“God as God is God”:
The Armstrongist Concept of Human Destiny
By Neo
We are to be in His same IMAGE - as He is, NOW! We are to be put on HIS SAME PLANE…
-- Herbert W. Armstrong, “Just What Do You Mean ... BORN AGAIN?” pp. 42-43, 1972
God then purposed to reproduce himself, through humans made in his image and likeness…
-- Herbert W. Armstrong, “Mystery of the Ages” p. 94, 1985
“God as God is God” is a phrase that I first heard back in the Seventies in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). I don’t know its origin or history. The only person I ever recall using the phrase was Ron Kelly. I never heard Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) use it. But it seemed to be a theologically vetted phrase within the WCG and is equivalent to the published statements made by HWA cited above. Nobody ever tried, that I know of, to interdict Kelly’s use of the phrase as if it were heresy. Its meaning is clear. It means having precisely the same attributes that God has – no shortfalls anywhere. And Ron Dart stated on an audio tape that used to be in the Roy Hammer Library on the Big Sandy campus that we might all one day get to create a planet, populate it with humans and then die for them. (I listened to this statement and now cite it from memory so it will not be verbatim.) So it was quite clear what was intended by this phrase. Armstrongist doctrine asserted that the saved had the destiny of becoming God just like the Creator of the Cosmos – no less.
How HWA exegeted this alarming concept can be found in online archives of WCG publications. The purpose of this brief article is to demonstrate that this Armstrongist dogma is illogical and not supported by scripture. It is recognized in the Christian movement that man has a divine destiny. This goes by different names: Divinization, Sanctification or Theosis. But nowhere is it claimed that man will be ‘God as God is God.’ The reasons why are straightforward.
HWA made a category error in formulating his doctrine pertaining to the ultimate human destiny. He did not recognize that God is of a different category than resurrected and glorified human beings. Instead he argued that human beings are of the God “kind” – a term he appropriated from biological statements made in Genesis. There is a God “kind,” if that term has appeal, and it contains one essential being and will never contain any more such beings. It is likely that his unorthodox apotheosis of man seemed plausible to him because of his background interpretation of the anthropomorphisms of the Bible as literal. He posited a god who is very much like a human at the outset.1. God is uncreated. He was not created by some yet greater being. God is, therefore, uncaused. Nobody caused him to come into existence. This sets him apart from all of his creatures who are contingent on him. God is a necessary being and all of his creatures are contingent beings. God cannot create a being that is uncaused or uncreated like himself. That is illogical. To believe that God is “reproducing himself” or creating creatures that can exist at “his same plane” is a violation of logic at the a priori level.
2. God has donated existence to all he has created. He alone is self-existent. HWA recognized self-existence as an attribute of God. Were God to cease to exist, all contingent creations would cease to exist. Paul stated, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” This clearly identifies our contingent relationship with the necessary God. This also means that God alone is really eternal. Though this is merely hypothetical, a Christian in the resurrected state would have only conditional immortality because we all have our being within God and are contingent on his existence.
3. But what if we cast inviolable logic aside and hypothesize that God can somehow “reproduce” himself by creating beings that exist at the same ontological “plane” as himself. The outcome would be that God would just be one God among many Gods. Each created God would be God as God is God – co-equal with the original God. There is no known pathway in scripture to this outcome. Instead in the Old Testament, God states, “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isaiah 44:6)’” And in the New Testament we have, “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6)” This does not sound like a God who intends to immerse himself in a crowd of co-equal peers.
I do not assert that HWA developed this doctrine with intentional heresy in mind. I believe he just did not give the necessary consideration to the nature of God. I searched a large archive of Plain Truth magazines online and found the term “uncreated” in reference to God used one time and it was in a quotation of a statement made by a Catholic bishop. The issue just did not fall with HWA’s scope of theological inquiry. The outcome is that Armstrongism now clings to an error that Christianity dispositioned centuries ago.
28 comments:
Is it just me, or does anyone else believe that one life on planet Earth is sufficient, and that wanting to live forever and ever is just so much foolishness? I am familiar with the laws conservation of energy and conservation of matter. All forms of energy and matter eventually become dissipated to the elements. That strikes me as being the preferable outcome and alternative.
Part 1
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
“This verse consists of two parts, a promise of inheritance and a messianic allusion applied to believers” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
“With Abraham God established a covenant “to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gen 17:7). To David he promised, concerning Solomon, “I will be his father, and he will be my son (2 Sam 7:14). This age-old covenant is fulfilled to all who are Abraham’s heirs by faith (Gal 3:29). God declares that it is the overcomer who will be his child and to whom he will be God... The thirst for God mentioned in v. 6 is satisfied only by the reality of divine sonship” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Revised, NICNT, p.389).
“The promise that God will be his people’s God and they will be his people is the most basic component of the ancient covenant formula (Gen 17:8; Ex. 6:7, 29:45; Lev. 11:45; 2238; 26:12; Num 15:41; Deut 29:13). The prophets rehearse the same covenant formula (Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:33; 32:38; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27; Zech. 8:8). But Revelations slightly adapts it. He will be the overcomer’s God, and the overcomers will be his own child (Rev 21:7). God had earlier declared Israel his children (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:19-20; Hos. 1:10; 11:1), but here in the end time he publicly honors individual believers as his own children (21:7; cf. Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:19; 1 John 3:2)” (Craig S. Keener, Revelation, NIVAC, pp.488-489).
“...the verb to inherit occurs only here in the Apocalypse and doctrinally is in complete harmony with the teaching of Paul. For instance, Paul confidently writes, “Now if we are children, then we are heirs - heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17; and see Gal. 3:29; 4:7; Eph 3:6; Titus 3:7). We as followers of Christ will inherit all the blessings of a new heaven and a new earth. For us, the link between being children of God and beings heirs is unbreakable. Whereas Jesus is the one and only Son, we are adopted sons and daughter. And whereas Jesus inherits all things (Heb. 1:2), we as co-heirs share in all his blessings” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
“The father-child (father-son) imagery in this phrase reflects the adaptation of adoption language in the Davidic covenant tradition reflected in 2 Sam 7:14 (“I will be his father and he shall be my son”) and several other passages in the OT (Pss 2:7; 89:26-27 [MT 27-28]; Jer 3:19; 31:9c [“For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first born”]; 1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6)” (David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22,WBC, p.1129).
“John chooses to frame his fundamental eschatological conviction by echoing the covenantal formula of the Davidic covenant, I will be his God and he will be my son (2 Sam. 7:14 par.). His decision to do so is striking in two ways. First, this same formula is used elsewhere in the NT of Jesus (Heb. 1:5; 12:7; Luke 1:32-33; et al.). In these instances, the Davidic formula functions as a messianic title that not only conveys something of the intimate relationship between God and Jesus - like that shared between King David and God - but also transmits the church’s conviction that Jesus is God’s Christ, the promised heir to David’s throne. That is, the Davidic covenant became a messianic promise that Jesus then fulfilled. Both parts are claims for Jesus’ uniqueness” (Robert H. Wall, Revelation, NIBC, p.248).
“... John quotes 2 Samuel 7:14 but modifies the wording to suit his theological purpose... John in the Apocalypse writes, “And I will be a God to him and he will be a son to me.” Notice that he replaces the word father with God, because in Jesus Christ God has adopted us as his sons and daughters and made us members of his family (compare 2 Cor. 6:18)” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
Part 2
“... when John transfers the messianic formula from Christ to Christ’s bride, he also changes the idiom for God, from “Father” to “God,” in order to retain his conviction that Jesus is the “only begotten Son of God” (cf. John 1:17-18)...” (Robert H. Wall, Revelation, NIBC, p.248).
“In Revelation, John never calls God the father of believers; yet is the Father of Christ (1:6; 2:27)” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, NTC, p.560).
“Our second point ... alludes to the Isaianic texts that serve as the “scripture-scape” for this vision (Isa 44:3; 55:1). That prophecy indicates that the blessing of the Davidic covenant will finally be fulfilled not in an individual but in a remnant people...” (Robert H. Wall, Revelation, NIBC, p.248).
“The promise to the dynasty of David in 2 Sam 7:14 is here extended to all people...” (Christopher C. Rowland, The Book of Revelation, NIB p.721).
“Moreover God will be his God and he will be God’s son (cf. 2 Sa. 7:14). He will have a special relationship to the supreme Ruler of all” ( Leon Morris, Revelation, Revised Edition, TNTC, p.240).
Never heard anyone from WCG ever say "God as God is God".
I remember HWA preaching this at AC. I liken the idea of being part of the family of God to a family potrait. There's Mom, Dad and the kids. Oh, don't forget the family dog. He also is part of the family, but he is not human. Believers are part of the family of God, but they are not eternal gods, they are glorified humans.
"Each created God would be God as God is God – co-equal with the original God. "
That statement alone shows your complete lack of understanding and proves John 6:44. Never were we taught that we would be co-equal with God. We will be like God as our children are like us. It's plain and simple, and well supported in scripture.
Neo is correct to focus on discrediting the Armstrongist notion of equality with God rather than attempting to refute the notion that God is in the process of expanding "his" family. As Neo concisely points out in this piece, unlike God, all humans have a beginning. And, as Christ pointed out, the Father will always be superior in authority and glory to anyone who joins "his" family.
However, having said all of that, I do think that many traditional Christians have unintentionally diminished the stupendous potential that is available to humankind. Scripture is very clear that God has made us "his" children through Jesus Christ (our elder brother). And that "he" has/will someday (depending on your view of the afterlife) share "his" life (immortality) with us. The book of Hebrews makes plain that the children of God will be superior to all of the angelic host. And, finally, we should all be meditating on the fact that Christ makes us at one with God.
As for the first comment in this thread, I would ask: "Don't you think that it's interesting that the preoccupation/primary focus of ALL of the life on this planet is with the PERPETUATION of itself. Hence, I would observe that this "foolishness" appears to be universal.
Correct statement 6:28
“ That statement alone shows your complete lack of understanding and proves John 6:44. Never were we taught that we would be co-equal with God. We will be like God as our children are like us. It's plain and simple, and well supported in scripture.”
Even Jesus said the Father is greater than Him.
Theologians of all stripes have a hard time confessing to the idea of "looking thru the glass darkly" and admitting to "I dont know".
Trying to understand the "nature of God" is a fools game. A being with no beginning. A being that transcends time and space,
that is the creator of a universe with billions of galaxies , each with billions of starts. A being that can beget life.
Scripture gives little insight and depth to these topics. Apparently, we have plenty on our plates already, and aren't doing that good with that information ,so far, anyway!
Here we go again Part 1 and Part 2, stop trying to think you know more by quoting more scripture. Lol
Of course, MJ. Survival is written into the dna of all living creatures, and is useful throughout their lives. That is scientific fact. Various philosophies seem to teach or program us into projecting that instinct into an afterlife. Don't get me wrong, I love the karma or blessings for living physical life in accordance with time-honored or Christian principles such as the Golden Rule, and love for fellow man which actually embodies love for God. My problem is that all of the religious manipulators and collectors hang this idea of an afterlife on their listeners, and use it to force behavioral modifications which promote their agendas. To me, it seems so much more pure to do the right and ethical things for the sole sake of doing the right and ethical things, and then when our physical lives are over, we are simply gone and don't even realize it or miss being alive. If everyone did that, what a wonderful world it would be! We would not have any of the conflicting religious agendas fighting one another for ideological and/or political supremacy.
......for my Father is greater than I. John 14:28. How much greater? 1.1, 1.5, 2, 3 times as great? Or is "times" even the proper question? Anyway, agreed, we will never be as God the Father is God.
9:39, you actually read the rantings of the machine-gunner?
What I love is that we live in times when useful and true information are readily available. Typical example. Remote not sensed message comes up on the screen of your three year old car? Google it, and you learn to insert the fob and key into a pocket of the center storage compartment in the console between the front seats to get out of the immediate emergency, and how to change the 3V lithium battery in your remote for a longer term solution.
Fortunately, this topic has not been politicized by partisan agendas, is not covered by any current conspiracy theories that I know of, and churches with agendas have not become involved. I am sure that someone in one of the ACOGs would probably comment that I should not have been going for coffee on their sabbath, but such a comment would not prevent me from learning the solution for the problem.
Wouldn't it be nice if all usefull truths were free of the agendas from politics, religion, and conspiracy theorists?
I am going to reply to those criticisms that seem worthwhile. But first let me say that though my opinion pieces provoke vitriol among critics, mostly Armstrongists, there seems to seldom be an actual rebuttal. I have isolated my argument in three points in the text. An effective counterpoint, which I would find interesting, would address these three points. Such a counterpoint never seems to develop. Instead, I get the likes of "you don't understand 'cause you're not called like I am." That is nothing but a sophomoric dodge. My replies follow:
1. A few pointed out the fact that I stated that God would be reproducing other God beings who are co-equal. This criticism is supported by the idea that even Christ was not equal with God. In fact Christ was equal to God in his pre-incarnate state. In Philippians this issue is addressed:
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
This addresses both Christ's equality with God and also why at one point he stated that God was greater than himself. He had "humbled himself." This is called Kenosis. Its worth reading about.
2. "Never were we taught that we would be co-equal with God." Unfortunately, this is the logial consequence of HWA's statement that God was "reproducing himself." He states this several time in "The Mystery of the Ages." If he didn't mean that, he should not have said that. Trying to clean up after the mess has been made by saying that we were never taught such and such just doesn't fly. The basic doctrine is wrong. You can't alter the tree by changing its fruit.
3. "Never heard anyone from WCG ever say "God as God is God". I heard this phrase many times. But it really makes no difference. It is just a glib way of saying the same thing that HWA wrote. Review HWA's writing on this topic and you will see that it is an apt expression.
I would be happy to give my responses on any other criticisms.
My thanks to Miller Jones for pointing out that the actual orthodox Christian doctrine of divinization or theosis, something I did not adress in my opinion piece, is very exciting. It states Christians will be able to partake of the divine nature - not that we will be God as God is God.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Rod Meredith was a major proponent of the "God as God is God" idea.
Ironically, as explained by several previous posters, mankind's destiny in fact is merely to be God as Rod is God.
Anonymous 10:48
If I might interject a thought. If materialism could explain the human mind, your reasoning might pull some oxygen. But materialism cannot and does not explain the human mind. Your coherent thoughts are not just self-emergent swarms of chemical reactions in your brain. Sentience is not a molecular phenomenon although the physical changes in the brain do indicate that the brain participates in or reacts to thought.
That alone, does not prove that there is an afterlife. But it does indicate that there is an investment of capabilities in the human mind that extends well beyond materialism. And that investment, that overage beyond the material baseline, is life-seeking. Miller's point. And further, life then has value. I mean, we are able to look at life and recognize it has value - unlike our animal friends who just behave. And when someone says the words "eternal life" to us it means something very important. It's electrifying. This predisposition to life dances with panache with the message that Jesus brought. Whereas unadorned surivival would rather dance with a good food source. While this is not the whole story, it is an important piece of it.
Christ was equal with God in His pre-incarnate state only as being in the form of God, meaning both as spirit beings but Jesus was not equal with God the Father in every attribute, as noted in the article by verses in both the OT and NT. Christ's statement that the Father was greater than Himself could have been stated at any time, not just when Jesus was here on earth in the flesh.
Anonymous 7:45 wrote, "Christ was equal with God in His pre-incarnate state only as being in the form of God"
Thanks for the statement. Let us now hear the exegesis that leads you to make this assertion. You also wrote, "Christ's statement that the Father was greater than Himself could have been stated at any time, not just when Jesus was here on earth in the flesh." This is also a statement without exegesis.
The first line of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And Jesus stated, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). It is a stretch into rank self-deception to relegate Jesus to a subordinate role. I am not sure why Armstrongists wish to do this. In their minds God is a term used exclusively for "God the Father" and is associated with the cherished Mosaic Law. God runs the show. And Jesus is of lesser rank - mentioned less and in a junior capacity. Yet "God" refers to Jesus as well as God the Father. For instance:
"Therefore, let those suffering in accordance with God’s will entrust themselves to a faithful Creator, while continuing to do good."
Here we have the use of the term "God" but it refers to Jesus. Jesus was the Creator. John says, "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anon 7:45:00 PM PST
‘Christ’s statement that the Father was greater than Himself could have been stated at anytime, not just when Jesus was here on earth’,
is indeed shallow and will not stand under the spotlight of critical examination and a simple search of scripture. A reading of John chapter one alone would clarify that assumption of yours.
One thing that does differentiate Armstrongism from ‘regular’ Christianity is its astonishingly poor scholarship and its associated interpretation of scripture. Your comment above is a classic example.
It is not a mystery to understand that God hates lies and says 'Thou shalt not lie' Tonto.
A sidebar on polytheism before this blog topic fades away. There is an argument among Armstrongists that Jesus is not co-equal with God, contra scripture, and that this makes "God as God is God" plausible. There can be lesser beings in the God-category. They typically refer to the God-category as the God family. This is a misleading conflation. The God-category is not the God Family. Angels are referred to as the sons of God, a family relationship, but Armstrongism does not assert that angelic beings are God as God is God. This clearly shows the divergence between the idea of the God-category and the God family that is held by both Christians and Armstrongists.
If one takes "God as God is God" to its ultimate conclusion, it results in polytheism. Every Armstrongist stands vigil against paganism. Christmas is a time of great concern among Armstrongists about insidious paganism. Ironically, polytheism is one of the hallmarks of paganism and it resides within Armstrongist theology. Armstrongists believe in bitheism - there are two separate but unequal Gods - God the Father and God the Son. And further, there will be many more Gods, at the same plane as God the Father according to HWA, in the future - a population explosion in the God-category as God reproduces himself - a pantheon of Gods. God is reduced to a reproducible being. But God says in Isaiah, "I am he: before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none."
Another mistake that seems to be present in Armstrongism is the conflation of category with rank. For instance, God has, as we would view it, the attribute of omnipresence. This is an absolute characteristic of the God category. It's binary - either you are omnipresent or you are not. I honestly think that Armstrongists believe that these qualities are not absolute and and binary but exist as gradations. I believe they apply the concept of rank to these absolute attribues of God. For example, in the resurrected life, HWA might have 100 percent omnipresence but the average resurrected person might have only 20 percent omnipresence. In this way they are able to conceptualize the idea of a being who is God but of inherently lower rank.
This is a demanding topic and it is easy to fumble it. I don't see the exegetical depth in Armstrongism to support its Doctrine of God. What you have is a partial doctrine that permits anybody and everybody in Spliterdom to ride on the winds of speculation.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
"Therefore, let those suffering in accordance with God’s will entrust themselves to a faithful Creator, while continuing to do good."
Here we have the use of the term "God" but it refers to Jesus.
I disagree; “God” here does not refer to Jesus.
1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of [ex] whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by [dia] whom are all things, and we by him.
“Concerning the world, the Father is the source (ex hou) of all creation, and Jesus Christ is the dynamic One through whom (di' hou) creation came into existence. As for the Christian, he lives for God, the source of all, and has the power for so living through Jesus Christ” (W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians, EBC, Vol.10, p.239).
[God the Father and Jesus Christ] “have differing functions, which are expressed in the Greek prepositions. The Father is one from (Greek ek) whom come all things: i.e. he is the source and origin. Jesus Christ is the agent and mediator: i.e. the one through (Greek dia) whom everything and everyone comes into existence.
“The most natural meaning of ‘us’ and ‘we’ in this passage is Christians: thus Jesus is the bridge to God, the go-between, the mediator, the way to God...” (David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians, BST, p.145).
1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
“The assignment came to him “by the command of God our Savior”... “God our Savior” is not used by Paul outside the pastoral Epistles... In the Pastorals the term is applied to both the Father (1Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) and the Son (2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3;6). As the ultimate source of all salvation, the designation is appropriately applied to the Father” (Titus, EBC, Vol.11, p.428).
Isa 63:8b so he was their Saviour.
Isa 63:9b and the angel of his presence saved them:
Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. (NIV).
“... this verse gives glory to the one Saviour God through Jesus Christ... Christ is sixteen times called Saviour in the New Testament, compared with eight times for the Father...” (Michael Green, 2 Peter & Jude, TOTC, Revised Edition, pp.206-7).
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
“... the term God is rarely applied to Christ in Scripture” (D. Edmond Hiebert, Titus, EBC, Vol.11, p.441)
“In three reasonably clear instances in the NT and five that have probability Jesus is called God...” (Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, p.189).
Mt 19:4 And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he [God] which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
1Pe 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
“Peter describes God as the “faithful Creator” - an unusual description because only here in the NT is God [precisely] called ktistes (“Creator,” cf. TDNT, 3:1000-1035)” (Glenn W. Barker, 1 & 2 Peter, EBC, Vol.12, p.249).
Part 2
Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
“Anyone who reads even a smattering of Paul’s writings recognizes early on that his devotion to Christ was the foremost reality and passion of his life. What he said in one of his letters serves as a kind of motto for his entire Christian life: “For me to live is Christ; to die is [to] gain Christ” (Phil 1:21)...
Ro 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all...
“So thoroughgoing is Paul’s christocentric worldview that he can hardly talk about God without also mentioning Christ...
“God the Father is always the “first course” of everything and thus always appears in the primary position as the “prime mover”; nonetheless, the focus of Paul’s life is on Christ himself...” (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp. 1, 8-9).
“Once he had encountered the exalted Lord, the sacred text was transformed into a place where the long-awaited Christ could now be found everywhere...” (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, p.23).
"God" in 1Peter 4 chapter is the Father as noted in verse 11 where Peter distinguishes between "God" and Jesus Christ. And, Jesus was in the flesh when He said "I and the Father are one" but obviously Jesus wasn't referring to flesh vs spirit but to their beings as Gods.
In the Scriptures below, God is Jesus’ God. Any thoughts on this?
Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Jn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Rev 3:12a Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God,
Eph 1:3a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
Eph 1:17a That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory
2Co 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
1Pe 1:3a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
Ro 15:6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (NIV).
2Co 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort (NIV).
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.
Did Jesus lie? No.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Did Jesus lie? No.
Would a God say of Himself: "I do nothing of myself?" No.
Some additional thoughts regarding The God:
"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] go." Acts 3:13
Despite scriptures like the ones quoted by Anon, Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:46:00 PM PST, we compliment them with the following verses:
I Tim 6:13 I give thee charge in the sight of GOD, who quickeneth all things, and [before] Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep [this] commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, [who is] the blessed and only POTENTATE, the KING of kings, and LORD of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.
17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the LIVING GOD, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
And yet so many professed hirelings of the former WCG, especially those who left their ministerial credentials behind in Pasadena, cling to the false idea of "another Jesus" who is the "God of the Old Testament." And they remain blind and confused about it until this day as though there were some vail over their eyes.
One more verse that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, or the Word, follows:
Deut 32:39 See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] NO god with ME: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of MY hand.
40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
Will the former WCG hirelings continue to think like a modern-day prophet of Baal (I Kings 18): inspired by another spirit to preach/teach a false Jesus, "another Jesus," and a false gospel, "another gospel?" And a 3rd resurrection? And a Mickey Mouse Millennium of "another Jesus" very soon to return to reign on earth, especially from their neighborhoods (Remember Mr. Rogers? Not Dan Rogers, of course!) for 1 0 0 0 years? Or, will scales finally fall off of their eyes?
Time will tell...
John
Deuteronomy 32
As an aside, in the “Song of Moses,” perhaps better the “Song of YHWH,” the name “Lord” [YHWH] occurs seven times.
Dt 32:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
The nearest antecedent of the personal pronoun in verse 40 is “Lord” [YHWH] in verse 36. Yahweh therefore says, “I live for ever” (v.40).
In verse 43 there is an appeal for the nations to rejoice with “his” people.
The possessive pronoun “his” also refers to the Lord [YHWH]. Therefore, the nations are called upon to rejoice with the Lord’s [YHWH’s] people. (Cp. Rom 15:10).
The Septuagint version has added another line to this verse:
Deu 32:43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him [LXX/Odes 2:43];
The third-person pronoun “him” also refers to the nearest antecedent in verse 36 Lord (Kyrios].
So the appeal in the Septuagint is for “the angels of God” to worship the Lord [Kyrios].
What is of interest is the author of Hebrews use of this clause:
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
The author of Hebrews applies in 1:6b what refers to the Lord = YHWH= Kyrios in the Septuagint OT to Jesus Christ. The “angels of God” are called upon to worship the Son.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (See LXX 101:26; cp. Psalm 102:24-25 (AV).
The author of Hebrews also applies a Septuagint OT passage addressed to the Lord [Kyrios] to Jesus Christ.
Ps 102:1 Hear my prayer, O LORD [YHWH], and let my cry come unto thee. (AV).
In the MT, the Psalm is the prayer of the supplicant/speaker.
But in the Septuagint, “he answered” in verse 23, suggests a change in speaker, so that now the speaker can be God and the person spoken to can be the “Lord” (v.26).
[“he answered” appears to be a mistranslation of “he weakened” in the MT].
Therefore, the author of Hebrews, with the aid of the Septuagint, transfers to the Son what applies to God.
The Septuagint’s apparent mistranslation opens a door for the christological appropriation of Psalm 102:25-27.
Therefore the author of Hebrews can apply what is said of Yahweh in:
Ps 102:27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
to Jesus Christ:
Heb 1:12b but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
Post a Comment