The Church in the third and fourth centuries adopted a doctrinal change to the view that the elect would exist as elohim or theoi , which reflected the positions advocated by Christ and John 10:34-35 from Psalm 82:6 and which was the true understanding of the Church. This original position is explained in detail in the work Known God(ch. 1-3), which will be released in the near future. This work reveals what the Bible actually says and establishes the plan it outlines. Once the biblical scheme is established, it will be checked, for accuracy, against the understanding of the earliest Church writings. Tasks and suggestions are given in the Introduction to the Known God. Most Hebrew-English Dictionaries distinguish different uses of words. From this follows the different use of the names of the Deity, which is explained from the point of view of Trinitarian positions. A paradigm of this type requires words to be explained in a context that does not represent the doctrine of Trinitarian absurdity. Therefore, some, like Francis, Driver, Briggs, used Gesenius extensively(Robinson’s interpretation, translated by Brown, Driver, Briggs) in an attempt to explain the ambiguity of the terms applied to Deity and Host within the evolving paradigm of religion. The discipline of religious teachings also tries to explain the meaning of the same terms in the context of the Old and New Testaments. This arrangement satisfies both Trinitarians and agnostics. The former, because the position they adopted is the latest form of their structure, it did not develop until the Council of Chalcedon (c. 451 AD) and uses Greek metaphysics, and the latter, because the concept of a living God writing and distributing the Bible, differs from the syncretic nature of their teachings. We are dealing with real words from the texts.
The words applied to the concept of deity in Israelite and non-Israelite societies can also be applied to human beings. A study of the use of the terms Eloah, elohim, el, elim, etc., and their ancient Hebrew and Chaldean equivalents, has shown that they all apply to the Known God. Examples of the use of the term Eloah (or Elah) always involve the use of the singular form of the concept of God and are different from how Eloah is used in 2 Chronicles 32:15; in Daniel 11:37-39; Habakkuk 1:11. Eloah never has an article, although Habakkuk 1:11 identifies it with a suffix, which is also found in Psalms 114:7 (seeHarris Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Moody, Chicago, 1980, p. 93). Such a relationship does not diminish the meaning of this text. For example, in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Gesenius texts on El (SHD 410), page 42, we find that the word means god , but with various subordinate uses, to express the idea of might, also used for a person of power and position .
In the same way, elohim , (SHD 430), page 43, is explained as being in the plural form, and applied both to rulers or judges, and to representatives of God in holy places, or to express divine majesty and power. Hence, the term applies to humans as well as to the angelic Host. Biblical texts show that such a simple explanation of the reflection of divine majesty has the meaning according to which the terms were used in the Bible. Thus, the name carries power, which, in turn, is equated with God. Trinitarians oppose this meaning.
Trinitarian works that attempt to extend the conception of the Bible as a development of a structural procedure to the Trinity as a whole are very widespread. A good example is Karen Armstrong’s The History of God, Heinemann, London, 1993, and C M LaCunha’s God for Us: The Trinity and the Christian Life , San Francisco, 1993. LaCunha admits ( Suppl. Religion of the Trinity ) that as the Old, nor does the New Testament include the basis for the Trinity. A classic work consulted for this purpose is W. F. Albright’s Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan , London, 1968. H. R. Driver develops the concept of myth in hisMyths and Legends of Canaan , Edinburgh, 1956. R.L. Fox goes even further in this direction in his Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible , London, 1991. A fundamentalist Trinitarian attempt has been made to change the translation of biblical texts to conceal concepts, and to reject the multiplicity of the world elohim . Joshua 22:22 is an example. The RSV gives the text:
Mighty, God is the Lord! Mighty, God is the Lord!
Mark S. Smith in Harper’s Early History of God , San Francisco, 1990, p. 8 notes that in ancient Hebrew it sounds like ‘el’elohim yahwh ‘el’elohim yahwh or God of gods – Yahweh, God of gods – Yahweh .
So this El by Elohim means the head of many. Smith cites the text to show the entry of the word el into the ancient Hebrew language and its acquisition of the meaning of a genitive noun with the meaning god. Smith advocates the position of the origin of the Jewish concept from the Canaanite, possibly from the Iron Age period, from the family of the Ugarites, who practiced the cult of Yahweh (Introduction, p. xxvii). He says that until the end of the Monarchy, single-person Yahwism was the norm for Israel, allowing for the consistent development of Monotheism (ibid.). Smith emphasizes the transfer of rites to the religion of Israel. He says that some rites which are regarded as syncretic are the heritage of ancient Israel (ibid., p. xxxi), perhaps also of the Canaanite linguistic base, which is essentially the same language as ancient Hebrew. Smith tries to establish the biblical requirements and then examine them in a broader framework. This work is also about establishing a biblical framework so that it can be studied more broadly, but with different conclusions than those drawn by Smith. The study will continue in the workMysticism . Therefore, the framework should not be set by sociological prejudices. The framework must be honestly restored by concluding that the biblical text means exactly what it says. Trinitarian superstitions intervened in this process. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ugarit Texts, and Nag Hammadi shed light on what was believed to be the meaning of biblical texts at the time of Christ, and therefore must be referenced.
It is also important that there is no serious scholarly refutation that the Bible at the time of Christ was interpreted to refer to Elohim or Elam, and this term opened the way for the duality or Trinity concept. The definitive work on this subject is Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning, by Leopold Sabourin SJ, Alba House, NY, Revised and Augmented Edition (1974 ed.). In his work, Sabourin shows the concept of the Council of Elohim. On pages 398 ff., Sabourin lists the uses of Elog, but avoids revealing its meaning. From pages 72-74, Sabourin refers to Psalms 86:6-10; 95:3; 96:4; 135:5. The Bene Elim, defined as the Sons of God, are the Bene Elion (Sons of the Most High). On pages 102-104 he mentions the saints or the Righteous ( qedosim) from Psalm 89:6-8, who are God’s heavenly companions; this term is used for righteous mortals. These supernatural beings make up the Bene Elim or Bene HaElohim. The Bene Ha-Elohim are the Sons of God(s). Sabourin, recalling also the comment of Coppens ( ETL , 1963, pp. 485-500) that the noun qedosim acquires in the Masoretic texts the meaning of the heavenly Court of YHVH, whose members are considered elohim (pp. 102-102), says in this regard:
The concept of the heavenly gathering is not just a literary form, it is a living example of Israel’s faith.
The list of terms to define God is very long. There is no doubt that the meaning of the concept was understood regardless of the language in which it was written: ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Chaldean. This system was very extensive and included human beings and the Council that Christ established at Sinai. Elohim is referred to in Exodus 21:6, where the word is translated as judges.
This word is generally used in the plural form here and in Exodus 22:8-9 because of its translation as judge, but in fact the word used here is elohim . At the same time, in ancient Hebrew there are two commonly used words for judges. These are the words SHD 6414 paliyl (Ex. 21:22; Deut. 32:32) and SHD 8199 shaphat (Num. 25:5; Deut. 1:16 et seq.). These words were used at the same time as the word elohim. Therefore, this discrepancy was applied deliberately to describe not the judges, but a different concept. The concept that this term was intended to express was the authority of God, which extended to the entire flock of Israel. The Governing Council of Israel was thus part of the Elohim. This spread was a reflection of the heavenly system as stated in Hebrews 8:5. This system is clearly traced throughout the Old Testament, and in the same way it was applied in the New. It was God’s purpose that with this covenant He would write the law in the hearts and minds of men, and they would not need teachers (Heb. 8:10)
The Old Testament demonstrates the subordinate relationship of the Elohim and shows the limits of their authority. It also identifies the Angel of YHWH (the term is read as Yahova in the early Yaho translations of the Elephantine texts, cf. Pritchard The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Images, Princeton 1958, p. 278-282) and its relation to the law, which is the basis for the question of the authority of Christ. The gradual definition of the Angel of Yahweh begins in Genesis 16:7 (see NIV footnote). He is also defined by interpreters as the Angel of His face (Isaiah 63:9). There are also separate cases of multiple entities that are attributed to YHVH. YHWH’s changes to Adonai (Soferim) in 134 places are found in Appendix 32 of the Bible Handbook (see also Appendix 31 for fifteen extraordinary points, Appendix 33 for alterations, and Habsburg Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, pp. 318-334 for details ).
An angel appeared to Abraham and his family. Hagar saw an Angel (Genesis 16:7) addressed to You, God Who Sees. It was El. The Being did not change, but they addressed him as the Angel of Yahweh and Yahweh to the One Who Speaks to Her – such is the plurality mentioned. This Angel, who was Yahweh, appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17:18:3 (the first of the 134 Soferim; see Massorah, namely 107-115 and Ginzburg, ibid.). Substitutions affecting this concept are found in Genesis 18:3, 27, 30, 32; 19:18; 20:4; Exodus 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9; Numbers 14:17. The Elohim were treated in the same way, and so the list calls for explanation. The three entities that appeared to Abraham were treated as YHVH without change, and the two Angels in Genesis 19 who destroyed Sodom were treated as YHVH without distinction, which is perhaps the reason for the change in the Soferim. The destruction of Sodom was carried out by the elohim(Genesis 19:29). So the name Yahweh or YHWH is applied in a hierarchical structure from YHWH of Hosts, the Most High God or Eloah, to the Elohim of Israel, who is subordinate to God, to the two Angels who, in turn, were subordinate to Elohim. Thus, the term is a definition of authority delegated from Eloah. Elohim, who was the Angel of YHWH, also appeared to Abimelech in Genesis 20:4 et seq. In Genesis 21:17-30, Elohim is addressed as the Angel of Elohim .
Abraham himself was addressed as elohim in Genesis 23:6. The terms are translated mighty prince, but the original reads SHD 5387 nвсоy’ dignified, like a king or sheikh, and SHD 430 elohim, hence king or prince elohim
Genesis 23:6 6 Hear us, my lord, you are God’s prince among us! Bury your deceased in one of our graves. None of us will withhold his grave from you to bury your dead.
The words translated mighty prince actually mean prince elohim . This is a slight inconvenience to Trinitarians and modern Judaism, so they translate it as a mighty prince. Thus, Abraham and Moses were recognized by the Bible as elohim . The Angel of YHWH was called elohim , Yahova, and the Angel of Yahova in the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22:11-12 (see Bible Interpreter ). This subordinate being was not omnipresent. He appeared in Genesis 24:7, 30-44, 48 and was definitely not Eloh.
The angel YHWH revealed himself to Jacob as El Beth-El or God (El) of the House of God , hence the high priest of the House of God (Genesis 28:21-22). This is YHVH, the Elohim of the Patriarchs and the El of the House of God, who later identifies himself as the Angel Ha-Elohim or God(s) (Genesis 31:11-13). This elohim teaches Jacob (Genesis 35:1-13). Genesis 35:11 onwards uses the term Abi-El or God is my Father. The term Elohim Abi El Shaddai also means God Who Worships Almighty God (see The Known God , ch. 1-3). This Angel was Penuel or the Face of God(Genesis 32:24-30). Hosea identifies this Angel as elohim (Hosea 12:2-9). This Angel, one of the elohim, was the Elohim (or Commander ) of the Host ( Elohi ha Tseba’avch ), who is incorrectly called the God of Hosts (rejecting the article The ).
He was ah-elohim or Brother of the Elohim , indicating the wider family relationship of the Elohim . Amos 9:5 also admits this meaning, which agrees with Joshua 5:15. This Angel was the Commander of the Host or the Commander of the Army of God . Yahova, his landmark, turns out to be another definition of Angel. The concept of a seal or mark most likely originates from Exodus 3:15 (My Name is My Memorial). Jacob regarded this elohim as the Angel of Atonement (Genesis 48:15-16).
The Angel of YHWH addressed Moses on the Mountain of God(s) ( Ha-Elohim ) and called himself the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex. 3:1-6, 10-12). He was singled out and appointed as the messenger of Eloah , God of Hosts or God Most High. This being was the Angel in the Cloud of the Exodus (Ex. 13:21; 14:19 (note the ever-changing definition)), who was YHWH who parted the sea (Ex. 14:21), YHWH in the Pillar of Fire, and Cloud (Exodus 14:24). He thus has several changing titles. It was he who gave the law to Moses and appointed seventy elders of Israel (Exodus 24:9-18). Deuteronomy 5:30-33 identifies his being as YHVH, and he is the messenger of YHVH of Hosts, whom, according to Christ, no man has seen or heard his voice (John 5:37; 6:46). This Angel was understood as the Presence of God, hence the name – Angel of the Presence. He is a subordinate god, appointed as Elogi of Israel by his God over his fellows (Ps. 45:6-7; see also Heb. 1:5-13; Rom. 15:6; Eph. 1-3). YHWH sent his Angel to lead Israel out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16) and to drive out the people of Canaan (Ex. 33:2-3). This Angel was YHVH who spoke to Moses face to face (Exod. 33:11), and Moses does not distinguish between them (Exod. 33-12-17). Therefore, the presence of God was embodied through an Angel who was his face or and Moses does not distinguish between them (Exodus 33-12-17). Therefore, the presence of God was embodied through an Angel who was his face or and Moses does not distinguish between them (Exodus 33-12-17). Therefore, the presence of God was embodied through an Angel who was his face or persona , which is the Latin equivalent of face or mask, and from which person is derived, and which is misapplied and restricted in the Trinity.
The angel of YHWH remained with Israel throughout the period of the Judges, when he received the name YHWH (see Judg. 6:11ff). The Angel is addressed by Adonai (verse 13), YHWH (verse 15) (altered by Soferim) and the Angel Elohim (verse 20). This Angel is also addressed as YHWH Shalom or He Brings Peace , hence he is the Prince of Peace , the title of the Messiah. Gideon prayed and offered sacrifices to God, not to this elohim (Judg. 6:36), despite the fact that this elohim enabled the Spirit of the Lord to enter Gideon (Judg. 6:34).
An angel appeared to Samson’s parents, and they addressed him as elohim (Judg. 13:19-20). The angel proclaimed his name, which sounded like pelyi (Judg. 2:18), which roughly translates to wonderful, a title of the Messiah (from Isaiah 9:6). The angel appeared in the time of the Kings (2 Sam. 24:16, 1 Chron. 21:12-30). This angel is the mediator between heaven and earth from 1 Chronicles 21:16. The angel of YHWH was YHWH speaking through the prophet Gad (verse 18). Samuel’s translation shows that there are two YHVHs involved here – the Angel YHVH and the YHVH to whom sacrifices were made. YHVH directs the Angel (2 Chron. 21:27). David was afraid of the wrath of the Angel of YHWH and therefore moved the Temple or God’s House (1 Chron. 22:23).
The angel of YHWH appeared to Elijah, and his name was YHWH (1 Kings 91:5-12). He spoke in defense of the king in 2 Kings 1:3. He spoke for YHWH in 2 Kings 1:15, who is defined as YHWH of Hosts in 2 Kings 19:31-32; 2 Chronicles 32:31; Isaiah 37:36 defines the Angel as the Elohim of Israel . This Angel of YHWH is the intercessory God of Israel, the protector of Israel (Ps. 34:7).
Honorable forms of address to YHVH and higher than his YHVH of Hosts are found in Ezekiel (see also SHD 3068, 3069). Yahova addressed Yahova’s Host as Yahov’s (eg Ezek. 16:36; 31:10,15; 38:10,14; 39:8, etc.). Yahova’s Dabar or Yahova’s word is given, as a rule, in Ezekiel. Ezekiel 31:1ff refers to the Garden of God(s) (Ha-Elohim). Adonai Yahovah is used of prophecy in Ezekiel 29:8, thus implying a distinction between the Word of God and Adonai Yahovah. The ancient Hebrew concept includes Memra , which was translated logos in the Greek New Testament.
The Angel of the Word of God (Memra) is understood as the Messiah. Zechariah 3:1-9 shows the Angel as the Judge and identifies him as YHVH and the Angel of YHVH. Satan appears as an accuser . The angel has the power of judgment and is therefore the true judge of the Covenants and Elohim of Psalm 82:1, standing in the midst of the Assembly of Elu and judging within the boundaries of the Elohim. The relationship extends to YHVH’s servant, the Branch. Psalm 110:4 extends the shepherding from Aaronic to Melchizedek through his being. DSS shows that Judaism expects two comings of Christ (see G Vermes Dead Sea Scrolls in English , especially the Messianic Anthologyand the translation of thirteen fragments from cave XI). The Messiah was descended from the families of Nathan and Levi (see Zechariah 12:10; hence Luke 3). The Messianic Anthology focuses on Levi’s promises in Deuteronomy 33:8-11 and 5:28-29. The text recognizes the prophecy of Deuteronomy as referring to the Messiah, as in Numbers 24:15-17. The Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of Israel was the person of the Damascus Text (VII) and the unpublished fragment in Cave IV (Vermes, p. 49). The Qumran translation refers to Melchizedek as Elohim and El. It comes from the content of the final judgment pronounced by the Messianic priest and clergy. Isaiah 52:7 uses elohim in the context of the Messianic coming to Zion (see Heb. 12:22-23). He was identified with the archangel Michael, and it was he who led the Sons of the Gods of Justice. Thus, some Jewish sects identify the Messiah with Michael (from Dan. 12:1). This is an outdated Adventist doctrine that existed until 1931.
The Messiah is also identified with Melchizedek. Both comparisons are false. Melchizedek means My King – Righteousness or My King – Justice (righteousness and justice are considered synonymous, see Vermes , Dead Sea Scrolls in English ). If Melchizedek was the Messiah, then there would be a problem with incarnation and sacrifice. The Christian assumption that Melchizedek is the Messiah comes from a misunderstanding of Hebrews 7:3. Terms without father, without mother and pedigree ( apator, etc.) derive from the need to record the lineage of Aaron (Neh. 7:64) for the Levitical priesthood. The terms “beginning of days” and “end of life” refer to the need to begin duty at thirty and be released at fifty (Numbers 4:47). The high priest followed his predecessor on the day of his death. Melchizedek had no such requirement. The Epistle to the Hebrews noted that he was a man (Heb. 7:4). He was created as the Son of God (Heb. 7:3), yet he was not the Son of God who was another priest (Heb. 7:11) .Thus all the elect may be members of the priesthood as Sons of God, regardless of lineage and age, continuing in eternity. We can only guess who Melchizedek was. (see work Melchizedek [128] ). Esena misinterprets the text, Messianically, as including elements of modern fundamentalism. The Epistle to the Hebrews appears to have been written to correct this error, but is precisely the one being misinterpreted. The Midrash insists that he was Shem (Rashi), being the king (melek) over the righteous place ( tsedek) (Abraham ibn Ezra and Nachmanides). This was the place where the Temple for the Divine Presence was to be built, which the Midrash identifies with Jerusalem as a whole, from the text Righteousness Placed in Her (Is. 1:21) (ibn Ezra and Nachmanides, see Soncino’s note on Genesis 14 :18).
But more important is that the concept of the Council of Elohim was absolute and clear as such, including the plain enough meaning of the Old Testament texts that speak of elohim . The subordinate structure of Elohim is understood on the one hand, but on the other – his relationship to Michael and Melchizedek is misinterpreted.
YHWH Sabaoth or YHWH of Hosts is the name of God (from Isaiah 51:15; 54:5; Jer. 10:16; 32:35ff.; Amos 4:13; 5:27) who is Eloah. This being has a son, perhaps from the interpretation of the text of 1 Chronicles 22:11 (rather than hayah SHD 1691) as the son of Aegis Yahova. Of course, Eloah has a son, based on the text of Proverbs 30:4-5. Thus, the Son of Eloah turns out to be the Elohim of Israel, but not the object of prayers and sacrifices.
This Elohim, anointed by his God, has the throne of Elohim (Ps. 45:6-7), and also stands in the Assembly of El and as a judge within Elohim (Ps. 82:1). From here:
Arise, O God, and judge the earth (Ps. 82:8).
The end result of the Angel of YHVH as Elohim extends to the house of David in the Old Testament. It is absolutely clear from the Old Testament that the destiny of the elect, as the house of David, as the King of Israel, was to become like elohim, like the Angel Yahweh at his head.
Zechariah 12:8 In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and there will be in that day one who stumbles among them like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the Lord before them.
The term before him is translated as on his head . So the Angel of YHWH was the elohim at the head of the house of Israel. This being can only be the Messiah.
The Old Testament thus appears as an appendix to Israel’s status. The house of the king is advised to continue the reign of Elohim from Jerusalem among the nations. We see that this concept is not physical. Not developed from the New Testament.
The New Testament (Acts 7:38) confirms that it was the Angel who appeared on Sinai and spoke to Moses, and it was he who gave the law (Acts 7:53) and identifies Christ as the Angel of the Old Testament. Moreover, the New Testament (Heb. 1:8-9, citing Ps. 45:6-7) convincingly proves Christ’s submission and humility.
The singular word used to define the name of the Most High God appears to be Eloah . It is applied to God the Father and is never used of Christ. The characteristic term used for the widespread order of the Host operating under the authority of God is Elohim .
Elohim acts as a Council both among the Host and among the people. The statement that Trinitarians maintain that the Council consisted of the justices of the peace of Jerusalem is a statement taken from the Genesis commentary. This was the adopted understanding of the first century, which says that the rank of Elohim or Theoi extended to men, and it seemed to extend to Moses in relation to Philo and Josephus. The Christian position was expressed by Irenaeus. It, in turn, was adopted by modern scientists. For example, Greg and Groch refer to Irenaeus who says:
There is no one whom the scriptures call God, except the Father of all and the Son, and those who possess election ( Early Arianism – An Aspect of Salvation , Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1981, p. 68)
Irenaeus used the Greek word theoi , which is equivalent to the Hebrew elohim . The modern position on this statement is that the angelic host was not included in the term.
More specifically, they are believed to have been subject to mankind (from a misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 6:3, which refers only to the Fallen or unaccepted Host, which they did not need). The fallen host was seen by early theologians as capable of being brought to repentance (this is further discussed in The Known God ).
Modern scholarship shows that pre-medieval Judaism recognized the duality of the Godhead – namely, one supreme God and a subordinate God (see Peter Hyman Monotheism: A Misused Word in Jewish Teachings? JJS 42 (1991), 1-15; Margaret Barker Archangel: A Study of the Second God of Israel , SPCK, London, 1992; and Hurtado’s One God, One Lord: Early Christian Rituals and Ancient Jewish Monotheism , Fortress/SCM; his article in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. Green McKnight and Marshall, Inter-Varsity Press, 1992); and his unpublished What Do We Mean by “First Century Monotheism”? (University of Manitoba, research paper)). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (93c) rejects the derivation of Elah, the biblical Aramaic name for God, from two Gods, El and Ah (abbreviated as Ayekh or “I will be,” as Fagin suggested ( JNES 3:259 )). There is little doubt that Eloah is God Most High and that the duality of the Israelite deity includes a superior and a subordinate form.
When addressed to the Most High God, He is distinguished from the subordinate YHWH by the epithet YHWH of Hosts or Elion, the definition of the Most High. An attempt to develop the concept of God was made by Smith (cited in the text). He claims that the real God of Israel was El, because El is not a Yahwistic name. Therefore, El was the true chief God of the group called Israel. Smith finds support in Genesis 49:24-25, which presents the names of Eli separately from the mention of YHWH in verse 18. Also, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 places YHWH in the role of one of Eli’s sons, here named Elion .
When the Most High (elion) gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided mankind, He fixed the borders of the nations, depending on the number of divine beings. His people fell to the lot of Jehovah, Jacob became his inheritance (Smith, p. 7).
Soncino translates the Masoretic Text (MT) as depending on the number of children of Israel . Thus, a connection is established with the twelve tribes and the Canaanite territories, but only with Rabbi Rashba.
The MT says bene yisrael , where the Septuagint (LXX) says aggelon theou , and the Kurian bny ‘ilhym (or bene elim ) (cf. Smith, note 37, and Meyer and Skene BASOR 136 (1954):12-15 (cf. . the first Epistle of Clement, using aggelon theou ), and the text of Ben Sira 17:17, which reflects a later interpretation of Deut. 32:8, which envisages a divine ruler for each nation). So the earlier text supports the above, and the Masoretic appears to have been modified somewhat later. The RSV follows this view and translates the text as Sons of God .
The distribution of the nations, depending on the number of Sons of God or Elohim/elim, shows a further widespread order. Instead of supporting the assertion of an evolving structure, it supports the prevalent structure that was disguised by Pharisaic Judaism and such a disguise is supported, without serious complications, by Trinitarians.
Smith himself says:
Since there is little evidence that El was a separate Israelite God during the time of the Judges, there is almost no evidence that Asherah was a separate Israelite goddess at that time. The arguments … found in Judges 6 are that she was mentioned along with Baal.
The regional understanding, as a widespread structure of elim, is not very approved by scientists. The theory of syncretic integration is used to explain distinctive names and hierarchies. Despite this, it is not so confused among peoples, as scientists try to show us. The suggestion that the elect will become elohim is actually raised in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where Noah (Uta-Napishtim) is shown as one of the elim or elohim (see the New Laros Encyclopedia of Mythology, part Assyro -Babylonian Mythology , Hamlyn, 1984, p. 63 ).
The so-called Yahweh (or Yahovah, which is more accurate) referred to above, from Deuteronomy 32:8-9, is the subordinate Yahweh of Israel, who identified Israel as the key nation in the revival. The division of nations according to the number of divine beings here extends beyond thirty, at a time when seventy nations or languages were distinguished. Thus it can be deduced that the Full Assembly of Elohim numbered seventy members.
The Sanhedrin, or Assembly of Elders, based at Sinai, was the prototype of the widespread order. The fact that the national overseers or elim opposed God and YHVH of Israel is recorded in Daniel 10:13 (cf. Deuteronomy 32:18). Therefore, the extended Assembly must have had a certain amount of rebelled Elohim. These beings were to be removed from their positions of elect, beginning with the first resurrection.
Harvey (in Jesus and the Limits of History , in The Limits of Monotheism, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1982) notes that a reverential attitude is used to describe persons who are not God. Moses is called ” divine “. He is addressed by Theios in Josephus (Antiquities of the Hebrews 3:180; 34, 187; 10:35) and also in Philo (eg, Life of Moses 1:158). Harvey suggests that referring to Moses as divine is a linguistic phenomenon that does not express a unique divine nature.
At the same time, none of the interpreters is sure that it was God who made Moses Elohim and appointed him the Elohim of Egypt, making Aaron his prophet. These terms are used only of divine mediation, but the transfer of authority was not only from God the Most High to the Angel of the Presence, but further to Moses, who was the first specific scriptural evidence we have that the rank of Elohim was extended to man by direct command of God (see . Exodus 4:16; 7:1). If the rank of Elohim could not be transferred by order of Eloah, then God Himself would have put Pharaoh in conflict with the first commandment by appointing Moses as Elohim to Pharaoh. So Pharaoh would have another Elohim to God. At the same time, the commandment does not directly provide for this.to and along meant on the spot or without transfer and authority . Therefore, God could appoint a subjugated Elohim to Israel in Psalm 45:7 without affecting the meaning and authority of the first commandment. The use of the term Elohim by the transfer of power to the justices of the peace, as the judges in Jerusalem, implies that the term as God does not extend beyond the three guises in real life. Such an absurd explanation changes the meaning laid down in the Old Testament.
The term Elohim was applied to both the angelic host and the empowered clergy, specifically Moses, to show that the rank of Elohim and the exclusivity of God and His nature extended to the chosen people. If it were the other way around, the clergy would be involved in blasphemy on that ground.
The term elohim is a plural word used to refer to the angelic host. This demonstrates that Elohim is a plural term that refers to the concept and authority of God given to a subordinate structure. In Genesis 35:7, the term elohim is in the plural form of the verb, but it is translated as God was known , rather than as Gods were known . Soncino notes that:
Elohim, which describes God in the aspect of Lordship, can be used in the plural form, but no other word meaning God can be so used.
Soncino insists that the rabbinical authority Abraham ibn Ezra understood this text to refer to angels. It may be that this text demonstrates that it was referring to the Angel of the Presence or the Messiah. An important aspect is that the logic of the use of elohim here recognizes its extension to the angelic host. Therefore, the concept of spreading the possibility of being an elohim for the Host was maintained in Judaism. The distribution of the elect according to the Bible begins no later than Moses.
The reference to Isaiah 44:8 as a demonstration that YHWH alone is Elohim offered by Trinitarians is simply false. Isaiah 44:6-8 states:
Thus says Jehovah, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: I am the First and I am the Last, and there is no God besides Me… Is there a God besides Me? Yes, there is none. And there is no rock, I don’t know any (Transferential meaning).
Yahovah (or, incorrectly, Jehovah) is claimed here to be one, but the text actually refers to two entities, Yahovah the king of Israel and Yahovah’s Host. Greene translated the text, putting in and out Redeemer to make it seem like one person was speaking. In the same way he translated the word biladay (SHD 1107), as besides in Isaiah 44:6 and beside in Isaiah 44:8. At the same time, there is a content without or apart from .
Isaiah 44:8 makes it clear that the entity referred to was YHWH of Hosts as Eloah. Eloah is a singular word applied only to God the Father, and He has a Son attributed to Him in His Old Testament relationship with Israel. Judaism, Islam, and biblical Christianity worship this being as the One Supreme God. Yahweh of Israel is defined, based on the above, as the Angel of the Presence, who is the Messiah. The text demonstrates that there are two YHVHs: the subordinate YHVH of Israel, who proclaims the authority of YHVH of Hosts. This YHWH of Hosts is Eloah, without whom there is no Elohim. This concept forms the basis of the first commandment. Thus, YHWH of Israel is here separate and subordinate.
The subordinate God of Israel, the Angel of YHWH, who is the Messiah, is the high priest of the house or temple of God. He is El Beth-El. Hebrews takes its purpose directly from Psalms 45:6-7. There is no doubt that this elohim was anointed and appointed over his partners ( metoxous) or companions (Heb. 1:9) in the Assembly. The council of Elohim, over which he presides as high priest, is reflected in the organization of the Temple; The temple in Zion is an example of the shadow of the heavenly structure (Heb. 8:5). The higher clergy of the Temple consists of twenty-four branch high priests and one central high priest. This organization is reflected in the Council of Elders in Revelation 4 and 5. This Council of Elder Elohim refers through the cosmology of the Middle East, from Sumer to Egypt, showing that the biblical framework was widely known (see also Eliade, Gods, Goddesses, and Creation Myths , Harper and Row, New York, 1974, pp. 21-25).
Psalm 9:5-8 addresses YHVH who is righteous in the assembly of saints (plural). He is the highest among the Sons of the Mighty (or Elim, which is the plural form of El, eg Gods). Elya is greatly feared in the congregation (inner council or meeting) of the saints ( qadoshimor the righteous). Yahova, the God of Hosts, is a being who is addressed as surrounded by righteousness. Revelation 4 and 5 reveal that this is a group of thirty entities, including four cherubim or living creatures. Thus, thirty pieces of silver (which is the price of a slave) were demanded for betraying Christ (Matt. 27:3,9 cf. Zech. 11:12-13), but this was an insult to the Godhead as a whole. The elders are bound to oversee the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8), and Christ is their High Priest, one of them who was counted worthy to open the scroll of God’s plan which redeemed mankind and which made them kings and priests to our God , that is, the God of the Assembly and Christ (Rev.
Atonement for human sins is part of the end-time restoration that will take place at the second coming of the Messiah, the King of Israel. His first coming was understood as Aaron’s Messiah. This first Messianic coming was the atonement of sins and the establishment of the priesthood of Melchizedek. End-time restoration is understood as the spreading of the elohim,as Zechariah 12:8 says. In the restoration of the last days, when the Messiah comes to Zion, as we understand from Hebrews 12:22-23, there will be a coming to protect Jerusalem and strengthen its physical inhabitants for the millennial reign. But as we mentioned above, Zechariah continues to state:
And there will be in that day one who stumbles among them like David, and the house of David – like God ( elohim ), like the Angel of YHWH before them (emphasis added).
The importance here is that Zechariah was made to understand that the Angel of YHWH was elohim and that the house of David (who had long since died) was to consist of those who would be elohim as part of the house of David. Zechariah wrote at the end of the Biblical period, his book was one of the last (about 413-410 B.C. Add. 77 Bible Handbook ). The understanding of the sequence of actions, thus, was not changed during the collection of the text materials. From the DSS/Uragit/Nag Hammadi we know that the content remained intact at the time of Christ.
The Church approved a form of Trinitarianism which at first tried to reject the above. This is very inconsistent and unbiblical. In short, an early form of Trinitarianism was originally developed by Origen in Alexandria to counter the so-called Gnostic views of the heavenly council of elohim held by the early Church. Christ was subject to God, appointed by his God (Ps. 45:7 (using Eloheik ) and Heb. 1:9), who was Eloach or Theon or o Theos(as God) among the Greeks (John 1:1,18). Origen uses the Stoic concept of hypostases, which is synonymous (as Platonist ousia ), meaning real existence, the being in which a thing resides . But Origen gives the meaning of individual existence, and therefore of that which exists individually. So, Origen developed a complete hierarchy of only three elements of the Godhead. The Father was the supreme God, the other two elements – the Son and the Spirit – were the creations of the Father as ktisma . But Origen’s scheme is the predecessor of Trinitarianism , the sole purpose of which was to limit the spread of the possibility of being elohim three beings and reject this opportunity for the elect and the heavenly Host. The Greeks adopted Origen’s scheme in the second half of the third century. Some, like Theognost of the catechetical school in Alexandria, gave special importance to the kinship of the Son with the Father, despite the fact that the Son was a creation of his activity, limited to the sphere of rational beings. He also declared that his essence or ousia (using Plato’s term, rather than hypostasis ) came from the essence of the Father (see Kelly, Doctrines of the Early Church , p. 133). Others emphasized his subordination. From workFrom the origins of Christmas and Easter [235] we know that the god Attis carried aspects of father and son together. This is the Modalist scheme. These two elements gave impetus to Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism is the desire to combine the structure of the worship of the god Attis and his Modalism in Christianity to satisfy the philosophical objections of his followers.
A follower of Origen, Dionysius, Pope of Alexandria, due to the explosion of Sabellianism in the Libyan Pentapolis in the late fifties of the third century, wrote a refutation of Modalism . He brings the personal separation of the Father from the Son to the fore. The Sabellians had one of his letters to the bishops Ammonius and Euphranor, which brought out this aspect, which Kelly (p. 134) finds intemperate. The Sabellians complained that the Origenists made a sharp distinction that amounted to the separation of the Father and the Son. This was protested and restricted by the Novationists in Rome, who influenced Bishop Dionysius, the Pope. Athanasius tried ( De sent Dion.4) to hide the shortcomings of Dionysius of Alexandria a century later, but Basil (Ep. 9.2) claimed that he went to extremes in anti-Sabellian zeal.
The term hypostasis became extremely entwined with Catholic doctrine, leading to anathemas by the Councils of Chalcedon and Circumcision. The declaration that the Godhead is individual but not separate is essentially a declaration of Monarchy and Circumcision. This philosophical absurdity has gained meaning in English. The use of hypostases and ousia as terms is an attempt to hide the inconsistency. The Godhead is conceived by Trinitarians as having three hypostases in ousia , using Stoic and Platonist terms to achieve the distinction.
Rejecting the term Being in relation to God and Christ immediately rejects their existence, which is absurd. In saying that God is the Cosmic Mind (or Cosmic Soul), we immediately depersonalize God and reject the reality of the Son of God, except that the Son’s existence is presumptively proclaimed as a hypostasis . This is a play on words that does not give reality to the Savior. On the other hand, if the reality of the Son is affirmed, then the doctrine is essentially a violation of the first commandment.
May you have no other elohim before Me.
YHWH Elogeik (YHWH Your Elohim), who is defined in Psalm 45:7-8 as Elohim , who appointed the Elohim of Israel , acts here .
By elevating our intermediate elohim, one of the Gathering, to the level of Eloah , God the Father , we break the first commandment. This is the sin of Satan, who claimed the title of El of the Council of Elohim (Ezek. 28:2).
The doctrine of the Trinity is based on a series of false premises to legitimize paradigm shifts (cf. Binitarianism and Trinitarianism [ 0 76] ). They are:
- That elohim , as Deity, refers only to two entities , not making a distinction between Eloah and a plurality of entities, including the Gathering of the Host (Dan. 7:9ff) (see Cox’s Known God, ch. 1-3).
- That these two entities (and Spirit) cannot be separated in reality or in thought and it is inappropriate to describe them as Beings.
- That the essence of Christ before the incarnation was not the Angel of YHWH.
- That Christ was the only Son of God before the Creation of the world (see Job 1:6; 38:7).
- That Christ and Satan were the same Morning Stars (see Job 38:7; Isaiah 14:12; Rev. 2:28; 22:16).
- Christ is God as God is God (see above), not a subordinate God (Heb. 1:9) sent by the Lord of Hosts (Zech. 2:10-11). Hence – he became an object of worship and prayers, which contradicts Ex. 34:14, Matt. 4:10, etc.).
- That Christ was the only begotten Son and not the Only Begotten God ( monogenes theos & uion ) (John 1:18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9; see also Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb 11:17 for comparison). He was the first born ( prototokos ) of all creation (Col. 1:15), and therefore – the beginning of God’s creation (Rev. 3:14, not as in the NIV).
- That Christ existed separately from his incarnation can be deduced from this, that he could pray to himself as God. Such an assumption rejects the distinction between the Father and the Son and completely refutes the resurrection. This statement is already anti-Christian (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7).
- That Christ and God had one will , and that Christ was not endowed with a separate will , which he submitted to God by voluntary submission, contrary to Matthew 21:31; 26:39; Mark 14:36; John 3:16; 4:34.
- The divine nature admits neither gains nor defeats in Christ. Logically, this would reject the resurrection of the saints as explained in 1 Corinthians 15 and in the biblical promises to the elect. This Trinity asserts that the divine nature given to the elect is different from that which was placed on Christ.
- That the Holy Spirit is distributed in measure contrary to John 3:34 (RSV); Romans 16:6.
- That Christ could not sin (from the false premise of a divine nature that recognizes neither victories nor defeats, rather than from an Omniscient God who knows that Christ would not sin).
- That Christ and God were created of the same substance so that they were co-equal and co-eternal, contrary to Philippians 2:6 and 1 Timothy 6:16, which shows that only God is immortal. Christ’s eternal or aioonion life (1 John 1:2) and the eternal life of all creatures, including Christ, comes from this being. Both Christ and the elect have a common origin (Heb. 2:11 RSV), deriving their life and eternity from conditional obedience to the Father (John 5:19-30), who created themus (Mal. 2:10-15). Since the Father has life in Himself, He gave life to the Son to have it in him (John 5:26), and we are co-heirs, who are assigned by God’s command to have life in ourselves (see work. The One-Essential Father [81] ) .
- The elect are not the Sons of God, as Christ is the Son of God, and therefore they are not joint heirs, contrary to Romans 8:17 Galatians 3:29; Titus 3:7; Hebrews 1:14; 6:17; 11:9; James 2:5; 1 Peter 3:7.
- That the Supreme God came down in the flesh and lived among men (derived from false insertions in 1 Timothy 3:16 in Manuscript A. These false insertions were retained in the KJV and moved to the NIV introduction). These insertions contradict John 1:18 (and John 1:14, where it is the Logos (or Memra) who became flesh) and numerous texts that separate Christ from the One True God (Eloah or Theon or Theos, as God who is God- Father), God Jesus Christ (John 17:3, 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:3), who stands in his name (Mic. 5:5).
The concept of the Oneness of God is misunderstood by Trinitarians. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) addresses Yahweh Elogenu or Yahweh the one God. The Being in Deuteronomy 6:5 is identified as God Most High, the God who anointed Christ as the Elohim of Israel in Psalm 45:7.
The unity of God necessary for Monotheism belongs to the common order, which is in unity under the influence of the central will in agreement and spiritual interaction through the spirit and power of God (1 Cor. 2:4-14) which is directed to God through Christ (2 Cor. 3 :3-4). The Trinity rejects the unification necessary for Monotheism, and is logically polytheistic. This happens because the rulers do not understand, being unspiritual (1 Cor. 2:8,14).
The God mentioned in Proverbs 30:4 as having a son is the Eloah of Proverbs 30:5. The sons of God, thus, are known from the Old Testament, and specifically, the Messiah is already known. Christ’s understanding of the Father became possible only after the Father’s voluntary self-disclosure (see Revelation 1:1,6). Christ is not omnipresent and never claimed to be.
The Bible affirms that God is the God and Father of Christ (to Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3,17; Col. 1:3; Heb. 1:1 ff. ; 1 Peter 1:3; 2 John 3; Revelation 1:1,6; 15:3). Christ acquires his life, power and authority at the command of God the Father (John 10:17-18). Christ submits his will to the will of God, who is the Father (Matt. 21:31; 26:39; Mark 14:36; John 3:16; 4:34). God gave Christ the status of the elect, and God is greater than Christ (John 14:28) and greater than all (John 10:29). Therefore, God sent his only begotten ( monogene ) Son into the world so that we could live through him (1 John 4:9). It is God who glorifies Christ, being greater (John 8:54).
God is the Rock, as the Mine or Mountain from which all others are mined, taken from Joshua 5:2, the chief and active cause (Deut. 32:4, see Maimondes Guide for the Perplexed University of Chicago Press, 1965, part 16, p. 42 et seq.). God is the rock of Israel, the Rock of their Salvation (Deuteronomy 32:15), the Rock that gave birth to them (Deuteronomy 32:18, 30-31). 1 Samuel 2:2 demonstrates that Our God is a Rock, an everlasting Rock (Isaiah 26:4). It is from this Rock that all were hewn, for all are descendants of Abraham in faith (Isaiah 51:1-2). The Messiah is hewn out of this Rock (Dan. 2:34, 45) to conquer the world’s empires. God, not Peter, not Christ, no one else, is the Rock of foundation on which Christ will build his Church (Matt. 16:18) and on which he himself rests.
The Messiah is the chief cornerstone of the Temple of God, in which the elect are the Naos or Holy of Holies, the receptacle of the Holy Spirit. The stones of the Temple are hewn out of the Rock, which is God, as Christ was, and given to Christ, a spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4), a rock of protection and a stumbling block (Rom. 9:33), to build the Temple. Christ will build the Temple so that God can be all, in all (Eph. 4:6). God gave Christ the power to be all and in all ( panta kai en pasinQty. 3:11), putting all things under his feet (1 Cor. 15:27), giving him the right to be head over all to the Church, which is the Body, the fullness of it, which fills all in all (Eph. 1:22-23) . When God put all things at the feet of Christ, it was declared that God is a unique being – the One who put all things at the feet of Christ (1 Cor. 15:27). When Christ subdues everything, then Christ himself must submit to God, who put everything at the feet of Christ, because God can be all in all ( panta en pasin1 Cor. 15:28, not as in the RSV).Therefore, the Platonist doctrine that attempts to unite God with Christ in the Trinity is metaphysical nonsense that contradicts Scripture. Christ will sit at the right hand of God according to God’s instructions (Heb. 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22) and will divide the throne of God, as the elect will divide the throne given to Christ (Rev. 3:21), which is the throne of God (Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8 or God is thy Throne is translated Thy throne, O God , see note to the annotated RSV).
God who sends is greater than he who is sent (John 13:16), a servant cannot be greater than his Lord (John 15:20). It is extremely absurd to assume that a creature can be a victim for itself. Such an action, according to logic, is suicide or, within Trinitarianism, partial mutilation. So the doctrine rejects the resurrection, especially from 1 Corinthians 15.
Thus, the separation in crucifixion and resurrection is binding and complete. The resurrection must take place in the flesh, including translation as a sacrifice of the Swinging Sheaves, or there will be no salvation and no current harvest. The preparation of Christ to ascend to his God and our God who is our Father (John 20:17) was real and special. Christ attained the ability to be God and attained the fullness of Godhead, bodily, through the action of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the doctrine of baptismal Sonship is true and complete.
Having established the biblical position at the time of Christ, we can see how this position was presented during the first and second centuries. From the texts of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus available to us, we know that the understanding extended to the early Church.
Justin Martyr claims that God taught the same things both through the prophets and through Moses, which was already mentioned above (see Dialogue with Tryphon , part XXVII, ANF ,T. I, p. 207 et seq.). Justin taught that God generated, as a beginning, a certain intelligent power from Himself, which is called the Holy Spirit: now the Glory of God, now the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, then God (Theos), and then Lord and Logos. Justin identifies him as the Kerman of the Lord’s Army who appeared to Yehoshua (ibid., LXI). This section was used in the interpretation of Proverbs 8:21ff., where Wisdom was identified as the Messiah who was created by God. God’s will was fulfilled by the Messiah. Justin asserts (ibid., XLII) that in creation God spoke to beings separated from Him. Hence, Moses argued that creation included at least two separate beings. hypostasis _ Elohim was, in fact, more numerous, as we can see from the other text referred to above, mainly Psalm 45:6-7, which ascribes companions to Christ.
Irenaeus (c. 125-203) wrote on the subject of extending the term elohim (or theoi in Greek) to humans. Irenaeus is important because he was taught by Polycarp, a follower of John (see Butler’s Lives of the Saints , Burns & Oates, UK, 1991, p. 56). Therefore, we can be sure that Irenaeus’ understanding (without forgery) expressed the position of the early Church. He no doubt supported the Quarto-Decimans and mediated the Passover controversy (Butler, ibid., p. 197), even though he was isolated from Asia Minor while at Lyons. In his work Against Heresyhe set forth the concept that the elect existed as elohim.
Irenaeus asserted that the angels and the creator of the world knew the supreme God because they saw that they were His attributes and His creations and were maintained by Him (Book II, Part VI, ANF ,page 365). Irenaeus did not refer to the creator of the world, whom he considered the Messiah, as God the Most High or the Almighty (ibid., part VI: 2). From this work we see that the Greek concepts of the Demiurge and the Pleroma influenced the concept of what is called Eternity (Aeons) and tried to influence the biblical concepts with Greek metaphysics, thus destroying them.. The Gnostics were forced to go underground and become part of the Mysteries and, eventually evolve into the Trinity. This is described in other works.
Irenaeus (and Justin) taught that the resurrection was physical and that God would then provide incorruptible and immortal bodies ( ANF , Vol. I, p. 403). God is considered the creator (ibid., p. 404) in contrast to Christ, who created the world under this God (ibid., p. 405). Irenaeus argued that the Holy Spirit appointed both the Father and the son (from Ps. 45:6-7), and Elohim or Theoi is the Father appointing the Son.
Irenaeus argued that Psalm 82:1 was addressing the Father, the Son, and the elect (accepted as the Church) when it said:
God stands at God’s (theoi) Assembly, he judges among the gods ( Against Heresies, Book III, Part VI, ANF , Volume I, p. 419).
He did not fully understand the degree of the brotherhood of the elect, which extended to the whole Host, which is brotherhood in the Kingdom. The revelation was given to John in exile on Patmos after he had taught Polycarp. Revelation 12:10 states that angels are a brotherhood of the elect. Revelation 4 and 5 reveal that the elect have been redeemed for the Council of Elders to become kings and priests among the Host. Christ affirms that the elect should become equal to the angels ( isaggelos from isos and aggelos (Luke 20:36), which has the idea of becoming part of them, as an order). Christ recognizes us before his brotherhood in the Host.
Irenaeus argued that the Church was the synagogue of God, which the Son had gathered for himself. It is argued that the God of gods in Psalm 50:1 is an address to God. Our Messiah was theos or God who will come openly and will not be silent (Ps. 50:3) and who will appear to those who did not seek him (Isaiah 65:1), and the word god in Psalms 50:1 refers to the elect, to whom addressed Christ, saying:
You are gods and all sons of the Most High (John 10:34-35, cf. Ps. 82:6) (ibid.).
So it would be wrong for Christ to claim from a distance of two millennia that Christ was using a text addressed to the judges of Jerusalem when the disciple Polycarp said that he was addressing the elect as elohim.
Irenaeus also claimed that Christ was the son of the one who said: I am that I am (YHWH), or, more correctly, I will be what I will become (cf. Oxford Annotated RSV ) (from Ex. 3:14). Thus he bore the title passed down to him. In this regard, Irenaeus quotes Isaiah:
I am also a witness (he declares) saith the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am (Isaiah 43:10) (ibid.).
Sontsino cites the text:
You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and My Servant, whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; God (El) was not made before Me, and it will not be after Me.
The quotation from Irenaeus, and Soncino’s modification of it, which more or less corroborates Irenaeus, demonstrates that the Self refers to God who is the Father. The reference to the slave in Soncino comes from Isaiah and refers to the Messiah. Soncino tries to equate My Servant with an earlier witness to show that only God, not the Messiah, existed before all things appeared. In the future, the Messiah is separated from God.
Irenaeus indicated that his understanding of Isaiah 44:9 and Jeremiah 10:11 on the subject of idols was that idols were idols of demons ( Adv. Her. , Book III, Part VI, ANF , p. 419). These demons were pushed aside from theoi or elohim . Referring to Jeremiah 10:11, Irenaeus quotes:
The gods who did not create the heavens and the earth, let them disappear from the face of the earth that is under the sky. By the fact that he added to this their destruction, he showed that they were not Gods (elohim or theoi) at all.
Thus, it was demonstrated that idols were understood not simply as idols, but as incarnations of the demons they represented (see also Book III, ch. XII:6, ibid., p. 432). This was the common understanding of the ancient world. Hence, the rejection of the demons, their taming, and the later judgment separated them from the category of elohim. Irenaeus shows through reference to Exodus 7:1 that Moses was actually made an elohim to Pharaoh, but the prophets incorrectly call him Lord or God. The Holy Spirit speaks of him rather as Moses, a faithful priest and servant of God (Heb. 3:5; Numbers 12:7), as the Messiah is called in the texts. Thus, each of the elohim is a subjugated slave of Eloah, Elion.
Irenaeus (ibid., p. 421) states that Christ recognized Caesar as Caesar and God as God, from Matthew 22:21 and Matthew 6:24 serving God and not wealth. Therefore, Christ refused to proclaim himself God (see also ibid., p. 422).
Citing the Epistle to the Philippians 2:8, Irenaeus shows that Christ, as God and Judge, was separated from the God of All, because he submitted to receive death (ibid., ch. XII:8, p. 433).
Irenaeus quotes LXX Isaiah 9:6 that the Messiah was Emmanuel, the messenger ( or Angel ) of the Great Council of the Father (ibid., part XVI:3, p. 441). On this occasion he showed that the Angel of the Great Council from the Old Testament (LXX) was understood as Christ.
Irenaeus rejects the concept that Jesus’ suffering can be separated from the Messiah, arguing that Christ was passionless. In other words, he rejects the attempt to assert that the divine being of the Messiah could be separated from the earthly man of Jesus. This became the teaching of the Gnostic sects, who twist the Gospel of Mark and ignore others. Irenaeus also shows what became the basis for the errors of these sects. The Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, they drew false conclusions regarding the position of Christ. Athanasians or Trinitarians used the term Ebionites later as an attempt to charge the doctrines of subordinalism and subordinalists of all persuasions with the heresy carried from the Ebionites to the parties involved in the controversy at Nicaea, who were called Arians. Such statements are unfair, based on the study of the works of early Church authors who were subordinalists even before Nicaea (cf. Early Theology of the Godhead [127] ).
Irenaeus emphasized that there was only one God or Father. The Messiah was His son. He says that Marcion also twisted the Gospel of Luke to support his teaching. The Valentinians used John to the detriment of others and also used a pseudo-gospel. The fact was and remains that one must use the Scriptures as a whole, diligently and not selectively. Irenaeus demonstrates an advanced understanding of the fourfold nature of the Gospel and the meaning of each of the books in relation to the cherubim (ibid., Book III, Part XI:8, pp. 428-429).
Irenaeus denied that Jesus could suffer and come down again, and that he who ascended to the heights was different, remaining passionless. Irenaeus claimed that Christ, whom God promised to send, he sent in the person of Jesus, whom they crucified, and God ascended (ibid. ch. XII:2,4,5, pp. 430-431).
According to this theologian, there is no misunderstanding between Christ and God, and he claims that the apostles did not change God, but God sent Christ. Irenaeus says:
Thus, you know the spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that separates Jesus Christ is not from God, but from the antichrist (ch. XVI68, citing 1 John 4: 1,2. Remarks: The Vulgate and Origen agree with Irenaeus. Tertullian admits both versions. Socrates says: (VII, 32. p. 381) that the passage was altered by those who wished to separate humanity from Christ, from his divinity. Polycarp ( Ep., p, vii) agrees with Irenaeus, as does Ignatius (Ep., Smyr., c,v) (see note to ANF , ibid., p. 443, citing also Barton’s Anti-Nicene Evidences of the Divinity of Christ ) ).
Therefore, every doctrine that attempts to separate Christ by placing him in both the earthly and heavenly realms was considered by the early Church to be the doctrine of Antichrist. The change in the text most likely took place in the East. The texts of the Bible remain uncorrected to our time.
Irenaeus says that the Spirit of God descended on Christ like a dove, which satisfies Isaiah 11:2 ( And the Spirit of God will rest upon him ). Therefore, it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you (Mat. 10:20) (ibid., ch. XVII:1, p. 444). The Holy Spirit was thus considered to be the Spirit of God, not from Christ, but rather through Christ, as explained above
It happened that:
The son of God, the created son of man, accustomed in brotherhood with Him to live among men, to remain with human beings and to live in the art of God, producing the will of the Father in them, and weaning them from their old habits into the newness of Christ (ibid.).
Irenaeus taught that the elect will be endowed with immortality because they can be adopted as Sons (ibid. ch. XIX:1).
The Spirit joined the elect to God, leading distant tribes to unite and offer to the Father the first fruits of all nations (ibid., 2). Christ was the instrument of this action, but he was neither the object of worship nor the creator of this project. Nevertheless, he was a Wonderful Counselor and a Mighty God, as Isaiah 9:6 says, and a Judge in Daniel 7:13 (ibid.).
But Christ acknowledged the Father as His God, as did David, quoting the same Psalm 22:1, where David first said:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
and Christ spoke it again on the cross, as recorded in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. Both texts address Eloah, the Supreme God and the God and Father of Christ. Christ spoke his words in Aramaic, namely: he allegedly said:
Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-th’a’ni.
This is an English transliteration of the Greek translation from the Aramaic ‘eli, ‘eli lamah ‘azabthani . In Aramaic, God is translated as El, but this is the equivalent of Eloah, as God expressing His will to His son. However, Christ and the elect were called God.
Irenaeus says:
There is no one whom the Scriptures call God, except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who have passed the election ( Adv. Her. , Book IV, Pref. 4, ANF , p. 463).
Further:
(ch. 1) therefore, it is certain and beyond doubt (yes) that no other God or Lord has been proclaimed by the Spirit than He, who, as God, rules over all together with His Word and those who have received spiritual acceptance (see iii . 6,1), and those who believe in the one and true God, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as well as the apostles, who did not call themselves anything other than God or by name like Lord; and what is most important, (since it is true) that our God, who also governs us, acknowledges no one to be a Father, except He who is in heaven, who is one God and one Father;…(ibid., p. 463).
So it would be absurd to think that the elect would become Elohim was not understood as the true position of the first two centuries of the early Church, since Irenaeus was the closest link we have with his doctrines and clearly defined position. It is further proven beyond doubt that this position is the consistent plan of Scripture, not just Scripture itself, which the Bible defines as the Old Testament (Dan. 10:21; Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; Mark 12:24; 14:49; 15:28; Luke 4:21; 24:27; 32:45; John 2:22; 5:39; 7:38; etc.), but also the Gospel and New Testament writings .
In the passage dealing with the elect as Elohim, namely John 10:35, Christ presents the concept that the Scriptures cannot be broken. The choice of this passage as an example was not accidental. It is this concept that determines our destiny and is the aspect most attacked by the adversary and for which the Trinity was designed. The Gospel clearly emphasizes the coming of the Kingdom of God. The writings of the apostles are to prepare the elect and show the mechanism of fulfillment. But all the apostles, as Paul wrote, asserted:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).
Scripture gives rise to the royal law of loving your neighbor as yourself (James 2:8). The scriptures are not to be interpreted according to one’s own judgment (2 Peter 1:20). Therefore, the doctrine developed by three Cappadocian theologians in the fourth and fifth centuries contradicts the Scriptures, and we must resist the position of the Church with all our might. It violates the first commandment by making Christ equal to God. Thus, it is quite evident that the purpose for which Philippians 2:6 was changed in the KJV was to reflect this aspect and to create the illusion that Christ was equal with God. This was intended to accuse Christ of idolatry, which is the sin of Satan.
No Christian can accept the concept of the Trinity because it denies the omnipotence of God the Father and rejects our destiny. This is the reason why the Churches of God have been persecuted for 1600 years.
The Chosen were persecuted for this doctrine by those who called themselves orthodox, or at least those who believed themselves to be righteous, because their doctrines most closely suited the social structure of the empire that used them. The Churches of God had, until recent times, a different organizational structure that helped them to withstand the persecutions they faced.
Paul noted that the Church had disputes about many issues, despite the fact that they were not in the habit of arguing (1 Cor. 11:16). He writes that disputes leading to separation arose among the Churches of God.
For there must also be heresy among you, so that it reveals experienced ones among you (1 Cor. 11:19).
The controversy over the nature of God and the subordination of Christ arose earlier, in the era of the Churches. The results were divisive. Groups that embraced Trinitarianism or its Modalist equivalent in John’s day then left the Church when their errors were pointed out, as was the case with John (1 John 2:19), or turned to anti-nominalism, becoming Protestant, as happened among the Waldenses. Christ interfered as little as possible in the last matter. Each person must make his own choice based on his understanding developed by the Holy Spirit.
The process of formation of Trinitarianism traditionally took a certain period of time. The first step was to set forth the doctrine that Christ was co-eternal with God from the beginning, and not at his direction, as were the elect and all the Host. After this error, the doctrine of equality was added, until it was regarded as a heresy, to assert his dependent subjection, or that he was the prxtotokos , the first begotten of all creation, the beginning of God’s creation.
Prkhtotokos is not a title, as demonstrated by the previous interpretation. For this reason, Christ remarks in Revelation 3:14 to the Laodicean Church that he was the beginning or arche of God’s creation (cf. the Arch of God’s Creation as Alpha and Omega [229] ). Apparently, the Church teaches that he was not like that. They were the only Church to do so, and any teaching pertaining to the era must conclude that the last age of Churches is doing the same. Error of contemporaneity, ab orgine, begins to be confessed in the Churches of God for the first time five hundred years later in the period of 1940, perhaps in 1950. This error needs to be understood and corrected.