Conference yukon::christian_v7

Dake says:

1. His suffering were inthe days of His flesh on earth (v 7)
2. He prayed with supplications, strong crying and tears to God (v7)
3. He prayed to be saved frmo death, not from death on the cross, for he was
    not saved from this
4. He was heard and saved from death by satanic powers which tried to kill
    Him in the garden of Gethsemane before he could get to the cross where
    He was to fulfill prophecy and complete atonement (note c, Mt. 26:39;
    note s, t, and v, Lk. 22:43-44; 1 pet. 2:24; Gal 3:13).
5. He learned obedience by His sufferings
6. Was made perfect by His sufferings
7. By means of suffering He made atonement and became the author of eternal 
    salvation to all who will obey Him
8. He was called of God to be a high priest after the order of Melchizedek

Mark says:
  Which points would you like to focus on?  

1. Being made perfect?
2. Called of God after the order of Melchizedek?

Part of the insights into this and other passages of Hebrews is found in 
the audience to whom Hebrews was written: hebrews, of course.  More later.

I *knew* Yak would say that!  :-)

    A few thoughts:
    
    "He learned obedience" -- not that He needed to be taught this, but He
    (God the Son) "learned" what it is _as_a_man_ (God's perfect Man) to be
    obedient.  (More on this to come.)
    
    "having been perfected" -- not that He was in any way imperfect.  His
    perfection, to me, is that He became the perfect provision _for_us_.
    
    "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he
    also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he
    might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And
    deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject
    to bondage.  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he
    took on him the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore in all things it behoved him
    to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and
    faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
    reconciliation for the sins of the people."  (Heb. 2:14-17) 
    
    "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to
    succour them that are tempted." (Heb. 2:18 )  
    
    The experiences of the Lord Jesus were more than just to make atonement
    for sin.  They were to demonstrate to us that _a_man_ can live wholly
    in obedience and dependence upon God.  Adam failed in this; the Lord
    Jesus came and has made it possible for us.
    
    "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of
    me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering
    and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither
    hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo,
    I come to do thy will, O God.  He taketh away the first, that he may
    establish the second.  By the which will we are sanctified through the
    offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb. 10:7-10)
    
    
    "the order of Melchizedek"  Melchizedek met Abram after he and his
    servants overthrew the federation of kings that had captured Lot
    (Genesis 14).  Melchizedek was a king-priest (Gen 14:18).  The
    priesthood of Melchizedek is an eternal priesthood (Ps 110:4), not as
    the Levitical, which was temporal/passing.   The Lord Jesus is
    pronounced to be the *high* priest of this eternal order of priesthood.  
    Note that He is also a royal priest (king).
    
    I LOVE THIS SUBJECT! :-)  (and I love the book of Hebrews).
    
    Mark L.

    Mark:
    
    So Melchezidek is a type of Christ, correct?  But was he an actual
    person.  He is only mentioned in Genesis, Psalms, and Hebrews.
    
    Interesting note:  I believe the Latter Day Saints claim to be from
    this order.
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack  

    Jewish commentaries equate Shem (Noah's son) and Melkezadek as the same
    person. 

>   So Melchezidek is a type of Christ, correct?

I don't think this ia an accurate question.  Christ had a similarity 
to Melchizedek, a shared property.  

What was that property?  The eternal priesthood of the Most High God.
Some believe that Melchizidek was an epiphany of Christ (the Son in
bodily form, not unlike God appearing to Abraham on a number of occasions).
I don't know and haven't gotten to firm a belief on who Melchizedek was,
and am content with thinking he was a unique person - and uniquely 
qualified with a distinction, like Enoch.  Then again, if it was an epiphany,
so what?

So Christ is a type (or archetype) of Melchizedek, just like Christ is 
like a Door or a Good Shepherd.

    I believe that Melchezidek 1) was a real person (Abram sure seemed to
    think so), 2) and was a type of Christ.  Interestingly enough, the
    *absence* of knowledge about him is even pointed out in the scriptures
    "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither 
    beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; 
    abideth a priest continually." (Heb. 7:3).  Note that what is being
    said is that we are given no knowledge of his lineage, descendents,
    birth, or death.
    
    The whole of Hebrews 7 in very enlightening as to Melchizedek and the
    priesthood he represents.
    
    Mark L.

	In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and
	supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was
	able to save him from death, and he was heard for his
	godly fear.  Although he was a Son, he learned obedience
	through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became
	the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him

7-9. This brief summary of Christ's life stresses his perfect obedience to the
Father's will, his intense prayer and his sufferings and redemptive death. As
in the hymn to Christ in Philippians 2:6-11, the point is made that Christ set
his power aside and, despite his being the only-begotten Son of God, out of
obedience chose to die on the cross. His death was a true self-offering
expressed in that "loud voice" when he cried out to the Father just before he
died, "into thy hands I commit my spirit" (Lk 23:46).  But although Jesus'
obedience was most obvious on Calvary, it was a constant feature of "the days
of his flesh": he obeyed Mary and Joseph, seeing in them the authority of the
heavenly Father; he was obedient to political and religious authorities; and
he always obeyed the Father, identifying himself with him to such a degree
that he could say, "I have glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the
work which thou gavest me to do [...].  All mine are thine, and thine are
mine" (Jn 17:4,10). 

The passage also points to Jesus' prayer, the high point of which occurred 
in Gethsemane on the eve of his passion. The reference to "loud cries and
supplications" recalls the Gospel account of his suffering: "And being in an
agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood
falling down upon the ground" (Lk 22:44). 

Hebrews 5:7-9 is probably referring not so much to his prayer in the Garden,
still less to any prayer of Christ asking to be delivered from death, but to our
Lord's constant prayer for the salvation of mankind. "When the Apostle speaks
of these supplications and cries of Jesus," St. John Chrysostom comments, "he
does not mean prayers which he made on his own behalf but prayers for those
who would later believe in him.  And, due to the fact that the Jews did not yet
have the elevated concept of Christ that they ought to have had, St. Paul says
that `he was heard', just as the Lord himself told his disciples, to console
them, `If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father;
for the Father is greater than I' [...].  Such was the respect and reverence
shown by the Son, that God the Father could not but take note and heed his
Son and his prayers" (Hom. on Heb, 11) 

	In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and
	supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was
	able to save him from death, and he was heard for his
	godly fear.

	Qui in diebus carnis suae, preces supplicationesque ad
	eum, qui possit salvum illum a morte facere, cum clamore
	valido et lacrimis offerens et exauditus pro sua reverentia

7. "In the days of his flesh", a reference to the Incarnation.  "Flesh" is
synonymous with mortal life; this is a reference to Christ's human nature as
in the prologue to St John's Gospel (cf. Jn 1:14) and many other places (Heb
2:14; Gal 2:20; Phil 1:22-24; 1 Pet 4:1-2) including where mention is made of
Jesus being a servant and capable of suffering (cf. Phil 2:8; Mt 20:27-28).
Jesus' human nature "in the days of his flesh" is quite different from his
divine nature and also from his human nature after its glorification (cf.
1 Cor 15:50).  "It must be said that the word `flesh' is occasionally used
to refer to the weakness of the flesh, as it says in 1 Cor 15:50: `flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'.  Christ had a weak and mortal flesh.
Therefore it says in the text, `In the days of his flesh', referring to when
he was living in a flesh which seemed to be like sinful flesh, but which was
sinless" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Heb, 5, 1).  So, this text
underlines our Lord's being both Victim and Priest.

"Prayers and supplications": very fitting in a priest. The two words mean
much the same; together they are a form of words which used to be employed
in petitions to the king or some important official.  The plural tells us
that there were lots of these petitions.  The writer seems to have in mind
the picture of the Redeemer who "going a little farther fell on his face and
prayed, `My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless,
not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt 26:39).  St. Thomas comments on this
description of Christ's prayer as follows: "His action was indeed one of
offering prayers and supplications, that is, a spiritual sacrifice: that was
what Christ offered.  It speaks of prayers in the sense of petitions because
`The prayer of a righteous man has great power' (Jas 5:16); and it speaks of
supplications to emphasize the humility of the one who is praying, who falls
on his knees, as we see happening in the case of him who `fell on his face
and prayed' (Mt 26:39)" (Commentary on Heb, 5, 1). 

To emphasize the force of Christ's prayer, the writer adds, "with loud cries 
and tears".  According to rabbinical teaching, there were three degrees of
prayer, each stronger than the last -- supplications, cries and tears.
Christian tradition has always been touched by the humanity of the Redeemer
as revealed in the way he prays.  "Everything that is being said here may be
summed up in one word -- humility: that stops the mouths of those who
blaspheme against Christ's divinity saying that it is completely inappropriate
for a God to act like this.  For, on the contrary, the Godhead laid it down
that [Christ's] human nature should suffer all this, in order to show us the
extreme to which he truly became incarnate and assumed a human nature, and to
show us that the mystery of salvation was accomplished in a real and not an
apparent or fictitious manner" (Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio Ep. ad
Haebreos, ad loc.).  Christ's prayer, moreover, teaches us that prayer must
1) be fervent and 2) involve interior pain.  Christ had both [fervour and
pain], for the Apostle by mentioning `tears' intends to show the interior
groaning of him who weeps in this way [...].  But he did not weep on his own
account: he wept for us, who receive the fruit of passion" (St. Thomas,
Commentary on Heb, ad loc.). 

"He was heard for his godly fear." St. John Chrysostom's commentary is very
apposite: "`He gave himself up for our sins', he says in Gal 1:4; and
elsewhere (cf. 1 Tim 2:6) he adds, `He gave himself as a ransom for all'.
What does he mean by this?  Do you not see that he is speaking with humility
of himself, because of his mortal flesh?  And, nevertheless, because he is the
Son, it says that he was heard for his godly fear" (Hom. on Heb, 8).  It is
like a loving contention between Father and Son.  The Son wins the Father's
admiration, so generous is his self-surrender.

And yet Christ's prayer did not seem to be heeded, for his Father God did
not save him from ignominious death -- the cup he had to drink -- nor were all
the Jews, for whom he prayed, converted.  But it was only apparently so: in
fact Christ's prayer was heard.  It is true that, like every one, the idea of
dying was repugnant to him, because he had a natural instinct to live; but, on
the other hand, he wished to die through a deliberate and rational act of his
will; hence in the course of the prayer, he said, "not my will, but thine, be
done" (Lk 22:42).  Similarly Christ wanted to save all mankind but he wanted
them to accept salvation freely (cf. Commentary on Heb, ad loc.). 

	Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what
	he suffered

	et quidem cum esset Filius, didicit ex his, quae passus
	est, oboedientiam

8. In Christ there are two perfect and complete natures and therefore two
different levels of knowledge -- divine knowledge and human knowledge.
Christ's human knowledge includes 1) the knowledge that the blessed in heaven
have, that is, the knowledge that comes from direct vision of the divine
essence; 2) the knowledge with which God endowed man before original sin
(infused knowledge); and 3) the knowledge which man acquires through experience.
This last-mentioned knowledge could and in fact did increase (cf. Lk 2:52) in
Christ's case.  Christ's painful experience of the passion, for example,
increased this last type of knowledge, which is why the verse says that Christ
learned obedience through suffering.  There was a Greek proverb which said,
"Sufferings are lessons."  Christ's teaching and example raise this positive
view of suffering onto the supernatural level.  "In suffering there is
concealed a particular power that draws a person interiorly close to Christ,
a special grace [...].  A result of such a conversion is not only that the
individual discovers the salvific meaning of suffering but above all that he
becomes a completely new person.  He discovers a new dimension, as it were,
of his entire life and vocation" (John Paul II, Salvifici doloris, 26).

In our Lord's case, his experience of suffering was connected with his
generosity in obedience.  He freely chose to obey even unto death (cf. Heb
10:5-9; Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8), consciously atoning for the first sin, a sin of
disobedience.  "In his suffering, sins are cancelled out precisely because he
alone as the only-begotten Son could take them upon himself, accept them with
that love for the Father which overcomes the evil of every sin; in a certain
sense he annihilates this evil in the spiritual space of the relationship
between God and humanity, and fills this space with good" (Salvifici doloris,
17).  Christ "learned obedience" not in the sense that this virtue developed in
him, for his human nature was perfect in its holiness, but in the sense that
he put into operation the infused virtue his human soul already possessed.
"Christ knew what obedience was from all etemity, but he learned obedience in
practice through the severities he underwent particularly in his passion and
death" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Heb, ad loc.). 

Christ's example of obedience is something we should copy.  A Christian
writer of the fifth century, Diadochus of Photike, wrote: "The Lord loved
(obedience) because it was the way to bring about man's salvation and he
obeyed his Father unto the cross and unto death; however, his obedience did
not in any sense diminish his majesty.  And so, having by his obedience
dissolved man's disobedience, he chose to lead to blessed and immortal life
those who followed the way of obedience" (Chapters on Spiritual Perfection,
41). 

	and being made perfect he became the source of eternal
	salvation to all who obey him

	et, consummatus, factus est omnibus oboedientibus sibi
	auctor salutis aeternae

9. Obviously Christ as God could not increase in perfection.  Nor could his
sacred humanity become any holier, for from the moment of his Incarnation he
received the fulness of grace, that is, he had the maximum degree of holiness
a man could have.  In this connexion Thomas Aquinas points out that Christ had
grace to an infinite degree.  In Christ there is a dual grace: one is the
grace of union (that is, the personal union to the Son of God gratuitously
bestowed on human nature): clearly this grace is infinite as the person of
the Word is infinite.  The other grace is habitual grace which, although it
is received in a limited human nature, is yet infinite in its perfection
because grace was conferred on Christ as the universal source of the
justification of human nature (cf. Summa theologiae, III, q. 7, a. 11).

In what sense, then, could Christ be "made perfect"?  St. Thomas provides
the answer: Christ, through his passion, achieved a special glory -- the
impassibility and glorification of his body.  Moreover, he attained the same
perfections as we shall participate in when we are raised from the dead in
glory, those of us who believe in him (cf. Commentary on Heb, ad loc.).  For
this reason our Redeemer could exclaim before his death, "It is finished" (Jn
19:30) referring not only to his own sacrifice but also to the fact that he
had completely accomplished the redeeming atonement.  Christ triumphed on the
cross and attained perfection for himself and for others.  In Hebrews the same
verb is used for what is translated into English as "to be made perfect" and
"to finish".  Christ, moreover, by obeying and becoming a perfect victim, truly
pleasing to the Father, is more perfectly positioned to perfect others.

"Obedience" is essentially docility to what God asks of us and readiness to
listen to him (cf. Rom 1:5; 16:26; 2 Cor 10:5; Heb 4:3).  Christ's obedience is
a source of salvation for us; if we imitate him we will truly form one body with
him and he will be able to pass on to us the fulness of his grace.

"Now, when you find it hard to obey, remember your Lord: `factus obediens
usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis: obedient even to accepting death,
death on a cross!'"  (J. Escriv�, The Way, 628). 

	being designated by God a high priest after the order of
	Melchizedek.

	appellatus a Deo pontifex iuxta ordine Melchisedech.

10. As the epistle repeatedly teaches, Christ is a high priest "after the order
of Melchizedek".  Two essential characteristics come together here: he is the
eternal Son of God, as announced in the messianic Psalm 2:7: "You are my
Son, today I have begotten you"; and he is at the same time high priest not
according to the order which God instituted with Aaron but according to the
order of Melchizedek, also established by God.  Further on the letter explains
in what sense this "order of Melchizedek" is superior to that of Levi and Aaron.
What it stresses at this point is the connexion between Christ's priesthood and
his divine sonship.  Christ, the Son of God, was sent by the Father as Redeemer
and mediator, and the mediation of Christ, who is God and true man, is exercised
by way of priesthood.  So, in the last analysis Christ is Priest both by virtue
of being the Son of God and by virtue of his Incarnation as man.  "The abyss of
malice which sin opens up has been bridged by his infinite charity.  God did
not abandon men.  His plans foresaw that the sacrifices of the Old Law would
be insufficient to repair our faults and re-establish the unity which had been
lost.  A man who was God would have to offer himself up.  To help us grasp in
some measure this unfathomable mystery, we might imagine the Blessed Trinity
taking counsel together in their uninterrupted intimate relationship of intimate
love.  As a result of their eternal decision, the only-begotten Son of God the
Father takes on our human condition and bears the burden of our wretchedness
and sorrow, to end up sewn with nails to a piece of wood" (J. Escriv�, Christ 
is passing by, 95). 

It was appropriate that the divine person who became incarnate should be the
Son or Word, for "the Word has a kind of essential kinship not only with
rational nature but also universally with the whole of creation, since the Word
contains the essences of all things created by God, just as man the artist in
the conception of his intellect comprehends the essences of all the products
of art [...].  Wherefore all things are said to be made by the Word.  Therefore,
it was appropriate for Word to be joined to creature, that is, to human nature"
(St. Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles, IV, 42).  Finally, it was fitting that
Redemption from sin should be brought about by way of a sacrifice offered by
the same divine person.

So it is that Christ, the only-begotten Son, to whom God said, "You are my
son, today I have begotten you", is also the priest to whom God swears, "Thou
art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek". 

    Thanks for all your notes on this John.  I am going to extract and
    print.
    
    Grace 
    
    

>Dake says:
    
    No offense but this has to be one of the worst study bibles I've ever
    seen.  Dake is known for his rejection of the trinity and has other
    gems like this:
    
    "God...goes from place to place in a body like all other persons." 
    Dake adds that God is just "an ordinary sized being.  He wears
    clothes...eats...rests...dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a
    material planet called Heaven."  (Dakes Annotated Bible, NT p. 96 col.
    1, 97 cols. 1-2; OT pp. 388 col. 1b, 467 col. 1f)
    
    In addition, he starts off the very first page of the NT by writing
    that Jesus "became the Christ or the 'Annointed One' 30 years after He
    was born of Mary."  In my Bible, Luke 2:11 says, "For unto you is born
    this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."
    
    In "God's Plan for Man", Dake writes, "Disease germs, which are so
    closely allied to the work of demons...are really material agents of
    Satan corrupting the bodies of his victims.  No remedy has ever been
    found that can cure diseases outside of the blood of Jesus Christ.  No
    drug can cure a single disease.  Any honest physician will admit that
    there is no healing power in medicines." (p. 241)
    
    Benny Hinn received his "revelation" about Adam being superhuman and
    able to transport himself to the moon from Dake.  (Dake's Annotated
    Bible, OT 1, col. 4 (note on Genesis 1:26), 619, col. 1, note 2; and
    also in "God's Plan for Man", p. 35)
    
    There are much better study bibles and commentaries available.
    
    Mike

Mike,
  I'm taken aback.  This is the first heavy criticism I've heard about Dake.
I've heard before only that there are "better commentators" but not that
this guy was a flake, as you purport.

  I do think your assertion that Dake rejects the Trinity is not true;
I looked up your last charge about Benny Hinn's use of Dake and in column
4, note X says "a Divine Trinity is required."

  Further, the notes on Genesis 1:26 in Dake's Bible are thus:

Genesis 1:26  And God said(x), Let us make man in our(y) image, after our(z) 
likeness: and let them have (a)dominion over the fish of the sea, and over 
the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over 
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

x A Divine Trinity is required by the use of plural personal pronoun 
    (many references omitted for brevity)
y Heb. tselem, shade, resemblance.  It's usage proves it refers to outward
     form, not to attribues. (many references omitted)
z Heb. demuwth, resemblance, model shape; and refers to the outward form as
     proven by its usages (many references required)
a Man's dominion included even the sun moon and stars (Ps. 8).  In the final
     restoration man will again have such rulership (1 cor 15:24-28; Eph 1:10;
     Heb. 2:7-9)

Don't confuse Hinn's interpretation of what Dake has said with what Dake 
has said, which I believe you have done (and done a disservice to Dake in
the process).  Dake doesn't make the claim that Adam could fly, as you can
see.  He even makes sure that he emphasizes that man is made in God's image
as a form and not attributes.

As for God going from place to place, what do you do with the scripture
where God appeared to the 70 elders of Israel on Mt. Sanai, and that
God *appeared* many times in the OT to Israel, to Abraham, etc.  

Moses saw him in his form, but not in his glory.  One day, Moses asked to see
God with all of his glorious attributes.  God knew that no man could see it
and live but told moses that he would allow him to see his "hind parts" of
his glory.  His glory was hidden from Moses by the way when God *appeared*
to Moses, and even Moses only got to the see the "hind parts" of God's 
nature and attributes.  (Let's start a note about God's body.)

-------------------------------
Next, I see your point about "became the Christ" and "which is Christ",
but O think you've wrestled a distinction from the language.  There is NO
doubt that Dake knew that Jesus was the Christ from BEFORE birth, let
alone at birth, for this was the plan from the foundations of the world.
Clearly Dake is refering to Jesus' baptism and beginning of his rabbinical
ministry, "annointed" of God by the Spirit that descended like a dove upon 
him.
---------------------------------
I can't find any reference to medice on Page 241 in the OT or NT.
I don't doubt that Dake may have said this, just as I don't doubt
some of the things some people have said in this conference.

If you can pinpoint the reference, perhaps I can provide some context that
your assertion lacks.
---------------------------------
Mike, where did you get these assertions?  I have heard that Dake is not the 
best commentary, but I've seen a lot of good stuff and most or all of it cross
referenced rather well.  (This is my wife's Bible, bought for her by her father,
which I use at times because it has a pretty good concordance and quickly
found commentary.  Do I agree with all of the commentary?  No, but I think
your assertions are dead wrong on some things and don't represent the true 
picture. Please explain.)

Mark

P.S.  If it makes you feel any better, I also use Strongs, The Comparative
Study Bible (Zondervan; 4 translations in parallel), the Hebrew Greek Key
Study Bible (Zodhiates), and the standard NIV.

Yeah, I want to know if someone's gone off the deep end, especially if I
have used the commentary, but I didn't find SUBSTANCE in .15, Mike, and 
it puzzles me.

>  I do think your assertion that Dake rejects the Trinity is not true;
>I looked up your last charge about Benny Hinn's use of Dake and in column
>4, note X says "a Divine Trinity is required."
    
    Well he rejects the trinity as we know it.  The tritheistic teachings 
    from the medieval church (which the Athanasian Creed completely defeats) 
    have resurfaced in Dake's Bible.  I should've made that clear from the
    start.

>As for God going from place to place, what do you do with the scripture
>where God appeared to the 70 elders of Israel on Mt. Sanai, and that
>God *appeared* many times in the OT to Israel, to Abraham, etc.  
    
    ...and what do you do with these verses?  Shrinking God to man's level
    destroys a basic tenet of the Christian faith.
    
John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in
truth.

Deuteronomy 4:12
And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of
the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.

Jeremiah 32:17
Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power
and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:

Jeremiah 32:27
Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for
me?

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but
with God all things are possible.

Daniel 4:34
And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven,
and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I
praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting
dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

Daniel 4:35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth
according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the
earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Psalms 147:5
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Hebrews 4:13
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things
are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Isaiah 42:9
Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare:
before they spring forth I tell you of them.

Job 37:16
Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is
perfect in knowledge?

    
>ministry, "annointed" of God by the Spirit that descended like a dove upon 
>him.
    
    The quote says "became the Christ or 'Anointed One' 30 years after He
    was born of Mary."  I don't see how that's confusing the language. 
    Jesus was always the Anointed One.
    
    Mike

>    Well he rejects the trinity as we know it.  The tritheistic teachings 
>    from the medieval church (which the Athanasian Creed completely defeats) 
>    have resurfaced in Dake's Bible.  I should've made that clear from the
>    start.

I'm curious: what kind of tritheistic teachings, and do you have any refer-
ences?  What kind of doctrines do you see essential to the orthodox view of
the trinity, verses those of the medieval tritheistic teachings? Let's talk
about the orthodox teaching on the Trinity.

Indeed the Athanasian Creed is an excellent exposition of the orthodox view of
the Trinity; I shall include it here for references.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED

   Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith;
   for unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will
   undoubtedly be lost forever.

   This is what the Catholic faith teaches.  We worship one God in the
   Trinity, and Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons but
   we do not divide the substance.  For the Father is a distinct person;
   the Son is a distinct person; and the Holy Spirit is a distinct
   person.  Still, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one
   divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.  What the Father is,
   the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.  The Father is uncreated, the Son
   is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.  The Father has
   immensity, the Son has immensity, and the Holy Spirit has immensity.
   The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is
   eternal.  Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one
   eternal being.  Thus there are not three uncreated beings, nor three
   beings having immensity, but one uncreated being and one being that
   has immensity.

   Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the
   Holy Spirit is omnipotent.  Yet there are not three omnipotent
   beings, but one omnipotent being.  Thus the Father is God, the Son is
   God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  Yet there are not three gods, but
   one God.  Thus the Father is lord, the Son is lord, and the Holy
   Spirit is lord.  Yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.  For
   according to Christian truth, we must profess that each of the
   persons individually is God; and according to the Christian religion
   we are forbidden to say that there are three gods or three lords.
   The Father is not made by anyone, nor created by anyone, nor
   generated by anyone.  The Son is not made nor created, but he is
   generated by the Father alone.  The Holy Spirit is not made nor
   created nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.

   There is, then, one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three
   sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.  In this Trinity,
   there is nothing that precedes, nothing subsequent to anything else.
   There is nothing greater, nothing lesser than anything else.  But the
   entire three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so
   that, as we have said, we worship complete unity in the Trinity and
   Trinity in unity.  This, then is what he who wishes to be saved must
   believe about the Trinity.

Quicunque Vult

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the Catholic Faith.

Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt
he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:  That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity,

Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one
uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost
Almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every
Person by himself to be both God and Lord,

So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods,
or three Lords.

The Father is made of none; neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created,
nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one
Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less
than another;

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity
in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe
rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of
the substance of his Mother, born in the world;

Perfect God, and perfect Man:  of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father,
as touching his Manhood.

Who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;

One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood into God;

One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, So God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third
day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give
account for their own works.

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that
have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.

	RE.20 

> Quicunque Vult

	You know, a shot of antibiotics will clear that right up!   8*)

ace

P.S Seriously though, when was the Anathasian Creed written and by whom?
Thanks.

Note 194.18 FRETZ::HEISER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>As for God going from place to place, what do you do with the scripture
>>where God appeared to the 70 elders of Israel on Mt. Sanai, and that
>>God *appeared* many times in the OT to Israel, to Abraham, etc.
>
>    ...and what do you do with these verses?  Shrinking God to man's level
>    destroys a basic tenet of the Christian faith.

It does NOT!

>John 4:24
>God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in
>truth.

What is the make-up of a Spirit body, Mike?  Some vaporous apparition?  Do you
know?  You think that God is in form like a will-o-the-wisp.

None of the verses you list in .18 show this.

Do you think I have limited God in time and space by saying that God's body has
form?  *Not at all!*  It is the mortal concept of time and space that puts the
limits on the spirit body.

You have said nothing to support your accusations against Dake.

>>ministry, "annointed" of God by the Spirit that descended like a dove upon
>>him.
>
>    The quote says "became the Christ or 'Anointed One' 30 years after He
>    was born of Mary."  I don't see how that's confusing the language.
>    Jesus was always the Anointed One.

To quote myself again:

.16>There is NO doubt that Dake knew that Jesus was the Christ from BEFORE
.16>birth, let alone at birth, for this was the plan from the foundations of
.16>the world. Clearly Dake is refering to Jesus' baptism and beginning of his
.16>rabbinical ministry, "annointed" of God by the Spirit that descended like a
.16>dove upon  him.

That "you don't see how that's confusing the language" only says that you
don't see it.

And, Mike, you didn't speak about the other assertions that were answered.
Were they answered to your satisfaction and would you like to print a
retraction about Dake on these points that you have not pursued or
substantiated?

I think you owe the readership an apology for spreading rumor as fact and not
opinion.

Mark

>when was the Anathasian Creed written and by whom?

It was written sometime in the 5th century, somewhere in France by an
unknown author (definitely not St. Athanasius).  It bears a resemblance
to some other writings by Vincent of L�rins (who lived around 440) and
may be by him or by one of his associates.

/john

	re.23

	John,

	Thanks.

ace

My, my, my.  This really rustled up some hornets didn't it.  Mark, I'm sorry 
if this offended you, that wasn't my intention.

�>    ...and what do you do with these verses?  Shrinking God to man's level
�>    destroys a basic tenet of the Christian faith.
�
�It does NOT!

My God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.  Man is not.  If God was on
my level, we would have those characteristics.  I don't and don't know anyone 
who does.  However, in serving God, He has proven to me that He has these 
characteristics and is true to His Word.

�What is the make-up of a Spirit body, Mike?  Some vaporous apparition?  Do you
�know?  You think that God is in form like a will-o-the-wisp.

I think God can do whatever He chooses to do, without contradicting His Word.

�Do you think I have limited God in time and space by saying that God's body has
�form?  *Not at all!*  It is the mortal concept of time and space that puts the
�limits on the spirit body.

We agree here.

>You have said nothing to support your accusations against Dake.

We don't share this opinion.  In addition, Dake has documented his tritheistic
views.  When I get the time, I'll supply the necessary pointers to his books.

>I think you owe the readership an apology for spreading rumor as fact and not
>opinion.

I think that's a stretch to consider this a rumor.  Some sources were already
supplied.  Only the tritheistic sources remain.  I've already apologized 
because it's obvious you were offended.  It is also obvious that the readership
hasn't express your same sentiments.
    
    Mike

>My, my, my.  This really rustled up some hornets didn't it.  Mark, I'm sorry 
>if this offended you, that wasn't my intention.

If it is insubstantiated, it is misinformed at best and gossip/slander at
worst.  I choose to believe the former of you, Mike.

>My God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.  Man is not.  If God was on
>my level, we would have those characteristics.  I don't and don't know anyone 
>who does.  However, in serving God, He has proven to me that He has these 
>characteristics and is true to His Word.

I don't know what you are talking about.  How has anything Dake has said
brought God to our level?  How has it made God less than omnipotent, 
omnipresent, and omniscient?  

>�What is the make-up of a Spirit body, Mike?  Some vaporous apparition?  Do you
>�know?  You think that God is in form like a will-o-the-wisp.
>
>I think God can do whatever He chooses to do, without contradicting His Word.

Please clarify (substantiate your assertion) that Dake has contradicted
God's Word, or has said God cannot do whatever He chooses.  Where have you
gotten this impression?  I'm really puzzled!

>It is also obvious that the readership hasn't express your same sentiments.

I'll bet most don't have a Dake's Annotated Reference Bible.  I'll bet
you don't either.  The readership has equally not expressed your "just
say no" to Dake sentiment either.

Mark

.15>    In "God's Plan for Man", ...

Is this the reference you have supplied?  Is this a book by Finis Dake?
I have not read it.  Have you?  I have Dake's Annotated Reference Bible
(among others) and have found it to be adequate to the task in many cases.

Mark

>If it is insubstantiated, it is misinformed at best and gossip/slander at
>worst.  I choose to believe the former of you, Mike.
>
>.15>    In "God's Plan for Man", ...
>
>Is this the reference you have supplied?  Is this a book by Finis Dake?
>I have not read it.  Have you?  I have Dake's Annotated Reference Bible
>(among others) and have found it to be adequate to the task in many cases.
    
    Yes this is by Finis Dake and contains most of his viewpoints that
    orthodox Christians would question.
    
>I don't know what you are talking about.  How has anything Dake has said
>brought God to our level?  How has it made God less than omnipotent, 
>omnipresent, and omniscient?  
    
    Because of his comments on Christ and God.  Once again:
    
    "God...goes from place to place in a body like all other persons.  He
    is just an ordinary sized being.  He wears clothes... eats... rests...
    dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called 
    Heaven."
    
    If God was like any other person, he wouldn't be omnipotent,
    omnipresent, and omniscient.
    
    On Jesus, Dake says Jesus "became the Anointed One 30 years after He
    was born of Mary."  My Bible says that a righteous branch would be raised 
    up and that Christ was born the Savior.  Jesus didn't have to do anything 
    to become the Anointed One. 

>Please clarify (substantiate your assertion) that Dake has contradicted
>God's Word, or has said God cannot do whatever He chooses.  Where have you
>gotten this impression?  I'm really puzzled!

    see above.
    
>I'll bet most don't have a Dake's Annotated Reference Bible.  I'll bet
>you don't either.  The readership has equally not expressed your "just
    
    I used to have one.  I much prefer the NASB study bible and team it
    with the International Bible Commentary by F.F. Bruce.
    
    Mike

>    "God...goes from place to place in a body like all other persons.  He
>    is just an ordinary sized being.  He wears clothes... eats... rests...
>    dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called 
>    Heaven."
>    
>    If God was like any other person, he wouldn't be omnipotent,
>    omnipresent, and omniscient.

Non-sequiter.  The comparison "like" does not mean "same as".  For God
to possess a body the relative size of a human being does NOT limit
his omnipotence, omnipresence (when you're timeless you can be in 
different places at the same time), nor his omniscience!

>    On Jesus, Dake says Jesus "became the Anointed One 30 years after He
>    was born of Mary."  My Bible says that a righteous branch would be raised 
>    up and that Christ was born the Savior.  Jesus didn't have to do anything 
>    to become the Anointed One. 

We already addressed this one.  Dake is clear about it and knows that Christ
was alwasy the Christ; he even says so.  Why do you have trouble with his
communication because he failed to be as clear as he could be with you on 
this one comment?

>    I used to have one.  I much prefer the NASB study bible and team it
>    with the International Bible Commentary by F.F. Bruce.

I'm glad!  It *MAY* even be better than Dake's annotated Bible.  Have
numerous commentators, if you like and get a well-rounded opinion!
But, if your only problems with Dake are the two above, then I'd say
you've had a overdose of brand loyalty (or disloyalty).  "Young's for
the young and Strong's for the strong, and all that stuff."  "KJV or
burn!"  

By the way, you never answered my question about God appearing in Exodus 24:

  9  Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel:
 10  And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were
a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his
clearness.
 11  And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also
they saw God, and did eat and drink.

What did they see, Mike?  We know they could not have seen God in His full 
glory, for Moses requested that at another time in which God responded that
Moses could only see his hind parts (because no one could see His face; 
[Him fully; in His glory] and live.  So, these appearances of God where 
he took food, etc., you never said what you would do with these verses.
You only responded that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent,
which is not incongruent with these physical appearances.

Mark

    Just to add some fat to the fire:
    
    Victor Paul Wierwille, late founder of the pseudo-Christian cult to
    which I belonged, used several of Dake's works as a springboard for the
    Way's patchwork theology, including the Way's doctrine that Jesus
    Christ is not God.
    
    Sorry, but I no longer have the references for the above.
    
    Bo

>What did they see, Mike?  We know they could not have seen God in His full 
>glory, for Moses requested that at another time in which God responded that
    
    It also doesn't say that God ate and drank.
    
>Moses could only see his hind parts (because no one could see His face; 
>[Him fully; in His glory] and live.  So, these appearances of God where 
    
    This I'll give you.  God also appeared to us in the person of Jesus
    Christ.
    
>You only responded that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent,
>which is not incongruent with these physical appearances.
    
    Why isn't it?  He can do what He wants.

.30

Thanks, Bo.  I remind people that I can use just about any "scholars"
writing to patchwork a doctrine - take a look at some of the things 
people have come up with on their own with patchwork scripture.

>>You only responded that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent,
>>which is not incongruent with these physical appearances.
>    
>    Why isn't it?  He can do what He wants.

Precisely why it is not incongruent with physical appearances of God.

Let's assume that God can choose whatever form he likes, to which I agree 
because of His omnipotence.  But, it is then not wrong to say that God has 
a body, since at times Scripture says clearly that he has appeared in such
and also is recorded to swear by Himself with uplifted right hand (among
other references).  Now, we have a choice:

(a) reason that God is speaking figuratively about his hands and his mouth
    because it is how we can understand better and relate
(b) reason that God is speaking literally, which also lends credence to
    us having the image attributes (not the glory attributes) of God.

We can debate whether a body is God's "preferred" form, seeing that he 
is seated on His throne in heaven where the 24 elders bow down, etc, etc,
but also that he has appeared in a pillar of fire, a burning bush, a pillar
of cloud.

But consider timelessness - not linear time, Mike - that's our experience.
Timelessness means that even a physical body can be in everyplace at the
same time because it is not bound by time and space.  This is difficult 
to understand but not inconceivable.  Therefore, it is not incongruent for
an eternal, omnipotent being to have a -form- while also being unbound by
the time/space continuum that we are bound to.  In His image doesn't mean
"the same as" Him, but means "likened as a reflection."

Let's also examine that the Scripture refers to God as Spirit, Love, and Fire.
Do we know what the spirit is?  Do we know if the Spirit has a body?
How will we know people in heaven? The Bible says that we will.  For me,
it is easier to understand a correlation between what we know and what will
be when Paul says that we will put off mortality and clothe ourselves with
immortality.

1Corinthians 15:52  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
 53  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put
on immortality.
 54  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal
shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that
is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Do we know whether we're going to be Caspers the friend ghosts? Vaporous
apparitions?  Or will that existence be on a different plane that only
makes this plane of existence look like a reflection in a dark glass?.

The Bible speaks of angels, and demons, and God has opened some people's
eyes to see them (Elijah saw the army of angels; the shepherds witness
the heralding of the Christ child).  What are these appearances and why
don't we see them all the time?  

***Is it because they do not exist in the form in which they appear?
***Or is it because the form in which they appear is not seen by our
    temporal, mortal existence?

You see, we've agreed about God's omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience,
but saying that God has a body, based on some of God's own words, and other
Scripture does not limit these attributes of God one speck!

Mark

    Mark, we're in violent agreement except for when it comes to Dake. 
    Dake said, "God does...things like all other persons."

>    Mark, we're in violent agreement except for when it comes to Dake. 
>    Dake said, "God does...things like all other persons."

God does things... like all other persons.
God does things *like* all other persons.

These two sentences are essentially the same but if emphasis is placed
in one place over another the interpretation says different things:

"God does things like all other persons" can mean (as I think you suppose)
that God is limited to doing the things that other persons do and cannot
do things that persons cannot do.

"God does things like all other persons" can also mean that God can walk
in the cool of the day with Adam, like Adam walks in the cool of the day
with God.  God walks, like Adam walks because God has a pair of legs to
walk with, instead of hovering beside Adam, for example.  The fact that
God does this (walk, in this example) does not limit His likeness to
ours!  Not at all.  So our violent agreement is really at the root of
how you're looking at Dake's words.

Look.  If you said, "I'm not comfortable with Dake's scholarship; I think
he's a B+ Scholar when compared to A and A+ scholars like so-and-so," I'd
have no problem.  But instead, you have basically implied that this 
guy is some sort of heretic and looney for his commentary (which is 
pretty much a compilation from studies and other commentators, wouldn't
you know).  

Each of your objections to Dake has been on the basis of how you have read 
some of his pieces.  And if Dake is only a B grade scholar, there will
probably be some comments I may not agree with - but it doesn't warrant
a charge of heresy ("just say 'no' to Dake") since much of what he's commented
on has been pretty straight arrow orthodoxy.

Way back in .15, you don't comment on what I quoted from Dake in .1.  
Instead, you smear Dake's character in .15 by decrying the study bible as
"one of the worst".  To support this, you bring up references (that were 
subsequently answered) that had nothing to do with what I entered in .1
from Dake, nor any other [Dake] material entered into this conference.
In short, nothing from Dake that has been entered has ever been challenged
as [near-]heresy, and .15 is the first charge against this man's work.
The intent seems to have been to discredit Dake as a scholar, and I only 
guess that you had been prejudiced somewhere somehow with these bits and 
pieces of information that you have seen from those colored glasses.

If we are made in God's image, which we are, we should be able to expect
that God will do things like us, because what we do reflects how God would
do something, too (like, walk, for example).  If you want to quibble over
the order (God does like us; we do like God), then you've microscoped a
molehill into a mountain when the intent was never as you saw it.

I'm not saying you should like Dake, or use Dake.  I am saying that it is
unfair and untrue to make these assupmtions about Dake.  I've used his
reference Bible for quite some time, and know my way around it.  It
has an excellent concordance, and good references within the Scriptures.
It's commentaries are [mostly] enlightening, orthodox, and well-presented.
And if it is only "mostly" so, I'm big enough to see conjecture for what
it is (I don't know how Dake would stack up to Garth Weibe's position on
Creationsim, for example.  How many Christians have bought everything
Garth has laid out in his well-presented dissertation?).

Find me a heresy, and not a hearsay, and I'll be willing to decry Dake, too!
But I haven't, and all I've seen so far is hearsay.

Mark

    FWIW, I never condemned everything he writes.  I still don't agree with
    how he attempts to put God in a box.  And I especially detest his
    tritheistic teachings, which is blatant heresy.  Read "God's Plan for
    Man" by Finis J. Dake for yourself.  You will then see that it's no
    surprise that the cultic faith teachers derive some of their false
    teachings from Dake.
    
    The fact that this rathole isn't about Dake's commentary in .1 is
    irrelevant.  Most topics in here develop tangents.  Additionally, we
    have to be careful about blanketly posting material from people who
    support false doctrines.  Faithful in the little things, faithful in
    the big things...

>And I especially detest his tritheistic teachings, which is blatant heresy.

Forgive me if I doubt your track record in determining whether Dake is
teaching blatant heresy when it has been shown in this tangent (that
you started - for what reason) that you were wrong about what you thought
Dake said before.

There is no way, apart from reading the book, which you have asserted
contains these heresies, to defend against such slander except to point 
out that in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, he clearly does NOT teach
tri-theism and this, I think, is a figment of your prejudice.

Dake does NOT support a false doctrine and you are shameful to suggest it.
But it seems from your perspective, .15 was an attempt to be faithful in the
little things even though it had nothing to do with the topic.  But, Mike,
I assert that you are just plain wrong about this and are operating from
some prejudiced point of view from your religious perspective.  (Perhaps
Luther, Calvin, and Wesley were all heretics to each other.)

Mark

Tell you what, though.  If you have the book, and are willing, mail it
to me with the page reference.  I think that you think he's preaching
a tri-theistic (three gods) message.  I again say that his annotated Bible
says otherwise.

>Forgive me if I doubt your track record in determining whether Dake is
>teaching blatant heresy when it has been shown in this tangent (that
>you started - for what reason) that you were wrong about what you thought
>Dake said before.
    
    ...in your opinion.

>There is no way, apart from reading the book, which you have asserted
>contains these heresies, to defend against such slander except to point 
>out that in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, he clearly does NOT teach
>tri-theism and this, I think, is a figment of your prejudice.
    
    It's possible that he doesn't teach tritheism in the Annotated
    Reference Bible.  I no longer have my copy so I can't say for sure.
    My notes about the "Anointed One" is all I could find at the moment.
    There's plenty more to be found, given the time.

>Dake does NOT support a false doctrine and you are shameful to suggest it.
    
    Hardly.  You aren't in the position to make those claims based on just
    his annotated bible.  Faith teachers even credit him for the
    tritheistic heresy.  You don't have to read "God's Plan for Man" to
    realize he supports a false doctrine.
    
>Tell you what, though.  If you have the book, and are willing, mail it
>to me with the page reference.  I think that you think he's preaching
>a tri-theistic (three gods) message.  I again say that his annotated Bible
>says otherwise.
    
    You've got a deal.  BTW - that's 9 gods not 3.  Tritheism states each
    member of the trinity has a body, soul, and spirit.  3 x 3 = 9 beings
    in tritheism.  It's been a falsehood tossed around since the medieval
    era.  

FWIW, I read an article in Charisma magazine last week about Benny Hinn.  It
seems that Hinn is distancing himself from the faith movement in many ways, and
that God is leading him away from some false teachings he has made in the past.
He specifically referenced as one thing he was distancing himself from the 
9-part-God idea, with body, soul and spirit for each of the three of the 
trinity, and mentioned that he got the idea from Finis Dake's book "God's plan 
for man."

While Mike may possibly be incorrect in attributing this heresy to Dake, it is
also true that he is not alone in doing so.

Paul

>>what you thought Dake said before.
>    
>    ...in your opinion.

My opinion doesn't cast you in the role of a heretic unless I take your
tack.  Your opinion has smeared someone's character.

>>Dake does NOT support a false doctrine and you are shameful to suggest it.
>    
>    Hardly.  You aren't in the position to make those claims based on just

But you are?!  Incredible duplicity on your part, Mike.  See note 219.7
because I found Dake's Trinity stance.  If you want to pick some pieces
out of it, you may come away from your prejudiced view (because he does
say that each member of the Godhead has his own body, soul, and spirit,
and that God is three distinct persons, yet One God.  This is classic
orthodox teaching on the Trinity.  But patchwork selectivity that you
have demonstrated shows something else altogether.

>    You've got a deal.  BTW - that's 9 gods not 3.  Tritheism states each
>    member of the trinity has a body, soul, and spirit.  3 x 3 = 9 beings
>    in tritheism.  It's been a falsehood tossed around since the medieval
>    era.  

I don't see body, spirit, and soul as separable, unless you want to separate
a yoke, egg white, and shell from an egg, but they would not be separately
a distinct egg, any more than a person would be a distinct person by
spearating the body, soul, and spirit.  Further, Dake sure doesn't assert that
there is God the Father body, God the Father soul, God the Father Spirit,
et cetera...  He does assert that God the Father has body, soul, and spirit
(One person of the Triune Godhead, not three) and uses Scripture to back it 
up (what do you use?).

Please be so kind to step on over to 219 and let's discuss *YOUR* view of
the Trinity according to Scripture.

Mark

>He [Hinn] specifically referenced as one thing he was distancing himself from the 
>9-part-God idea, with body, soul and spirit for each of the three of the 
>trinity, and mentioned that he got the idea from Finis Dake's book "God's plan 
>for man."

"Got the idea," Paul?  How many people have "gotten ideas" from people's
works that were never intended by the author?  The question remains as
to whether Hinn adopted Dake's position verbatim, or whether Hinn took
it and misconstrued it.  

Want some examples?  David Koresh knew the Bible pretty well.  
And there some other well known religions out there today who have
bounced off of somebody's work without embodying the context of the
work.  And there are people who quote scripture to justify their
positions ("Wives submit!" without the accompanying responsibilities 
of the husband.)

>While Mike may possibly be incorrect in attributing this heresy to Dake, it is
>also true that he is not alone in doing so.

It's not the attribution of material but whether the man has committed the 
heresy Mike believes Dake to have committed, based on some of the things
another man (Hinn) has attributed to Dake.  That's not only unfair, but it
is downright misinformation if he has done so.

Now, in 219.7 Dake provides what he thinks is scriptural support for
his Trinitarian view.  He refers to God inthe singular (please note) and
believe that God is One.  He is also emphatic about pointing out the
Three Persons of God.  Three *Persons* - individuals.  As far as I know,
these are NOT unorthodox Trinity doctrines.  Perhaps you can be specific 
where Dake is incorrect in saying God is three distinct Persons (not 
three Gods) and back it up with Scripture as Dake has done?

Mark

    Benny Hinn retracted his statement in "Christianity Today" about the
    9-being trinity.  He also removed it from his first book ("Good
    Morning, Holy Spirit") in the second printing without a word about why 
    it was edited out.  However, he has been recorded on TBN since both of 
    those incidents where he has resurrected his belief in the 9-being trinity. 
    The man is confused.  He regards Dake as one of his biggest influences
    too.
    
    Here's some more classics I've found from Dake (with references):
    
    "God's Plan for Man" - Finis J. Dake, Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible
                       Sales, reprinted 1977, originally published 1949.
    
    - Many faith teachers have stated Adam was the first superman.  He could 
      fly like birds, swim like fish, and transport himself to the moon
      with a single thought.  They credit Dake with the idea.  ("God's Plan
      for Man", p. 35;  also Dakes Annotated Bible, Old Testament 1, col. 
      4 (note on Genesis 1:26), 619, col. 1, note 2).
    
    "Disease germs, which are so closely allied to the work of demons...are
    really material agents of Satan corrupting the bodies of his victims. 
    No remedy has ever been found that can cure diseases outside of the
    blood of Jesus Christ.  No drug can cure a single disease.  Any honest
    physician will admit that there is no healing power in medicines." -
    "God's Plan for Man" p. 241
    
    I can't remember if I posted all the sources for Dake's comments on God
    doing things like people and Christ having to earn the title "Anointed
    One", so here they are:
    
    NT p. 96, col. 1, p. 97 cols. 1-2; OT p. 388 col. 1b, p. 467 col. 1f. 
    NT p. 1 col. 1a
    
    time to do some real work...

Christianity Today, January 10, 1994, provides an article which says that
"Theologians, apologists, and scholars are taking a stand against teachings
found in the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, which they claim are
aberrational and unorthodox."

For those of you who frequent this file, or even read this note, you will
know that I took exception when an accusation came out of the blue (to me)
to "just say 'no' to Dake."  In the face of mounting evidence, I find myself
shuffling to align myself away from my own defenses.  As you will also know,
my views, regardless of the reference works I have used have been nearly
as orthodox as one might get.  (Or so I think.)

The article also says, "Dake's grandson and company spokesman Derrick Germaine
says nothing is wrong with the teaching. 'Does anyone in this carnal mind have
any idea, even from Scripture, that God does not live on a material planet?'
Germaine asks.  "I can even see Finis Dake's unorthodox view of the Trinity
as well as the orthodox one, and this is what separates us from everyone else.
When it comes to fine-line issues in thoelogical differences, everyone is 
entitled to their own opinion.'"

Note 319.* (Lessons from the Well) may indicate how important I think
orthodoxy is.  ("We worship what we know...")  I was sorry to see DARB
come under fire as it had, though I am quick to point out that I do NOT
condone nor support unorthodox teaching.  I am tolerant of some (some of
you are saying "yeah, right") and intolerant of other. Truth stands on 
it's own merits, and we all have seen the dynamic in our own relations
when we say, "I followed you up to this point and see things differently
after that."

(You know, have you ever had the experience of meeting up with another
Christian, one that you recognise because of the Family resemblance,
and yet there are some beliefs about this person you will never be able
to accept, not in a million years.  There are some things I CANNOT 
believe because revelation has been otherwise for me.  And yet, you 
meet someone in this aberrational context whose revelation (perhaps)
is incomplete, but you know they have Jesus as their Savior and Lord.)

Oh, I'm not a follower of the faith-movement, and find much of its message
to be too easily twisted into something contrascriptural, but revelation
of the truth doesn't always have to be with a bludgeon and often we may
be in the business of caring for bruised reeds, or dying embers where life 
exists, and should be encouraged and nurtured.  One can present the truth
to bring strength and direction to the unknowing without snuffing out the 
spark of life with disillusionment.

When we learn more of the truth, it is important how that truth is spread.
I don't intend to burn my [wife's] DARB.  It still has value, as having the 
KJV (and checked out with other Bibles I own), and as having a good concordance
for me to look up a subject.  Additionally, much of the commentary is
orthodox, which is why I had so much surprise (shock, even) over the strength 
of objection to Dake (having never [still] read God's Plan for Man).  I had no
clue that Dake was considered questionable by anyone.  Where there was
a difference in opinion with the DARB, I dismissed it as Dake's interpretation 
along the lines of personal speculation but not faith shattering; I saw no 
reason to reject it all as leading to damnation.

But, knowing people as I do (which is by no means perfect), guilt is often
by association, hence my disclaimer in this note, distancing myself from
those unorthodox views of Dake (especially some that the article claims).
The concluding remarks of the article say "[George] Wood [general secretary
of the Assemblies of God] says, 'I suspect that if anyone is using the
Dake's, they merely hunt and peck for what they want and ignore the rest.'"

I'm sorry Mike.

Mark

    Mark, I'll have to pick up a copy of that magazine, sounds interesting. 
    The following line really wasn't necessary since we've covered this
    before:
    
    >I'm sorry Mike.
    
    I'm sorry for what happened between us, and am glad you heard more
    information from another source.
    
    Mike

The article is on a single page, and had I the time,I would have entered it.
.43 shows most of the defense about which the article reports.  The language
of the opposition to Dake is sometimes strenuous (in my opinion), perhaps
not too much different than some of the language I've been reading lately
in skim mode in some other notes.

If the notes readers will bear with me repeating myself, "revelation
of the truth doesn't always have to be with a bludgeon and often we may
be in the business of caring for bruised reeds, or dying embers where life 
exists, and should be encouraged and nurtured.  One can present the truth
to bring strength and direction to the unknowing without snuffing out the 
spark of life with disillusionment."

Rejoicing at the fall of such public figures as Jimmy Swaggart and Jim
Bakker, regardless of your [non]denominational affiliation (and neither of
them were affiliated with mine), only fuels the fires of anti-Christian 
sentiment.  

Present Christ as Christ would present himself... in all things, which 
sometimes include the truth in love.

Mark