Tuesday, October 15, 2019

I coined the term "English-Translation-Theology" for a reason

Really enjoying a study of Hebrews with a group at my church. As usual, when I dig into the Greek, I find the most interesting things

...things that do not generally survive the migration from Hebrew or Greek into English translations.

I coined the term "English-Translation-Theology" for a reason

By many portions and many modes THE GOD[1] [who] spoke to [our] ancestors through the prophets[2] has in these last days spoken to us by [his "human" Risen] Son who [in his humanity is] appointed heir of all things by whom also  [the] eons are made Colossians 1:16-17                                                                  
Hebrews 1:1-2

Below, is my commentary as to why I support the view that God became a man and Jesus--THE WORD--became the Son of God when he was conceived and born. The underlying Greek text of Hebrews chapter one, teaches that very thing, though that is difficult--if not impossible--to see, if we only read the English translations.

Sadly, most  translations, use English-Translation-Theology and translator supplements [that lack textual support] to marginalize Jesus, THE CREATOR, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, THE ALMIGHTY, by portraying him as a subordinate creature. 

This comes from the influence of Arius, whose subordinate son/eternal sonship doctrine was repeatedly rejected as false by previous generations of Christians [but is wholeheartedly embraced by organizations such as Watchtower Society, Latter Day Saints, and Seventh Day Adventists, and currently by many in the mainstream Christian community]. To date, translators continue to subliminally promote Arius' subordinate son doctrine via English-Translation-Theology and translator supplements that hide what the underlying texts really say and align with the Arian doctrine of the "eternal sonship," of the Messiah, which is an oxymoronic view considering Jesus is Immanuel

How can Immanuel [THE GOD  with us] somehow be a subordinate son to a more powerful almighty father?

As I stated in my book, Jesus, God of the Burning Bush: Eternal Father & Beloved Son, "Where insubordination is impossible, there can be no subordination." 

Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection was a completely volunteer operation. He was an obedient son but never a subordinate creature. At any time, he could have aborted his mission and rejected the cross. He could have done this without sin--without being insubordinate. Without sin, he could have called legions of angels to rescue him in Gethsemane, and said, "Forget this whole thing. I'm not going through with it!"
Matthew 26:53 (47-53)

Where insubordination is impossible, there is no subordination.   
But such is his love for us, that he did not do that. How awesome that the Creator of all things condescended to become one of his creations so we could spend eternity with him in glory! 
Romans 10:9-10 &13

[1] The God [who spoke by the prophets] is…
Yahweh: Jesus is Yahweh [1 Timothy 3:6 God was manifest in the flesh, Acts 20:28 “God’s Church which he (God) purchased with his own blood]
Jehovah: Jesus is Jehovah [John 1:1 In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD  WAS GOD]
Adonay Elohiym: Jesus is Adonay Elohiym [John 20:28, And Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord (Adonay) and my God (Elohiym)]

ALL the fullness of the GODHEAD dwells in Jesus in PHYSICAL FORM [Colossians 2:9]

[2] The Greek words patrasin or patēr, depending on which text one reads, but both defined in Strong’s as the same word [G3962], are usually translated as “father,” but not always. Depending on context, the words can refer to both parents or to ancestors in general. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the reader to determine context and which usage is most accurate in a verse or passage. In Hebrews 1:1, the word ancestor is most accurate, as the prophets did not speak only to the patriarchs [Abraham, Issac, Jacob] but to all of the people—both women and men.

Friday, October 11, 2019

The Garden of Eden & Two Types of Sin

    It is no coincidence that under the Law of Moses, there are two types of sin, intentional and unintentional, with the sacrifice for intentional sin being a male goat, and the sacrifice for the unintentional sin being a female goat. 
   This harks back to Genesis and the two types of sin involved in the fall of 'âdâm (pronounced "audawm," Hebrew for the "human race" --Genesis 5:2).  
   The sacrifice for intentional sin had to be a male goat. That sin represented the intentional sin of Iysh [the first man], who was not deceived, but deliberately chose to rebel against his creator, understanding exactly what he was doing. 
   The sacrifice for unintentional sin, had to be a female goat. This type of sin represents the sin of Ishshâw (the first woman) who was tricked by Satan and did not set out to sin but ended up doing just that.

   We see the concept of both types of sin in the New Testament as well. In 1 John, we read that if we confess our known sins [most of which are intentional], God will forgive us from the sins we confess to him and then go on to cleanse us from all unrighteousness [as yet unknown, likely unintentional sins].