Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: John 5:22-23

Expand Messages
  • kazman1914
    Hey Hollis, Andy said:
    Message 1 of 18 , Apr 28, 2007
      Hey Hollis,

      Andy said:

      < For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the
      > Son, "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.
      > He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent >Him...
      >...Obviously this is such a familiar passage of scripture to us all
      > that i guess we've all used here many times. But just meditating on
      > it in the car today made me see how obvious and powerful it is.
      > There really isn't any room for manoeuvre is there?
      > ALL MUST HONOR THE SON JUST AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER!
      > Powerful stuff....
      > ...This means that the Son is equal to the Father in every way, they
      > share equal honor and glory. >>

      You replied:

      "Not really, as Christ simply said to "honor the Son as they honor the
      Father," not to honor the Son *as much* or *to the same degree* as
      they honor the Father. This is where the assumptions of Trinitarians
      to this effect enter the picture for this passage."

      Kaz: FYI, even if the text were saying that they were to honor Jesus
      "as much" as they honor the Father, it wouldn't be problematic to the
      JW view, nor would it assist trinitarianism. Jesus' relationship to
      the Father is developed by John according to the paradigm of 'agency',
      and this paradigm is summed up by the phrase, "the agent is equated
      with the principal", or "the agent is as the principal". Jesus' role
      as the "Word" (=God's spokesman) was to representatively reveal God to
      us. Thus, within the parameters set by the Father, the principal,
      Jesus was legally equal with God. To honor an agent is to honor the
      principal he represents, and to dishonor an agent is to dishonor the
      principal he represents. So when Christ performs functions that are
      ultimately the prerogatives of God himself, he is due the same honor
      that would be given to God himself.

      The reason this doesn't present a problem (and why Andy is wrong to
      assume that God and Christ are "equal in every way") is because,
      according to the agency paradigm, it is ultimately the principal who
      is the true recipient of the honor that is given to his
      representative. It is Jehovah's office and authority we honor when we
      honor his Son.

      I don't know how familiar you are with these concepts and how the
      agency paradigm illuminates the relationship of God and his son, but
      you might enjoy checking out these references:

      1. Der Gesandte Und Sein Weg Im 4
      Author: Jan-A Buhner
      Paperback: 494 pages
      Publisher: Mohr (September 1977)
      Language: German
      ISBN-10: 3161389212
      ISBN-13: 978-3161389214
      Available here: http://tinyurl.com/3b5ebw
      NOTE: This is written in German, and there are no plans at this time
      to have an English translation published.

      2. Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil Law
      Author: George Wesley Buchanan
      Hardcover: 158 pages
      Publisher: Edwin Mellen Press (October 1992)
      Language: English
      ISBN-10: 0773496017
      ISBN-13: 978-0773496019
      Available here (expensive): http://tinyurl.com/36j2ex
      NOTE: This is an *excellent* study of the concept of legal agency.
      Some other books by G.W. Buchanan are now being published by Wipf &
      Stock, but they haven't published this one yet. If they eventually
      do, then the price should go down considerably.

      3. Jesus and the Constraints of History
      Author: A. E. Harvey
      Hardcover: 184 pages
      Publisher: Westminster John Knox Pr (May 1982)
      Language: English
      ISBN-10: 0664218253
      ISBN-13: 978-0664218256
      Right now as low as $3.95 in mint condition here:
      http://tinyurl.com/3aeoxp
      NOTE: This book has a chapter dealing with agency and sonship, and it
      is worth the price for that chapter alone!

      4. John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in
      Johannine Christology
      Author: James Frank McGrath
      Paperback: 281 pages
      Publisher: Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition (June 17, 2004)
      Language: English
      ISBN-10: 052160947X
      ISBN-13: 978-0521609470
      Available here: http://tinyurl.com/3yr7v7
      NOTE: Although McGrath ultimately favors the orthodox perspective, he
      is more balanced than most, and he does a nice job showing how certain
      Christologically significant texts (i.e. John 5:18, 10:30-36, 8:58,
      etc.) are best understood within the parameters of the agency paradigm.

      5. The Interpretation of John
      Author: Multi-authored
      Paperback: 329 pages
      Publisher: T. & T. Clark Publishers; 2 Sub edition (September 1997)
      Language: English
      ISBN-10: 0567085465
      ISBN-13: 978-0567085467
      Right now about $4.95 through an Amazon seller here:
      http://tinyurl.com/3aqj6c
      NOTE: There are two chapters that are particularly relevant to the
      subject of agency. One is entitled "God's Agent in the Fourth
      Gospel", by Peder Borgen. The other is a chapter dealing with the "I
      Am" sayings in John (I forgot the title), and is actually one of the
      chapters from Jan-A Buhner's book mentioned above. It was translated
      into English by John Ashton.

      6. The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology -
      In Memory of George Bradford Caird
      Author: Multi-authored
      Paperback: 311 pages
      Publisher: Wipf & Stock Publishers (November 2006)
      Language: English
      ISBN-10: 1597529567
      ISBN-13: 978-1597529563
      Available here: http://tinyurl.com/2ak8jh
      NOTE: This book contains a chapter written by A.E. Harvey, entitled
      "Christ as Agent". I only found out today that Wipf & Stock is now
      publishing it in a reasonably priced paperback edition.
      Interestingly, the scholar to whom this multi-authored book is
      dedicated (Caird) rejected the concept of eternal torment. See is
      commentary on Revelation. The book contains a number of good
      articles. In fact, if memory serves, Bruce Metzger's article on Rom.
      9:5 is included.

      In addition to what is found in his book referenced above, James Frank
      McGrath makes some interesting comments about agency, which
      can be found here:

      http://tinyurl.com/36h882

      And here:

      http://tinyurl.com/poya2

      There are many others authors who have made useful observations about
      this issue, but my library is packed up for moving and I can't
      remember them all. I hope you find these useful, though.

      Yb,
      ~Kaz
    • kazman1914
      The things that Christ can t do on his own are those things that are the prerogatives of God, as indicated in context. For a similar thought, note what is
      Message 2 of 18 , Apr 28, 2007
        The "things" that Christ can't do on his own are those things that
        are the prerogatives of God, as indicated in context. For a similar
        thought, note what is said at John 15:5:

        "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in
        him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me _you can do nothing_."

        Obviously, the apostles *could* do things apart from Christ (Christ
        doesn't help us when we sin, and we ALL sin), but they couldn't do
        Christ's work, which is also God's work, apart from Christ. Likewise,
        obviously Christ could do things apart from God (God didn't eat,
        sleep, drink, etc.), but he couldn't do that which is the exclusive
        prerogative of God without God's power and approval.

        ~Kaz


        --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "andy" <andy_psa51@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > The context is even more devastating to your theology.
        > If the Son does what the Father does, it obviously proves that they
        > are like minded and have equal abilities.
        >
        > If i said, "andy can do nothing of himself but only what he sees
        > Tiger woods do, what ever Tiger woods does, andy does in like
        > manner".
        >
        > This would mean that i would have equal status on the golf course
        > with Tiger woods. I just wouldn't be better than him.
        >
        > andy
        >
        >
        > --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "Solomon" <Awohili@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Yes, this is "powerful stuff," but Andy started quoting too
        soon.
        > He
        > > should have started back at verse 19 of John chapter 5, to get
        the
        > > sense. If he had done so, he would see that these verses do not
        > > impute "equality" with the Father to the Son.
        > >
        > > "19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, 'Most assuredly I say
        to
        > > you, the Son CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what He sees the
        > Father
        > > do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20
        For
        > > the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all the things that He
        > > himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that
        > you
        > > may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life
        > to
        > > them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the
        > Father
        > > judges no one, but HAS COMMITTED [Greek, DEDWKEN, "has GIVEN"]
        all
        > > judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as
        they
        > > honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor
        > the
        > > Father who SENT Him." (New King James Version, my emphasis)
        > >
        > > It seems to me that these are just more of many verses that
        > > subordinate the Son to the Father, and show that everything the
        > Son
        > > has, he was GIVEN by Someone else, the Father.
        > >
        > > True, the Son deserves to be honored, just as the Father deserves
        > to
        > > be honored, but this does not mean the Father and the Son are
        > equal,
        > > just equally deserving of honor, each for different honorable
        > reasons.
        > >
        > > Solomon Landers
        >
      • Ihveit@aol.com
        In a message dated 4/28/2007 7:34:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time, hollistat@ca.rr.com writes:
        Message 3 of 18 , Apr 28, 2007
          In a message dated 4/28/2007 7:34:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time, hollistat@... writes:
          << This means that the Son is equal to the Father in every way, they
          share equal honor and glory. >>

          Not really, as Christ simply said to "honor the Son as they honor the
          Father," not to honor the Son *as much* or *to the same degree* as
          they honor the Father. This is where the assumptions of Trinitarians
          to this effect enter the picture for this passage.
          ihv>> like that geico commercial with the cave man>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HUH?
          WILL




          See what's free at AOL.com.
        • Barry
          ... From: Solomon To: Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:04 PM Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re:
          Message 4 of 18 , Apr 28, 2007
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Solomon" <Awohili@...>
            To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:04 PM
            Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: John 5:22-23


            > Yes, this is "powerful stuff," but Andy started quoting too soon. He
            > should have started back at verse 19 of John chapter 5, to get the
            > sense. If he had done so, he would see that these verses do not
            > impute "equality" with the Father to the Son.

            See my article, "Subordinationism in John 5"

            http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/John5.htm

            Barry

            Biblical Literacy: First line defense against heresy...

            Historical Theology (church history): The next best thing...

            http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/
          • Ihveit@aol.com
            In a message dated 4/28/2007 12:07:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Awohili@aol.com writes: True, the Son deserves to be honored, just as the Father deserves to
            Message 5 of 18 , Apr 28, 2007
              In a message dated 4/28/2007 12:07:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Awohili@... writes:
              True, the Son deserves to be honored, just as the Father deserves to
              be honored, but this does not mean the Father and the Son are equal,
              just equally deserving of honor, each for different honorable reasons.

              Solomon Landers
              ihv>>then the wt disagrees with this since they claim (last i heard) that not even a little bit of honor was to be given to jesus  or am i mistaken... guess i need to hook the old gateway up to find out lol
              will




              See what's free at AOL.com.
            • andy
              kaz There are two kinds of power, working power and authoritive power. Jesus didn t operate with his own working power because he was a physical man subjected
              Message 6 of 18 , Apr 28, 2007
                kaz

                There are two kinds of power, working power and authoritive power.
                Jesus didn't operate with his own working power because he was a
                physical man subjected to physical laws. But if Christ was the Son
                of God by nature, he would not have lost his Divine authority. By
                becoming a man, Jesus would be entering a world where all authority
                had been surrendered to the devil. All license to rule had been
                revoked due to Adams rebellion. Jesus, as mediator, was also
                stripped of personal authority as a man. But was it that he had no
                authority at all? or was it simply that his authority was also
                submitted in like manner to Adam while he was in the world in the
                likeness of fallen man?
                If Christ had a Divine nature, this would have to be submitted to
                God alone while he was part of humanity.

                Recently i used the example where the devil tempted Jesus to turn
                the stones to bread.

                Matthew 4:3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are
                the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

                What kind of a temptation is this?

                Obviously satan was implying that if Jesus was the Son of God he
                would possess the authority of God and could easily display it.
                According to you, kaz, Jesus couldn't do anything of himself. But if
                this was the case, then this is a stupid temptation. Jesus would
                have responded, "what makes you think that i can turn stones to
                bread? Am i God or something?"

                Satan was tempting Jesus to doubt his identity in order to make him
                demonstrate his own authority which was surrendered to the Father.
                If Jesus had turned the stones to bread, his divine authority would
                have been surrendered to the devil along with Adam's authority. From
                that moment on, Jesus ministry would have been useless.

                What you're doing, kaz, is seeing an inferiority in Christ because
                of his surrendered authority. But it was only due to the fact that
                he was a part of fallen humanity that he could not operate apart
                from the will of the Father. However, when he knew that it was the
                will of the Father to perform the miraculous, he used his own
                authority. Every demon, sickness and disease responded to his word
                and touch. It was by his own authority that the power of God was
                displayed, but only according to the will of the Father. This is why
                he says, "what ever the Father does, the Son does in like manner".
                He didn't operate independently of God, but when he did operate, the
                authority came from his own virtue, not the Father's. How can you
                not see that this speaks volumes about his equality with the Father?

                andy



                --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "kazman1914"
                <kazman1914@...> wrote:
                >
                > The "things" that Christ can't do on his own are those things that
                > are the prerogatives of God, as indicated in context. For a
                similar
                > thought, note what is said at John 15:5:
                >
                > "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in
                > him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me _you can do nothing_."
                >
                > Obviously, the apostles *could* do things apart from Christ
                (Christ
                > doesn't help us when we sin, and we ALL sin), but they couldn't do
                > Christ's work, which is also God's work, apart from Christ.
                Likewise,
                > obviously Christ could do things apart from God (God didn't eat,
                > sleep, drink, etc.), but he couldn't do that which is the
                exclusive
                > prerogative of God without God's power and approval.
                >
                > ~Kaz
                >
              • simplybiblical
                Thank you very much for *reminding* me of all this Kaz and posting the links to these books which contain relevant information on it. And yes I am indeed
                Message 7 of 18 , Apr 29, 2007
                  Thank you very much for *reminding* me of all this Kaz and posting
                  the links to these books which contain relevant information on it.

                  And yes I am indeed familiar with this ancient concept where people
                  during biblical times understood a *representational equality*
                  between the sender and agent. In fact the technical term for it is
                  called the "Sheliach" (or "Emissary") priniciple where the one who is
                  sent as proxy is viewed as equal in authority to the sender since
                  this one vested the agent with all due power to act in their name.

                  So you are quite right in pointing out how even if Christ instructed
                  us to honor the Son to the same level as the Father in lieu of his
                  acquired authority of judgment at Jn. 5:22, 23, it still would not
                  really help the cause of Trinitarians like Andrew and others assume
                  it would.

                  There is also a very good explanation of this for any interested
                  parties posted on the EliYah’s Forum here at;

                  http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/003305.html

                  Best of luck with your continued move;

                  Hollis

                  --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "kazman1914"
                  <kazman1914@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hey Hollis,
                  >
                  > Andy said:
                  >
                  > < For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to
                  the
                  > > Son, "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.
                  > > He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent
                  >Him...
                  > >...Obviously this is such a familiar passage of scripture to us all
                  > > that i guess we've all used here many times. But just meditating
                  on
                  > > it in the car today made me see how obvious and powerful it is.
                  > > There really isn't any room for manoeuvre is there?
                  > > ALL MUST HONOR THE SON JUST AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER!
                  > > Powerful stuff....
                  > > ...This means that the Son is equal to the Father in every way,
                  they
                  > > share equal honor and glory. >>
                  >
                  > You replied:
                  >
                  > "Not really, as Christ simply said to "honor the Son as they honor
                  the
                  > Father," not to honor the Son *as much* or *to the same degree* as
                  > they honor the Father. This is where the assumptions of Trinitarians
                  > to this effect enter the picture for this passage."
                  >
                  > Kaz: FYI, even if the text were saying that they were to honor Jesus
                  > "as much" as they honor the Father, it wouldn't be problematic to
                  the
                  > JW view, nor would it assist trinitarianism. Jesus' relationship to
                  > the Father is developed by John according to the paradigm
                  of 'agency',
                  > and this paradigm is summed up by the phrase, "the agent is equated
                  > with the principal", or "the agent is as the principal". Jesus'
                  role
                  > as the "Word" (=God's spokesman) was to representatively reveal God
                  to
                  > us. Thus, within the parameters set by the Father, the principal,
                  > Jesus was legally equal with God. To honor an agent is to honor the
                  > principal he represents, and to dishonor an agent is to dishonor the
                  > principal he represents. So when Christ performs functions that
                  are
                  > ultimately the prerogatives of God himself, he is due the same honor
                  > that would be given to God himself.
                  >
                  > The reason this doesn't present a problem (and why Andy is wrong to
                  > assume that God and Christ are "equal in every way") is because,
                  > according to the agency paradigm, it is ultimately the principal who
                  > is the true recipient of the honor that is given to his
                  > representative. It is Jehovah's office and authority we honor when
                  we
                  > honor his Son.
                  >
                  > I don't know how familiar you are with these concepts and how the
                  > agency paradigm illuminates the relationship of God and his son, but
                  > you might enjoy checking out these references:
                  >
                  > 1. Der Gesandte Und Sein Weg Im 4
                  > Author: Jan-A Buhner
                  > Paperback: 494 pages
                  > Publisher: Mohr (September 1977)
                  > Language: German
                  > ISBN-10: 3161389212
                  > ISBN-13: 978-3161389214
                  > Available here: http://tinyurl.com/3b5ebw
                  > NOTE: This is written in German, and there are no plans at this time
                  > to have an English translation published.
                  >
                  > 2. Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil
                  Law
                  > Author: George Wesley Buchanan
                  > Hardcover: 158 pages
                  > Publisher: Edwin Mellen Press (October 1992)
                  > Language: English
                  > ISBN-10: 0773496017
                  > ISBN-13: 978-0773496019
                  > Available here (expensive): http://tinyurl.com/36j2ex
                  > NOTE: This is an *excellent* study of the concept of legal agency.
                  > Some other books by G.W. Buchanan are now being published by Wipf &
                  > Stock, but they haven't published this one yet. If they eventually
                  > do, then the price should go down considerably.
                  >
                  > 3. Jesus and the Constraints of History
                  > Author: A. E. Harvey
                  > Hardcover: 184 pages
                  > Publisher: Westminster John Knox Pr (May 1982)
                  > Language: English
                  > ISBN-10: 0664218253
                  > ISBN-13: 978-0664218256
                  > Right now as low as $3.95 in mint condition here:
                  > http://tinyurl.com/3aeoxp
                  > NOTE: This book has a chapter dealing with agency and sonship, and
                  it
                  > is worth the price for that chapter alone!
                  >
                  > 4. John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in
                  > Johannine Christology
                  > Author: James Frank McGrath
                  > Paperback: 281 pages
                  > Publisher: Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition (June 17,
                  2004)
                  > Language: English
                  > ISBN-10: 052160947X
                  > ISBN-13: 978-0521609470
                  > Available here: http://tinyurl.com/3yr7v7
                  > NOTE: Although McGrath ultimately favors the orthodox perspective,
                  he
                  > is more balanced than most, and he does a nice job showing how
                  certain
                  > Christologically significant texts (i.e. John 5:18, 10:30-36, 8:58,
                  > etc.) are best understood within the parameters of the agency
                  paradigm.
                  >
                  > 5. The Interpretation of John
                  > Author: Multi-authored
                  > Paperback: 329 pages
                  > Publisher: T. & T. Clark Publishers; 2 Sub edition (September 1997)
                  > Language: English
                  > ISBN-10: 0567085465
                  > ISBN-13: 978-0567085467
                  > Right now about $4.95 through an Amazon seller here:
                  > http://tinyurl.com/3aqj6c
                  > NOTE: There are two chapters that are particularly relevant to the
                  > subject of agency. One is entitled "God's Agent in the Fourth
                  > Gospel", by Peder Borgen. The other is a chapter dealing with
                  the "I
                  > Am" sayings in John (I forgot the title), and is actually one of the
                  > chapters from Jan-A Buhner's book mentioned above. It was
                  translated
                  > into English by John Ashton.
                  >
                  > 6. The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in
                  Christology -
                  > In Memory of George Bradford Caird
                  > Author: Multi-authored
                  > Paperback: 311 pages
                  > Publisher: Wipf & Stock Publishers (November 2006)
                  > Language: English
                  > ISBN-10: 1597529567
                  > ISBN-13: 978-1597529563
                  > Available here: http://tinyurl.com/2ak8jh
                  > NOTE: This book contains a chapter written by A.E. Harvey, entitled
                  > "Christ as Agent". I only found out today that Wipf & Stock is now
                  > publishing it in a reasonably priced paperback edition.
                  > Interestingly, the scholar to whom this multi-authored book is
                  > dedicated (Caird) rejected the concept of eternal torment. See is
                  > commentary on Revelation. The book contains a number of good
                  > articles. In fact, if memory serves, Bruce Metzger's article on
                  Rom.
                  > 9:5 is included.
                  >
                  > In addition to what is found in his book referenced above, James
                  Frank
                  > McGrath makes some interesting comments about agency, which
                  > can be found here:
                  >
                  > http://tinyurl.com/36h882
                  >
                  > And here:
                  >
                  > http://tinyurl.com/poya2
                  >
                  > There are many others authors who have made useful observations
                  about
                  > this issue, but my library is packed up for moving and I can't
                  > remember them all. I hope you find these useful, though.
                  >
                  > Yb,
                  > ~Kaz
                  >
                • simplybiblical
                  Jeremiah; You wrote:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 29, 2007
                    Jeremiah;

                    You wrote:

                    << Are you saying that God's love, justice and mercy should be
                    defined by someone _other_ than God? … >>

                    I am saying that God does more than merely "define" something. He
                    also demonstrates these attributes along with showing or otherwise
                    explaining the reasonableness and appropriateness of them so our
                    powers of logical comprehension can understand.

                    And in this vein how does everlasting torture mesh with any kind of
                    sensible logic or reason from God?

                    Cont:

                    << …Where do we get our moral standards from? Who sets them? God? >>

                    Yes; absolutely from God, since we are created in his image.
                    Therefore if we can display such moral scruples in understanding the
                    moral principle of such as "enough is enough already," why shouldn't
                    we rightfully expect at least as much from our creator who gave them
                    to us?

                    Cont:

                    << …Yes! And if it's true, then why wouldn't I accept it? If you
                    don�t accept it as true, then it needs to be debated on biblical
                    grounds, _not_ what you find �hard to believe�. >>

                    But this is being debated on biblical grounds where in your theology
                    God's word does not harmonize with him inflicting such pain of
                    unimaginable and immeasurable proportions, by subjecting one to
                    unending torture on one hand, is totally inconsistent with his
                    benevolent and reasonable character manifested in all other areas
                    described in holy writ on the other.

                    I wrote earlier:

                    >Therefore as I have said more than once before, if this is the type
                    of God which is acceptable to you, Barry, Andrew, Will, and others,
                    then you are most welcome to him. But frankly I can find more
                    charitable conduct in even the Devil and his demon cohorts than this
                    kind of mean, vindictive and dictatorial behavior.

                    You respond:

                    << Okay, Hollis, let me try to illustrate this once more so you'll
                    see what type of response I'm looking for. Let's say an atheist says
                    the same as you above only it concerns God's ordering the destruction
                    of pagan nations by the Israelites. What, exactly, would you say in
                    response? >>

                    Very simple, the atheists and agnostics go to extremes in the other
                    direction wherein they do not believe God in justified in any acts of
                    correctional punishment. And whether they realize it or not, they are
                    the ones who are actually exhibiting cruelty to the righteous
                    inhabitants on earth in this regard by making their lives miserable
                    in allowing such wickedness and all manner of other unrighteous
                    conduct to go unchecked.

                    And then to top this off, examples like you just gave, where the
                    unrighteous get to "have their cake and eat it too," as these types
                    of Godless pagan nations who practiced all sorts of unspeakable
                    iniquities get to keep all the finest land? No! God took that land
                    from them and gave it to his people.

                    But even with all this, there is still no basis for torturing these
                    former pagan residents for an eternity without end.

                    Cont:

                    << …Hopefully, you'd tell him that his opinion doesn't change matters
                    and that whatever is true should be accepted whether you find it
                    agreeable at all times or not. >>

                    No Jeremiah, your hope is misplaced in my case, because I do not see
                    this as a good or proper argument. As a minister of the Christian
                    message we have a responsibility to try and explain to nonbelievers
                    the reasons or logic of God's actions and not simply offer "cop-out"
                    answers such as;

                    "Well …God makes the rules and we are to unswervingly accept them
                    without question no matter what we think"

                    As this is a very bad argument and indicates the intractable problem
                    of trying to defend the indefensible act of eternally tormenting
                    someone.

                    Hollis
                  • kazman1914
                    Hi Hollis, Thank you for your good wishes about my move. I actually pull out of my driveway in a large u-haul tomorrow (Mon.) afternoon/evening, so this will
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 29, 2007
                      Hi Hollis,

                      Thank you for your good wishes about my move. I actually pull out of
                      my driveway in a large u-haul tomorrow (Mon.) afternoon/evening, so
                      this will probably be one of my last posts for a few days to a week,
                      depending on how long it takes me to get my new internet connection setup.

                      BTW, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were
                      unfamiliar with the agency paradigm. When I re-read my post it struck
                      me that it could be taken that way, but that was not my intent. The
                      concept of the 'sent one' (=Sheliach, as you've pointed out) was
                      discussed on Heinz's forum before he defected to atheism, and we were
                      both members at that time, if memory serves. My main point was that
                      the level of honor Christ received has no bearing on the
                      Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism debate, and my secondary point was to
                      alert you and others of the authors/references who have elaborated on
                      the agency concept and its bearing on the Father/Son relationship.

                      Yb,
                      ~Kaz



                      --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "simplybiblical"
                      <hollistat@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Thank you very much for *reminding* me of all this Kaz and posting
                      > the links to these books which contain relevant information on it.
                      >
                      > And yes I am indeed familiar with this ancient concept where people
                      > during biblical times understood a *representational equality*
                      > between the sender and agent. In fact the technical term for it is
                      > called the "Sheliach" (or "Emissary") priniciple where the one who is
                      > sent as proxy is viewed as equal in authority to the sender since
                      > this one vested the agent with all due power to act in their name.
                      >
                      > So you are quite right in pointing out how even if Christ instructed
                      > us to honor the Son to the same level as the Father in lieu of his
                      > acquired authority of judgment at Jn. 5:22, 23, it still would not
                      > really help the cause of Trinitarians like Andrew and others assume
                      > it would.
                      >
                      > There is also a very good explanation of this for any interested
                      > parties posted on the EliYah’s Forum here at;
                      >
                      > http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/003305.html
                      >
                      > Best of luck with your continued move;
                      >
                      > Hollis
                      >
                      > --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, "kazman1914"
                      > <kazman1914@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hey Hollis,
                      > >
                      > > Andy said:
                      > >
                      > > < For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to
                      > the
                      > > > Son, "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.
                      > > > He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent
                      > >Him...
                      > > >...Obviously this is such a familiar passage of scripture to us all
                      > > > that i guess we've all used here many times. But just meditating
                      > on
                      > > > it in the car today made me see how obvious and powerful it is.
                      > > > There really isn't any room for manoeuvre is there?
                      > > > ALL MUST HONOR THE SON JUST AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER!
                      > > > Powerful stuff....
                      > > > ...This means that the Son is equal to the Father in every way,
                      > they
                      > > > share equal honor and glory. >>
                      > >
                      > > You replied:
                      > >
                      > > "Not really, as Christ simply said to "honor the Son as they honor
                      > the
                      > > Father," not to honor the Son *as much* or *to the same degree* as
                      > > they honor the Father. This is where the assumptions of Trinitarians
                      > > to this effect enter the picture for this passage."
                      > >
                      > > Kaz: FYI, even if the text were saying that they were to honor Jesus
                      > > "as much" as they honor the Father, it wouldn't be problematic to
                      > the
                      > > JW view, nor would it assist trinitarianism. Jesus' relationship to
                      > > the Father is developed by John according to the paradigm
                      > of 'agency',
                      > > and this paradigm is summed up by the phrase, "the agent is equated
                      > > with the principal", or "the agent is as the principal". Jesus'
                      > role
                      > > as the "Word" (=God's spokesman) was to representatively reveal God
                      > to
                      > > us. Thus, within the parameters set by the Father, the principal,
                      > > Jesus was legally equal with God. To honor an agent is to honor the
                      > > principal he represents, and to dishonor an agent is to dishonor the
                      > > principal he represents. So when Christ performs functions that
                      > are
                      > > ultimately the prerogatives of God himself, he is due the same honor
                      > > that would be given to God himself.
                      > >
                      > > The reason this doesn't present a problem (and why Andy is wrong to
                      > > assume that God and Christ are "equal in every way") is because,
                      > > according to the agency paradigm, it is ultimately the principal who
                      > > is the true recipient of the honor that is given to his
                      > > representative. It is Jehovah's office and authority we honor when
                      > we
                      > > honor his Son.
                      > >
                      > > I don't know how familiar you are with these concepts and how the
                      > > agency paradigm illuminates the relationship of God and his son, but
                      > > you might enjoy checking out these references:
                      > >
                      > > 1. Der Gesandte Und Sein Weg Im 4
                      > > Author: Jan-A Buhner
                      > > Paperback: 494 pages
                      > > Publisher: Mohr (September 1977)
                      > > Language: German
                      > > ISBN-10: 3161389212
                      > > ISBN-13: 978-3161389214
                      > > Available here: http://tinyurl.com/3b5ebw
                      > > NOTE: This is written in German, and there are no plans at this time
                      > > to have an English translation published.
                      > >
                      > > 2. Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil
                      > Law
                      > > Author: George Wesley Buchanan
                      > > Hardcover: 158 pages
                      > > Publisher: Edwin Mellen Press (October 1992)
                      > > Language: English
                      > > ISBN-10: 0773496017
                      > > ISBN-13: 978-0773496019
                      > > Available here (expensive): http://tinyurl.com/36j2ex
                      > > NOTE: This is an *excellent* study of the concept of legal agency.
                      > > Some other books by G.W. Buchanan are now being published by Wipf &
                      > > Stock, but they haven't published this one yet. If they eventually
                      > > do, then the price should go down considerably.
                      > >
                      > > 3. Jesus and the Constraints of History
                      > > Author: A. E. Harvey
                      > > Hardcover: 184 pages
                      > > Publisher: Westminster John Knox Pr (May 1982)
                      > > Language: English
                      > > ISBN-10: 0664218253
                      > > ISBN-13: 978-0664218256
                      > > Right now as low as $3.95 in mint condition here:
                      > > http://tinyurl.com/3aeoxp
                      > > NOTE: This book has a chapter dealing with agency and sonship, and
                      > it
                      > > is worth the price for that chapter alone!
                      > >
                      > > 4. John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in
                      > > Johannine Christology
                      > > Author: James Frank McGrath
                      > > Paperback: 281 pages
                      > > Publisher: Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition (June 17,
                      > 2004)
                      > > Language: English
                      > > ISBN-10: 052160947X
                      > > ISBN-13: 978-0521609470
                      > > Available here: http://tinyurl.com/3yr7v7
                      > > NOTE: Although McGrath ultimately favors the orthodox perspective,
                      > he
                      > > is more balanced than most, and he does a nice job showing how
                      > certain
                      > > Christologically significant texts (i.e. John 5:18, 10:30-36, 8:58,
                      > > etc.) are best understood within the parameters of the agency
                      > paradigm.
                      > >
                      > > 5. The Interpretation of John
                      > > Author: Multi-authored
                      > > Paperback: 329 pages
                      > > Publisher: T. & T. Clark Publishers; 2 Sub edition (September 1997)
                      > > Language: English
                      > > ISBN-10: 0567085465
                      > > ISBN-13: 978-0567085467
                      > > Right now about $4.95 through an Amazon seller here:
                      > > http://tinyurl.com/3aqj6c
                      > > NOTE: There are two chapters that are particularly relevant to the
                      > > subject of agency. One is entitled "God's Agent in the Fourth
                      > > Gospel", by Peder Borgen. The other is a chapter dealing with
                      > the "I
                      > > Am" sayings in John (I forgot the title), and is actually one of the
                      > > chapters from Jan-A Buhner's book mentioned above. It was
                      > translated
                      > > into English by John Ashton.
                      > >
                      > > 6. The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in
                      > Christology -
                      > > In Memory of George Bradford Caird
                      > > Author: Multi-authored
                      > > Paperback: 311 pages
                      > > Publisher: Wipf & Stock Publishers (November 2006)
                      > > Language: English
                      > > ISBN-10: 1597529567
                      > > ISBN-13: 978-1597529563
                      > > Available here: http://tinyurl.com/2ak8jh
                      > > NOTE: This book contains a chapter written by A.E. Harvey, entitled
                      > > "Christ as Agent". I only found out today that Wipf & Stock is now
                      > > publishing it in a reasonably priced paperback edition.
                      > > Interestingly, the scholar to whom this multi-authored book is
                      > > dedicated (Caird) rejected the concept of eternal torment. See is
                      > > commentary on Revelation. The book contains a number of good
                      > > articles. In fact, if memory serves, Bruce Metzger's article on
                      > Rom.
                      > > 9:5 is included.
                      > >
                      > > In addition to what is found in his book referenced above, James
                      > Frank
                      > > McGrath makes some interesting comments about agency, which
                      > > can be found here:
                      > >
                      > > http://tinyurl.com/36h882
                      > >
                      > > And here:
                      > >
                      > > http://tinyurl.com/poya2
                      > >
                      > > There are many others authors who have made useful observations
                      > about
                      > > this issue, but my library is packed up for moving and I can't
                      > > remember them all. I hope you find these useful, though.
                      > >
                      > > Yb,
                      > > ~Kaz
                      > >
                      >
                    • Jeremiah Gooch
                      Hollis,
                      Message 10 of 18 , Apr 30, 2007
                         
                        Hollis,

                        << Are you saying that God's love, justice and mercy should be
                        defined by someone _other_ than God? … >>

                        I am saying that God does more than merely "define" something. He
                        also demonstrates these attributes along with showing or otherwise
                        explaining the reasonableness and appropriateness of them so our
                        powers of logical comprehension can understand.
                         
                        Jer: What's the difference? This didn't answer my point which was that _you_ don't define what the definition of those terms in relation to God mean.  This means that whether you agree with them or not doesn't make them "moral" or "immoral."  You can't say "A God of kindness wouldn't do that" unless you can show how that is specifically stated in scripture.  Otherwise, anyone could use the same argument as you in disagreeing with much lesser punishments.

                        You said:
                         
                        "And in this vein how does everlasting torture mesh with any kind of
                        sensible logic or reason from God?"
                         
                        Because that is His chosen retribution and as the supreme judge that is His prerogative.
                         
                        You said:
                         
                        "<< …Where do we get our moral standards from? Who sets them? God? >>

                        Yes; absolutely from God, since we are created in his image.
                        Therefore if we can display such moral scruples in understanding the
                        moral principle of such as "enough is enough already," why shouldn't
                        we rightfully expect at least as much from our creator who gave them
                        to us?"
                         
                        Jer: My point was in response to the subjective nature of your argument. In other words, you don't determine what is "moral or immoral", God does. Now, our "moral scruples" are not consistent from person to person, so your argument still relies on a very, very subjective basis. Your "enough already" threshold is far above those of others (others who are also made in the image of God)--and you've never answered that point. Man doesn't always agree with what God does because we are fallen creatures.

                         
                        You said:

                        "<< …Yes! And if it's true, then why wouldn't I accept it? If you
                        don&#65533;t accept it as true, then it needs to be debated on biblical
                        grounds, _not_ what you find &#65533;hard to believe&#65533; . >>

                        But this is being debated on biblical grounds where in your theology
                        God's word does not harmonize with him inflicting such pain of
                        unimaginable and immeasurable proportions, by subjecting one to
                        unending torture on one hand, is totally inconsistent with his
                        benevolent and reasonable character manifested in all other areas
                        described in holy writ on the other."
                         
                        No, it hasn't been. It's been debated on whether or not you like it or not. You continue to assert that because God is benevolent he can't inflict a _certain kind_ of punishment. I informed you that this was just your assertion based on your opinion. You haven't gone any further since then.

                        You said:

                        "<< Okay, Hollis, let me try to illustrate this once more so you'll
                        see what type of response I'm looking for. Let's say an atheist says
                        the same as you above only it concerns God's ordering the destruction
                        of pagan nations by the Israelites. What, exactly, would you say in
                        response? >>

                        Very simple, the atheists and agnostics go to extremes in the other
                        direction wherein they do not believe God in justified in any acts of
                        correctional punishment. And whether they realize it or not, they are
                        the ones who are actually exhibiting cruelty to the righteous
                        inhabitants on earth in this regard by making their lives miserable
                        in allowing such wickedness and all manner of other unrighteous
                        conduct to go unchecked.

                        And then to top this off, examples like you just gave, where the
                        unrighteous get to "have their cake and eat it too," as these types
                        of Godless pagan nations who practiced all sorts of unspeakable
                        iniquities get to keep all the finest land? No! God took that land
                        from them and gave it to his people."
                         
                        You didn't answer me at all except to give another opinion, namely, "[they] go to extremes in the other direction". All you did is tell me that you would basically simply disagree with them. Explain to me how He is justified in one level of punishment of other but not in any He so chooses for those outside of Christ? To do this, you'll have to give me some actual evidence apart from your opinionated interpretation.
                         
                        You said:
                         
                        "But even with all this, there is still no basis for torturing these
                        former pagan residents for an eternity without end."
                        Why? Are you judge?

                        You said:

                        "<< …Hopefully, you'd tell him that his opinion doesn't change matters
                        and that whatever is true should be accepted whether you find it
                        agreeable at all times or not. >>

                        No Jeremiah, your hope is misplaced in my case, because I do not see
                        this as a good or proper argument. As a minister of the Christian
                        message we have a responsibility to try and explain to nonbelievers
                        the reasons or logic of God's actions and not simply offer "cop-out"
                        answers such as;

                        "Well …God makes the rules and we are to unswervingly accept them
                        without question no matter what we think"

                        As this is a very bad argument and indicates the intractable problem
                        of trying to defend the indefensible act of eternally tormenting
                        someone."
                         
                        Good! Now please let me in on the reason or logic of God's actions and we could continue because all I've seen is "God can't do that because he's a God of love". You'll have to show that God's love and eternal punishment are mutually exclusive. You'll also have to show me that God, as judge, does not have the prerogative to choose the punishment as He sees fit. If you can't do that, I'll have to simply drop out of the discussion...
                         
                        Jeremiah


                        Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                        Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
                      • Jeremiah Gooch
                        Kaz, Do you distinguish between honor by proxy or honor of the individual in and of themself? Jeremiah kazman1914 wrote: Hi Hollis,
                        Message 11 of 18 , Apr 30, 2007
                          Kaz,
                           
                          Do you distinguish between honor by proxy or honor of the individual in and of themself?
                           
                          Jeremiah

                          kazman1914 <kazman1914@...> wrote:
                          Hi Hollis,

                          Thank you for your good wishes about my move. I actually pull out of
                          my driveway in a large u-haul tomorrow (Mon.) afternoon/evening, so
                          this will probably be one of my last posts for a few days to a week,
                          depending on how long it takes me to get my new internet connection setup.

                          BTW, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were
                          unfamiliar with the agency paradigm. When I re-read my post it struck
                          me that it could be taken that way, but that was not my intent. The
                          concept of the 'sent one' (=Sheliach, as you've pointed out) was
                          discussed on Heinz's forum before he defected to atheism, and we were
                          both members at that time, if memory serves. My main point was that
                          the level of honor Christ received has no bearing on the
                          Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism debate, and my secondary point was to
                          alert you and others of the authors/references who have elaborated on
                          the agency concept and its bearing on the Father/Son relationship.

                          Yb,
                          ~Kaz

                          --- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, "simplybiblical"
                          <hollistat@. ..> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Thank you very much for *reminding* me of all this Kaz and posting
                          > the links to these books which contain relevant information on it.
                          >
                          > And yes I am indeed familiar with this ancient concept where people
                          > during biblical times understood a *representational equality*
                          > between the sender and agent. In fact the technical term for it is
                          > called the "Sheliach" (or "Emissary") priniciple where the one who is
                          > sent as proxy is viewed as equal in authority to the sender since
                          > this one vested the agent with all due power to act in their name.
                          >
                          > So you are quite right in pointing out how even if Christ instructed
                          > us to honor the Son to the same level as the Father in lieu of his
                          > acquired authority of judgment at Jn. 5:22, 23, it still would not
                          > really help the cause of Trinitarians like Andrew and others assume
                          > it would.
                          >
                          > There is also a very good explanation of this for any interested
                          > parties posted on the EliYah’s Forum here at;
                          >
                          > http://www.eliyah. com/forum2/ Forum10/HTML/ 003305.html
                          >
                          > Best of luck with your continued move;
                          >
                          > Hollis
                          >
                          > --- In evangelicals_ and_jws@yahoogro ups.com, "kazman1914"
                          > <kazman1914@ > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Hey Hollis,
                          > >
                          > > Andy said:
                          > >
                          > > < For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to
                          > the
                          > > > Son, "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.
                          > > > He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent
                          > >Him...
                          > > >...Obviously this is such a familiar passage of scripture to us all
                          > > > that i guess we've all used here many times. But just meditating
                          > on
                          > > > it in the car today made me see how obvious and powerful it is.
                          > > > There really isn't any room for manoeuvre is there?
                          > > > ALL MUST HONOR THE SON JUST AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER!
                          > > > Powerful stuff....
                          > > > ...This means that the Son is equal to the Father in every way,
                          > they
                          > > > share equal honor and glory. >>
                          > >
                          > > You replied:
                          > >
                          > > "Not really, as Christ simply said to "honor the Son as they honor
                          > the
                          > > Father," not to honor the Son *as much* or *to the same degree* as
                          > > they honor the Father. This is where the assumptions of Trinitarians
                          > > to this effect enter the picture for this passage."
                          > >
                          > > Kaz: FYI, even if the text were saying that they were to honor Jesus
                          > > "as much" as they honor the Father, it wouldn't be problematic to
                          > the
                          > > JW view, nor would it assist trinitarianism. Jesus' relationship to
                          > > the Father is developed by John according to the paradigm
                          > of 'agency',
                          > > and this paradigm is summed up by the phrase, "the agent is equated
                          > > with the principal", or "the agent is as the principal". Jesus'
                          > role
                          > > as the "Word" (=God's spokesman) was to representatively reveal God
                          > to
                          > > us. Thus, within the parameters set by the Father, the principal,
                          > > Jesus was legally equal with God. To honor an agent is to honor the
                          > > principal he represents, and to dishonor an agent is to dishonor the
                          > > principal he represents. So when Christ performs functions that
                          > are
                          > > ultimately the prerogatives of God himself, he is due the same honor
                          > > that would be given to God himself.
                          > >
                          > > The reason this doesn't present a problem (and why Andy is wrong to
                          > > assume that God and Christ are "equal in every way") is because,
                          > > according to the agency paradigm, it is ultimately the principal who
                          > > is the true recipient of the honor that is given to his
                          > > representative. It is Jehovah's office and authority we honor when
                          > we
                          > > honor his Son.
                          > >
                          > > I don't know how familiar you are with these concepts and how the
                          > > agency paradigm illuminates the relationship of God and his son, but
                          > > you might enjoy checking out these references:
                          > >
                          > > 1. Der Gesandte Und Sein Weg Im 4
                          > > Author: Jan-A Buhner
                          > > Paperback: 494 pages
                          > > Publisher: Mohr (September 1977)
                          > > Language: German
                          > > ISBN-10: 3161389212
                          > > ISBN-13: 978-3161389214
                          > > Available here: http://tinyurl. com/3b5ebw
                          > > NOTE: This is written in German, and there are no plans at this time
                          > > to have an English translation published.
                          > >
                          > > 2. Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil
                          > Law
                          > > Author: George Wesley Buchanan
                          > > Hardcover: 158 pages
                          > > Publisher: Edwin Mellen Press (October 1992)
                          > > Language: English
                          > > ISBN-10: 0773496017
                          > > ISBN-13: 978-0773496019
                          > > Available here (expensive): http://tinyurl. com/36j2ex
                          > > NOTE: This is an *excellent* study of the concept of legal agency.
                          > > Some other books by G.W. Buchanan are now being published by Wipf &
                          > > Stock, but they haven't published this one yet. If they eventually
                          > > do, then the price should go down considerably.
                          > >
                          > > 3. Jesus and the Constraints of History
                          > > Author: A. E. Harvey
                          > > Hardcover: 184 pages
                          > > Publisher: Westminster John Knox Pr (May 1982)
                          > > Language: English
                          > > ISBN-10: 0664218253
                          > > ISBN-13: 978-0664218256
                          > > Right now as low as $3.95 in mint condition here:
                          > > http://tinyurl. com/3aeoxp
                          > > NOTE: This book has a chapter dealing with agency and sonship, and
                          > it
                          > > is worth the price for that chapter alone!
                          > >
                          > > 4. John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in
                          > > Johannine Christology
                          > > Author: James Frank McGrath
                          > > Paperback: 281 pages
                          > > Publisher: Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition (June 17,
                          > 2004)
                          > > Language: English
                          > > ISBN-10: 052160947X
                          > > ISBN-13: 978-0521609470
                          > > Available here: http://tinyurl. com/3yr7v7
                          > > NOTE: Although McGrath ultimately favors the orthodox perspective,
                          > he
                          > > is more balanced than most, and he does a nice job showing how
                          > certain
                          > > Christologically significant texts (i.e. John 5:18, 10:30-36, 8:58,
                          > > etc.) are best understood within the parameters of the agency
                          > paradigm.
                          > >
                          > > 5. The Interpretation of John
                          > > Author: Multi-authored
                          > > Paperback: 329 pages
                          > > Publisher: T. & T. Clark Publishers; 2 Sub edition (September 1997)
                          > > Language: English
                          > > ISBN-10: 0567085465
                          > > ISBN-13: 978-0567085467
                          > > Right now about $4.95 through an Amazon seller here:
                          > > http://tinyurl. com/3aqj6c
                          > > NOTE: There are two chapters that are particularly relevant to the
                          > > subject of agency. One is entitled "God's Agent in the Fourth
                          > > Gospel", by Peder Borgen. The other is a chapter dealing with
                          > the "I
                          > > Am" sayings in John (I forgot the title), and is actually one of the
                          > > chapters from Jan-A Buhner's book mentioned above. It was
                          > translated
                          > > into English by John Ashton.
                          > >
                          > > 6. The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in
                          > Christology -
                          > > In Memory of George Bradford Caird
                          > > Author: Multi-authored
                          > > Paperback: 311 pages
                          > > Publisher: Wipf & Stock Publishers (November 2006)
                          > > Language: English
                          > > ISBN-10: 1597529567
                          > > ISBN-13: 978-1597529563
                          > > Available here: http://tinyurl. com/2ak8jh
                          > > NOTE: This book contains a chapter written by A.E. Harvey, entitled
                          > > "Christ as Agent". I only found out today that Wipf & Stock is now
                          > > publishing it in a reasonably priced paperback edition.
                          > > Interestingly, the scholar to whom this multi-authored book is
                          > > dedicated (Caird) rejected the concept of eternal torment. See is
                          > > commentary on Revelation. The book contains a number of good
                          > > articles. In fact, if memory serves, Bruce Metzger's article on
                          > Rom.
                          > > 9:5 is included.
                          > >
                          > > In addition to what is found in his book referenced above, James
                          > Frank
                          > > McGrath makes some interesting comments about agency, which
                          > > can be found here:
                          > >
                          > > http://tinyurl. com/36h882
                          > >
                          > > And here:
                          > >
                          > > http://tinyurl. com/poya2
                          > >
                          > > There are many others authors who have made useful observations
                          > about
                          > > this issue, but my library is packed up for moving and I can't
                          > > remember them all. I hope you find these useful, though.
                          > >
                          > > Yb,
                          > > ~Kaz
                          > >
                          >



                          Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                          Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

                        • andy
                          Hi Jeremiah What they re saying is that Christ, as agent, has the full backing of his Father, and in this way he should be honored. In many ways, they re right
                          Message 12 of 18 , Apr 30, 2007
                            Hi Jeremiah

                            What they're saying is that Christ, as agent, has the full backing
                            of his Father, and in this way he should be honored. In many ways,
                            they're right from a certain point of view. Its true that he
                            ministered according to the will of his Father under the anointing
                            of the Holy Spirit while healing and preaching etc. But the sign of
                            his authority was his own Divine virtue. This was the license
                            enabling the works of God to be manifest in the first place. And
                            from from salvation's point of view, kaz and hollis are so confused.
                            They have absolutely no idea what the sacrifice of Chirst means.
                            They assume that he is the agent of salvation operating in God's
                            power only. If that is the case, then the Father judged Himself on
                            the cross.
                            They'll embrace anything they can find to keep Christ from having
                            any virtue of his own. The human heart really is capable of
                            hardening itself like rock.

                            Hebrews 1:3 ...when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at
                            the right hand of the Majesty on high,

                            "BY HIMSELF"

                            They'll look at those words but see, "not by himself".


                            andy

                            --- In evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com, Jeremiah Gooch
                            <futureman7999@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Kaz,
                            >
                            > Do you distinguish between honor by proxy or honor of the
                            individual in and of themself?
                            >
                            > Jeremiah
                            >
                            > kazman1914 <kazman1914@...> wrote:
                            > Hi Hollis,
                            >
                            > Thank you for your good wishes about my move. I actually pull out
                            of
                            > my driveway in a large u-haul tomorrow (Mon.) afternoon/evening, so
                            > this will probably be one of my last posts for a few days to a
                            week,
                            > depending on how long it takes me to get my new internet
                            connection setup.
                            >
                            > BTW, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were
                            > unfamiliar with the agency paradigm. When I re-read my post it
                            struck
                            > me that it could be taken that way, but that was not my intent. The
                            > concept of the 'sent one' (=Sheliach, as you've pointed out) was
                            > discussed on Heinz's forum before he defected to atheism, and we
                            were
                            > both members at that time, if memory serves. My main point was that
                            > the level of honor Christ received has no bearing on the
                            > Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism debate, and my secondary point was
                            to
                            > alert you and others of the authors/references who have elaborated
                            on
                            > the agency concept and its bearing on the Father/Son relationship.
                            >
                            > Yb,
                            > ~Kaz
                            >
                            >
                          • kazman1914
                            Well, my move is finished, and it was not a pleasant experience. I hired people to load my things on a u-haul, and they somehow managed to damage every piece
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 5, 2007
                              Well, my move is finished, and it was not a pleasant experience. I
                              hired people to load my things on a u-haul, and they somehow managed
                              to damage every piece of valuable furniture I own, despite (because?)
                              my pleadings that they take care with those few valuable pieces I have.

                              Anyway, I had said:

                              "6. The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology -
                              In Memory of George Bradford Caird
                              ...The book contains a number of good
                              articles. In fact, if memory serves, Bruce Metzger's article on Rom.
                              9:5 is included."

                              I was mistaken in that this is not the book in which Bruce Metzger's
                              article on Rom. 9:5 can be found. FYI, Metzger's article on Rom. 9:5
                              can be found in "Christ and Spirit in the New Testament" (Cambridge
                              [1973], ISBN: 0-521-20148-9)

                              ~Kaz
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.