The Trinity

Let's just say that as the Bible refers to "Lord of lords" and "King of kings" and "Song of songs" we may also assume there is a Savior of saviors.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

================================================
That sounds about right. And , in my opinion , calling something a 'mystery' is admiting it doesn't make any sense what so ever, but we will tell people that anyway.
=================================================Don't you think that even our own human life is somewhat a mystery to us?When I saw my first child born, I couldn't shake the sensation that it was a great and wonderful mystery - the birth of a child.If human life is somewhat of a mystery, the divine and uncreated life of God probably should have some amount of mystery associated with Him also.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Whatever may be the current beliefs of Judaism; many ancient Hebrews, like everyone else in those days, imagined their king to be God incarnate. Psalm 82:6Furthermore: ancient Hebrews addressed their supreme ruler (king) in terms of his office: Jehovah. Indeed, it was the king of Israel who sat on Jehovah's throne. 1 Chronicles 29:23Christians seem, on the one hand, to have forgotten the truth this political reality and on the other hand ascribe all that myth to their chosen Jewish Icon: Jesus. King Jesus, that is; with all the power, glory and despotic tyranny which that implies.If the Jews no longer believe that a man can be God, perhaps its because they've been there, done that. As the Rabbi said to me at lunch the other day: "That's a very dangerous idea."BTW: I liked your three phase analogy.
I am stealing it for my own devious purposes.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

=======================================
Christians seem, on the one hand, to have forgotten the truth this political reality and on the other hand ascribe all that myth to their chosen Jewish Icon: Jesus. King Jesus, that is; with all the power, glory and despotic tyranny which that implies.
=======================================Sounds like you want it both ways.Which is it? We've forgotten the political reality or we remember and assign it to Jesus ???Want to make up your mind which criticism your more fond of ?

Even if that were a safe assumption (which I doubt it is) the individual saviour of one's time and place or one's individual self would doubtless seem to be the saviour to end all saviours. Aside from the translator's discretion in capitalizing the word when it is used in reference to Jesus, there is nothing else in scripture to substantiate your assumption. There is, in fact, evidence against it.Jesus is called "a Saviour." [i.e. one of such]

quote:

---

"Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31

---

And again:

quote:

---

"Of this man's seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:" Acts 13:23

---

What an excellent opportunity the author missed if he wanted to claim that Jesus was a saviour of saviours. But of course that expression does not occur anywhere in scripture, nor would one expect it. Saviours Save. They don't need saving.Besides, the saviour of the day is the only one who really counts.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

The keyword is "seem." On the one hand Christians seem unaware that the divine attributes they assign to Jesus were also assigned, by ancient Hebrews, to their beloved saviours; most notably: Moses, David, and Cyrus.They seem unaware of the fact that Moses was elevated to godhood by Jehovah (Exodus 7:1). Or, perhaps, they are unaware of the implications of the fact.David and Cyrus, among other kings, were called Christ even though that fact may not be apparent in modern versions of the scripture. For some reason translators have obscured the fact and the Christian establishment has not been keen on pointing it out.Why is that?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I wrote a reply to this. Then I lost it in a technical problem. I started to re-write it but then thought that it was hard for me to relate it to the Topic of Trinity.Maybe you could show me how this Savior matter effects the Topic of Trinity.Anyway, king of kings carries the meaning of king par excellence. And superlative king. Song of songs is the same. It is not necessarily a song made up of all songs. Neither is Lord of lords necessarily a lord over all lords but a lord superlative above all lords.And if you cannot detect the qualitative difference between the saving of say, Samson or Gideon and that of Christ, I think your comparison is faulty.Lastly, individual salvation fits into the salvation on a wider scale. I'm not sure if you're saying that Christ only represents an individual's Savior.Clearly with the Messiah you get both in the Bible. In His larger saving of the world and of Israel fits our own personal and individual salvation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi jaywill. Welcome back. I see you've been gone long enough to forget how to do proper quotes. To save you the trouble of actually reading the thread, I'll explain:As I recall, SK was arguing against the concept of the "Trinity". Since God said in Genesis 1, "Let us make man", some have said that God was speaking to His alter egos, the Son and the Holy Spirit. SK disgreed, suggesting that God was, in fact, talking to the angels whom - according to SK - "we all know were created before man".I simply asked if we do, in fact, all "know" that. Your Job reference may or may not be a valid answer to that question.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

==================
Hi jaywill. Welcome back. I see you've been gone long enough to forget how to do proper quotes.
==================Hi Ringo. It will come back to me.==================
As I recall, SK was arguing against the concept of the "Trinity". Since God said in Genesis 1, "Let us make man", some have said that God was speaking to His alter egos, the Son and the Holy Spirit. SK disgreed, suggesting that God was, in fact, talking to the angels whom - according to SK - "we all know were created before man".I simply asked if we do, in fact, all "know" that. Your Job reference may or may not be a valid answer to that question.
========================I see. Thanks.Let Us Create man ... ?The man has become as one of Us ...?Let Us go down and there confuse ....?Who will I send. Who will go for Us ...?Someone thinks God is speaking to the angels in all these biblical references?I don't think so. Its tempting. But I don't really think so.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And what is the neccessity of that? That seems like a big assumption that is not really supported by the texts.

Don't you understand?The highest symbol of submission to authority becomes the highest authority.

The trinity doctrine contains a number of mysterious concepts. One of these is that of incarnation, which I imagine to be the equivalent of being "filled with the spirit," "possessed" as it were by "the holy ghost." This, as I understand it, is how we are to "become sons of God." This is also the mechanism, if that is an appropriate term in this case, whereby Christ lives in and through us. i.e via the "indwelling spirit." Is this making any sense to you?On the basis of that idea that a man can be possessed by the spirit of God, and that God can live in and through a man, the ancient Hebrews were able to assume that their king was possessed by God, that God lived in and through the medium of his body, that God spoke to him and through him; that he was the vicar of God, the presence, the voice, the opinion, and for all practical purposes: the person of: God on Earth. His word was law. His interpretation of the Law was Law. His power was absolute. He sat on the throne of the LORD; he was addressed as "LORD," and "God."In this sense Jesus has nothing on his father David. Incorrect Answer.

• A "king of kings" is a king who rules other kings. In Jesus' day there were only two such named in holy scripture: Artazerxes of Persia - Ezra 7:12; and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon - Ezekiel 26:7.
  ​
• A "song of songs" is collection of songs. You may note that there are several "songs" included there.
  ​
• A "lord of lords" is a lord who rules other lords. When authors wish to indicate comparative value they include adjectives. For example: Great Lord; Mighty Lord; etc. The expression "LORD most high," which appears twice in the Psalms, is the only superlative lordly attribution of which I am aware.

The holy scripture calls such men saviours and does not distinguish between different 'kinds' of saviour. Apparently the meaning of the word is simple and clear. It is interesting to note that the book called Joshua does not contain the word "salvation" except in the name of its title. Apparently the author would have us see that entire action adventure in terms which define the very meaning of the word. It is also interesting to note that Joshua and Jesus are the same name and that translators of the King James Version got the two confused in a couple of places. Whatever distinguishing features are assigned to the 'type' of salvation associated with Jesus of Nazareth, are probably laid on the story post-hoc. There is every indication that prior to being frustrated in his mission, Jesus fully intended to be the saviour whom everyone believed he could be.The prophecy that Jesus would save his people from their enemies (Luke 1:71) may or may not have worried the Roman's (if they even knew of it). But the hell fire speeches by which he punished the ears of those who detracted from his mission, certainly played a role in short circuiting his ability to fulfill the aforementioned prophecy. He, apparently purposefully, incited political fear and personal loathing among the God-appointed leaders of Roman occupied Israel. But he did not save Israel; much less the world. He failed miserably. Forty years later his gang put a new spin on the story; after which it sold better than ever. A hundred years later a Roman emperor promoted the cult to State Religion. The rest, as they say, is history. Before that, very little is known of what the heck was going on in the Christian cult. One thing we do know which happened during that period:ISRAEL WAS DESTROYED / NOT SAVEDTHEIR WORLD WAS DESTROYED / NOT SAVEDWhere in the world do conditions exist which bear the marks of a sinless paradise? Or is that not what we look for in a world which has been saved?One might hope that three gods, working together, could deliver on a few of the grandiose promises advertized in the Bible. If not, then what the heck good are they?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

And if your imagined understanding of incarnation in this way is inadaquate, you are willing to change it ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your assumption of all that incarnation means is inadaquate. So this amounts to something like a strawman argument.However, even if it were a representation of incarnation Christ would still be much superior to David.Consult with Uriah, Bethsheba, and the prophet Nathan for details.That is unless such "possession" and giving of divine instructions has nothing to do with character and morality. But this would contradict David's own many psalms about the nature of a king set up by God.

I get the thrust of your argument to be that there should be no reason why the nonbiblical phrase "Savior of saviors" should be applied to Jesus Christ.But regardless of which way we interpret the Hebrew phrase "the Something of somethings" Jesus, such a phrase of "Savior of saviors" would be appropriate to Jesus.Now if timing is your problem and you do not yet see all of His saving work completed, this may be just your unbelief and unappreciation derived from your lack of faith.Moses came as a leader and savior to Egypt. However, his first attempts to miraculously impress Pharoah resulted in Pharoah encreasing the people's hardship. Pharoah thought they were too idle and made them go gather their own straw. The Israelites became extremely skeptical about what kind of savior and leader this Moses was anyway.On other occasions they sought to stone Moses and return to Egypt which they ironically refered to as the land of milk and honey! Their unbelief and rebellion greatly hampered their concept of Moses being a divinely sent savior. Eventually, God did vindicate Moses.So I think your reluctance to acknowledge Christ as a Savior of saviors is enfluenced by the fact that His work is still in the process of being consummated. I believe what God has said concerning Christ and that He is still moving towards the consummation of His salvific work in some important aspects.So some of the Jews threw up their hands and said "Some savior this Moses is!" when their labors were made harder by Pharoah.And some people like you look at the state of the Israel still surrounded by enemies and say "Savior of saviors my foot. No way I'll call Jesus that." That is your murmuring and unbelief speaking.I can testify to you that knowing Jesus Christ in His form as the Holy Spirit has absolutely been a salvation to millions of us. And I don't simply mean as a hope to escape eternal judgment. I mean I know thousands today whose daily lives are effected by the power of Christ's indwelling presence to absolutely SAVE them from the fallen Adamic sinful nature.If you have no experience with this saving of Jesus many do. And we have found that He is indeed the only Person who truly can do an inside out job of saving a man or women from many things which plague us from the fall of man.Could your reluctance to ascribe Savior of saviors to Jesus be a reflection of your own failure to appropriate His salvation work in your life? The kind of Bible a person has, many times reflects the kind of person reading it."As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man." (Somewhere in Proverbs)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.