Spirit is called the “third person of the Trinity” for good reason; “he” was the last member to be officially included into the “Godhead” by the orthodox church: “The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362…and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381” (A Catholic Dictionary, p. 812). But considering the greater ambiguity that exists in regards to what is exactly meant by the word “spirit” in the Bible, the early church’s hesitancy in ascribing divine ontological equality to the Spirit of God should come as no surprise. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, wrote in 380 AD: “Of our thoughtful men, some regard the Holy Spirit as an operation, some as a creature and some as God; while others are at a loss to decide, seeing that the Scripture determines nothing on the subject” (Oratio 38: De Spiritu Sancto).
The Hebrew ruach is a fairly flexible word encompassing several different (though related) meanings, among which are wind (Gen 8:1; Ex 10:19; 15:10; Num 11:31; 2Sa 2:11; 1Ki 19:11; Job 1:19; Ps 83:13; 107:25; Ecc 1:6; Isa 64:6; Jer 10:13; Dan 7:2; etc.) the essence of the life and vitality in both human beings and animals that is manifested through movement and breathing (Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:15; Num 16:22; 1Ki 10:5; Job 7:7; 12:10; Ps 146:4; Eccl 3:19; 12:7; Jer 10:14; Eze 10:17; 37:5; etc.), and a mental disposition or state of mind (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; etc.). In each case, the word denotes that which, though unseen (and largely unexplained) has visible effects. Just as “spirit” was considered the essence of human life, so analogously the term was used in reference to the presence, activity and power of God - i.e., characteristics that demonstrate that Yahweh is truly a “living God” (Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1Sam 7:26; Isa 37:4; Dan 6:20; Matt 16:16; Rev 7:2).
In general, the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, denotes the operative presence of God by which God puts his thoughts and purposes into action. It is God extended to his creation. Though God’s Spirit is certainly personal in the sense that it proceeds from him and expresses (or may even be identified with) his thoughts, character and disposition, it is not a person distinct from the Father (I say “distinct from,” since it has been argued by some non-Trinitarians that God’s Spirit is in fact the Father himself, but in a non-localized form; that is, the Father is thought to be fixed in some specific location in space, while his Spirit is simply himself in an omnipresent state, as opposed to being a distinct, self-aware person. While there may be some truth to this idea, I don’t understand Scripture as requiring that we affirm it).
The Spirit of God, being the operative presence of God’s mind and influence, may be taken from one and distributed to others (Num 11:17), cause the one it rests upon to prophesy (Num 11:25, 29; 24:2-3; 1Sa 10:6, 10; 1Ch 12:18; 2Ch 15:1; 20:14; 24:20), provide the means by which God speaks to people (2Sa 23:2), lead someone to a different location (1Ki 18:12), transport people from one location to another (2Ki 2:16), be how God speaks through the prophets (Neh 9:30; Zech 7:12), empower leaders to judge/rule the people (Jud 3:10), impart warlike energy or confidence (Jud 6:34; 11:29; 14:6, 19), supply supernatural strength (Jud 15:14), cause righteous anger (1Sa 11:6-7), impart peace (Isa 32:15), give the Messiah wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, the fear of Yahweh, and ability to judge justly (Isa 11:2; 41:2), endow artisans with skill (Ex 31:3; 35:31), be parallel with the anointing of Yahweh (Isa 61:1) and the omnipresence of God (Ps 139:7), and be synonymous with the “hand” and “finger” of God (Ez 3:14; Job 26:13; Ps 8:3).
Against this view it is often objected that God’s spirit is sometimes spoken of as if it is a distinct person (e.g., God’s Spirit is described as being grieved). However, man’s spirit is often spoken of in a similar same way. For instance, we are told that a man’s spirit can be made troubled (Gen 41:8), long to do something (2Sa 13:39), be vexed (1Ki 21:5), be stirred up (Ez 1:1), be broken (Ps 51:17), diligently search (Ps 77:6), be unfaithful (Ps 78:8), become bitter (Ps 106:33), faint (Ps 142:3), be crushed (Prov 15:13), be ruled (Prov 16:32), search a man’s innermost parts (Prov 20:27), earnestly seek God (Isa 26:9), be followed after (Eze 13:3), become anxious (Dan 7:15), be willing (Matt 26:41), rejoice in God (Lk 1:47), be provoked (Acts 17:16), be present with others when the person is absent (1Cor 5:3), pray, sing praise, and give thanks (1Cor 14:14-16), be refreshed (1Cor 16:18), be restless (2Cor 2:13), and be gentle and quiet (1Pet 3:4).
Moreover, God’s Spirit is said to “bear witness with our spirit” (Rom 8:16). However, this doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit is a self-aware person distinct from the Father any more than it means our own spirit is a self-aware person that is distinct from us. Similarly, in 1Cor 2:11 we read, “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” Just as the Spirit of God is spoken of as if it is a distinct person that “comprehends the thoughts of God,” so the spirit of a man is spoken of as if it is a distinct person that “knows a person’s thoughts.”
As noted earlier, the “messenger of Yahweh” is not to be identified with Yahweh himself, but is instead an angelic representative of Yahweh who acts and speaks on Yahweh’s behalf. And again, God’s Spirit being grieved is no more evidence that it is a distinct person from the Father than our own spirit being troubled is evidence that it is a distinct person from us.
(I’m trying to figure out how it can have seven replies but only four views so far… When I post up multiple comments, the refresh seems to always involve a new ‘view’.)
Genuinely pleased to see this put up; I’ve made some minor tweaks (including corrections) to the digest since posting it originally, and I sure don’t mind making more–where applicable.
Note: a doc file with all my replies so far (I think) can be found attached to to this comment later.
The must have been every hard for Isaiah to understand as he was inspired to write it. And no doubt just as hard for his readers to understand. His name will be called Mighty God. Which He, that Son given, is still called to this day.
I don’t believe that Isaiah was prophesying that a lingering error authored by the early church would stem from his prophesy - that argument seems silly. But there it is - Christ is being called Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I do believe that Isaiah was revealing the Trinity to a monotheistic people in the only way they (and he) could understand at that time.
Hard perhaps, but not incomprehensible (like, say, the doctrine of the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ ). Ran if you have time, please respond to the arguments given on this verse.
Well I’m sure he wasn’t anticipating it, because it makes fine sense without having to resort to Trinitarian metaphysics to understand it.
You do realize this view is called “Oneness” and is not compatible with orthodox Trinitarianism, right?
Why do you think it would have been harder for them to understand it at that time than for others at a later time? Also, your statement presupposes that the Trinity had not yet been revealed to the Hebrew people. But before, you told me that “Adam, Abraham and David” were all Trinitarian theists: Should we form universalist congregations?
Before Christ, they were waiting for Christ - all the way back to the oldest book - Job: “I know my redeemer lives.”
Adam, Abraham and David - Hebrews 11: “All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance…These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”
I think we are to make them perfect in understanding. They expected the Messiah, a man, a priest, a King - what they didn’t expect was God Himself in the God/man. The expected a priest on the order of Melchizedek - “based on the power of an indestructible life” - and got the God/man. Plenty of hints - and faith was still faith - but we have much more revealed to us.
Apparently, at the resurrection there will be a lot of splaining to do. We fill them in about the Trinity and then we both fill you in about worshiping anything but God…after you’re done mopping the floors of my mansion.
Really though, this whole idolatry thing is bothersome. Granted, there will be correction, but I am hedging my bets with fathers and the community of saints. Just be careful about what you teach, dross is dross, but man, that’s gotta sting if the dross is at the core of one’s being - that is to say, one’s faith.
Here’s a Jewish translation of Isaiah 9:6. (Actually it’s 9:5 in theirs.)
I know no Hebrew at all, and have no way of evaluating translations, but it seems to me like* they* would be pretty good at translating their own language…
This Jewish translation was recommended to me by an orthodox Jew as being a pretty accurate version. But he highly recommended I learn Hebrew and read it in the original… I’d love to be able to do that someday.
Consider the source of any translation and the agenda they have - their theological bent. OK? The verse in question is in the Dead Sea Scrolls - written 300 years before Christ. Religion, as far as I can see, is all about spin.
One has to trust one’s love for God if one is to carry on. Outside of that love is a world of doubt.
Except for the “plenty of hints” part (which I question), you’re kinda making my point, Ran. Based on the OT, I don’t think the Hebrew people would have had any reason to expect a “God/man” as a Messiah. An utterly unique man who would be without equal, yes, but not “God incarnate” (which, to me, amounts to nothing more than a logical contradiction - and you have yet to show that a being who is “100% God and 100% Man” could be anything but that). My purpose in responding to the first part of Jason’s paper was not so much to prove my position right, but simply to shed light on the fact that the foundation for a Trinitarian understanding of God in the OT is so unsound as to be utterly unsafe to build upon. "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one" (Deut 6:4). "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Mark 12:29).
Ran, you’ve said it yourself that Jesus is “100% God.” If he’s 100% God, and the Father is 100% God, and the Holy Spirit is 100% God, then you have three Gods. 1+ 1 + 1 does not equal 1; it equals 3. And a being who is “100% God and 100% man” equals 100% logical contradiction. It’s incoherent. It’s like saying, “God loves you but he’ll torment you forever if you don’t love him back!” Either way, we’re being asked to set aside our God-given reason to accept something.
Well, as the Lord said, “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave…” But seriously, I’m really not sure why everything I’ve tried to explain to you about the Biblical meaning of “worship” is just not getting through. Maybe it’s my delivery. But a lot of it’s just facts…not even interpretation. It’s as if all you’re reading is, “Aaron’s worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator!!”
Well if I am wrong, I’m confident it’s because God wants me to be wrong (for now) and that it will bring glory to him. And in all honesty, I look forward to having any and all false views I may have burned away, and coming to a full knowledge of the truth. I really want to know the truth, Ran. But until either of us knows for sure who is right or wrong, I’m “hedging my bets” with the most reasonable interpretation of Scripture that God will allow me to see at this time.
Aaron, Why can’t you see, logic will fail you in measuring the Infinite substance of God. You can never measure by the dimensions we use in this world. 1,3, 37 or 100% or even 150% are folly when placed against the Infinite God, of Whom there is no measure.
In the Hebrew the seven represents, that which is full and perfect and then you have after it the superabundant eight which is fuller and more perfect. This is a better measuring system for the Kingdom of God but it too must fail, for God is the all and the naught, and that too shall fail because God is still more than the all and less than the naught … on and on we go and on and on we fail!
Throw away your ones, your three and your percentage points and then you must eventually throw away your logic should you care to know the depths of our Immeasurable God.
You might do well to read some physics and cosmology stuff and see the shadow of which I share above, as the best of scientists try to measure the smallest and greatest things in this world. Just the shadow of Heaven and God Himself, which is nature, when measured leaves the brightest of the bright scratching their heads. It too cannot be measured for it also is the substance of the Immeasurable God.
In the end logic will fail us all, because God is beyond what we can even imagine. “Not many wise” it says, doesn’t it.
Such good strategy. Stand your ground for now. I’ll try to move you, others might as well, but, in the end, you will move only as your heart decrees to new ground and then stand there.That might take years. Oh, thank God for those epiphanies!
But you are correct by my experience, if God wants us to be wrong for a season - it’s to humble us.
God never wants you to be in bondage to false doctrine especially when it comes to know the true nature of Jesus. Being in bondage to false doctrine does not bring glory to God. Your views are all over the place and certainly not orthodox nor evangelical. There is a good possibility you do not hold to any basic biblical doctrines of Christ that are correct. (Hebrews 6:1)
Aaron wont move unless he humbles himself and allows the Holy Spirit to teach him. It is a choice. I believe Aaron needs to get born again and most of these views will melt away. Your view of the sovereignty of God is not accurate. You act like Aaron cannot choose to humble himself and it is all up to God for Aaron to know the truth. Like God is holding the truth from Aaron for a season to teach him something. That is so ridiculous. It is up to to Aaron to yield to the Holy Spirit to come to the truth. Your view of the sovereignty of God will kill you.
Yes, I know that–just tossing it out there for consideration. In any case, trinitarian theory hardly rests upon that one verse.
I’m not quite sure if I’d put it that way … by “religion” are you talking about the structures and institutions? I agree our trust has to be in Christ himself–not in any theory about Christ–ultimately we are saved by God’s love. Anyway, James says that ‘true religion’ is to ‘visit widows and orphans in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.’ (I don’t see much there about having the correct doctrines. ) A lot of the ‘facts’ are going to remain a mystery until we see Him face to face and know him as we are known.
What does a humility competition look like? ‘I’m more humble than you.’ That Ain’t humility - but the opposite - it’s pride.
I was born again when I was baptized, I was a month old. But the ‘born againers’ say I wasn’t born again when I was baptized. To disagree with a born againer is proof that one is not born again and ‘spiritual’.
Born Againers usually say that ‘traditional christians’ (Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc) are ipso facto inferior christians. But that claim is pure arrogance and pride. And, yes, the claim goes in the other direction as well.
Labels are useful - but truth is truth - I’m not afraid that Aaron’s error is going to rub out my beliefs - the person who fears that happening is usually a ‘religion by rote’ type.
You have managed, again, to take a thread off course without really engaging in it.
Ran.
You said:I was born again when I was baptized, I was a month old. But the ‘born againers’ say I wasn’t born again when I was baptized. To disagree with a born againer is proof that one is not born again and ‘spiritual’.
Aaron37: I think were a bit off topic here and would love to discuss this with you. Since I cannot start a new topic…why don’t you start a topic on this subject. Anyway, one is not born again by water baptism, but by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Regeneration comes by faith and not by sprinkling or immersing in water. Water baptism is an outward symbol of an inward work by the Holy Spirit in our spirit.
I thought I should reply to this first, somewhat as an aside, before moving on to Aaron’s remarks (which will take far more time).
As I noted in the digest, even the Tanahk of the Jewish Publication Society translates this verse as meaning that the son to be born shall have the set of names listed; although for a reason I am not aware of they ‘fix’ the problem by rendering the four names as two compound names
Name 1.) “The Mighty Father is planning grace.”
Name 2.) “The Eternal father [is] a peaceable ruler.”
Werner’s translation (which has been criticised for being a little too uncritically literal sometimes) agrees, the name-calling comes first grammatically, then the titles. (He renders them “Advisor of Accomplishments, the Mighty God, the Father Evermore, The Leader of Peace”.
From the NIV superliteral: for child he-is-born to-us son he-is-given to-us and-she-will-be the-government on shoulder-of-him and-he-will-call name-of-him wonder-of one-counseling god-of might father-of everlasting prince-of peace. (The “she” of “she-will-be”, refers to grammatic gender of “government”.)
From Green’s superliteral (which divides the consonants fewer times than the NIV): For-a-child is-born-to-us a-son is-given-to-us and-is the-government on-his-shoulder and-is-called his-name wonderful counselor the-god mighty everlasting-father prince-of-peace.
Green’s and the NIV both show that the name-calling phrase precedes the titles, and the phrase seems grammatically completed with all four titles as object of the verb. I don’t know on what grammatic grounds the translation recommended to Sonia shifts the phrase so that the first three names are the subjects and the fourth is the object of the verb phrase. (Doesn’t mean there aren’t any; the link, unfortunately, doesn’t explain why this is a superior translation.)
It may be of some interest that although the Gospels quote from or allude to Isaiah 9 messianically in various places, they don’t seem to refer to the second half of that verse (with the name-titles).
Well, I’m done with my reply, but not with editing it. (Whew!) I hope to attach it as a doc file early this week, as a comment for the thread, as well as (most likely) providing some summary remarks in the comment itself.
Hopefully Aaron will appreciate a reply that doesn’t amount to ‘just throw away your logic!’ or ‘you’ll learn better when you’re sweeping the floor of my mansion in heaven…’
I’m really looking forward to it, Jason (seriously)! I wanted to engage you more than anyone else on this forum regarding this very important topic, because I really like the way you think. I figured if anyone’s going to set me straight, it’ll be you (not that I want to be convinced that I’m wrong, but I do want to know the truth).
When I post up multiple comments, the refresh seems to always involve a new ‘view’.)
). Ran if you have time, please respond to the arguments given on this verse.
I’d love to be able to do that someday.
But seriously, I’m really not sure why everything I’ve tried to explain to you about the Biblical meaning of “worship” is just not getting through. Maybe it’s my delivery. But a lot of it’s just facts…not even interpretation. It’s as if all you’re reading is, “Aaron’s worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator!!”