Part II - Additional Details as to Who is Jesus?

Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
12 DEC 2007. Slightly revised 7 JAN 2018.

(Note: This paper may contain a few items that appear in part I.) In general, the invisible God's thoughts exist, in a sequence sense, prior to being manifested as physical, preternatural and supernatural entities. Throughout the Bible He personalizes His attributes. He personalizes His creation concept (Col. 1:17). "... Who is the image of the invisible God, . . . . all is created through Him," where the Greek translated here as "through" means "as an agent, a representative." Throughout the Old Testament, He "speaks" personally to various individuals and manifests Himself via physical and physical-like behavior. His most intimate personification is via Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22, 22:8), the "glorified" Jesus (Matt. 28:9, 17. John 20:14 - 25) and, especially, His Spirit (John 14:18, 21, 23). Then there is His additional "unveiling" as presented by John in his "Unveiling of Jesus Christ," which is the actual first phrase of this book usually called "Revelations."

This "logos" mode of expression is related to what is both the physically and supernaturally perceived Jesus and all related events. As noted elsewhere [8*], at the time this term was used by John, the word logos generally means a complete logical expression or complete logical account. It also can mean a complete oral expression or "saying." In Scripture, God applies His thought processes, when the Bible was originally transcribed, using the more easily comprehended notion of oral expression. "And God said," the Hebrew for "said" can and is translated as "thought" within the Bible. This personalization is a creation and Father attribute.

In what follows, the pre-fix "hyper" is used before a meaningful suffix. The notation * also carries this terminology. The meaningful suffix is an entire well-defined set or a member or members of such a set. These sets usually contain all of the original members of the defining set and many new ones. Various new ones are denoted as the "hyper" objects. These hyper-objects have the same "general" properties as the original members of the original set and they are predicted to have additional features. The new objects can be interpreted in different ways. For the theological interpretation, when the new member is a comparable attribute, such terms as infinitely "more," "greater than," "better than," "stronger than" and appropriate similar meanings are applied to the original suffix.

Such a complete logical expression is a rational concept since it has a mathematical model. Notationally, for the single complexity universe, the model is written as (*Λ(λ)*f(a,b)) [9], where this is the hyper-developmental paradigm form. (Using a general language, a "developmental paradigm" is a sequence of descriptions.) It contains the creationary scenario and all other aspects of this account. It has the exact form of the logical mental-like process God uses to create both physical and physical-like entities.

The hyper-algorithm, *A, when applied to (*Λ(λ),*f(a,b)) [9], displays the step-by-step hyper-mental process that implies that a higher-intelligence developed such an expression. There are various ways to produce an "ultraword" [6c, 8]. The method employed predicts the existence of such objects relative to sub-logical-systems of the ordinary propositional logic. Ultraword analysis gives some insight into why a highly important aspect of the Father is presently incomprehensible. The form *Λ(λ) can be considered as a "single" string of symbols, a special "ultraword." This is an extension of such accounts as symbolically presented during the first century A.D. [The pre-design and development of our universe via GGU-model processes (or this simplified version) satisfies this logos.]

In what follows, a basic theological concept is analyzed. Relative to 1 Cor. 15:1-2, the Paul rule, one can ask, "Does the acceptance of this concept actually effect salvation if individuals follow the explicit directions of Jesus and His Apostles?"

Does there exist a separate supernatural Spirit entity, the pre-existent Christ or the second person, with sufficient underlying attributes to be classified as a separate enteral invisible God, that is transformed, in some manner, into the physical entity that is Biblically referred to as the man Jesus? Or, relative to all things related to created humankind, is there a created supernatural agent through which the Father acts; a comprehensible agent "who is an image of the invisible God." (Col. 1:15) Maybe what I present here and elsewhere can aid you in answering this question or the previous one.
In the following, the material between the [[ and ]] is either the basic Greek meaning, the actual Greek word or an additional remark. Since there is no well known single English term that carries the correct meaning for the Greek "logos," a "complete logical account," where in this case it is the "complete logical Jesus account." This Greek term should be transliterated.

From the Greek literal translation of the oldest manuscripts, we have "In the beginning [[originally]] was the logos and the logos [[a complete logicl account]] was toward [[directed, does not divert from]] God and God was the logos [[In particular, the Jesus mental-like concept and all else that relates to it.]] This was in the beginning [[originally]] toward [[directed, does not divert from]] God. All come into being through [["δι" is a channel or agent. It denotes mediate and not original ownership.]] it [[it = "auto" = the logos]] and apart from it [[it = "auto" = the logos]] not even one thing came into being which has not come into being. In it [[it = "auto" = the logos]] was life, [[Jesus]] and the life was the light of men. And the light is appearing in darkness, and the darkness grasped it not" (John 1:1-5). Please note that the Greek "auto" can be translated as "it" "him" or "he." Translating this as "him," or "he," in certain places, is not the common understanding that one would have during the first-century A.D. Such a translation seems to imply unintended consequences unless the term "logos" actually has another "hidden" meaning of which the Apostles are not aware.

In certain contexts, is it possible that John considered the term "logos" to have an entirely different meaning? After the first century, it is claimed that the term "logos" is a code word for a spirit-type entity, the "pre-existent Christ," that is not exactly the same as the "invisible" Father spirit-entity. The pre-existent Christ is in the "second place" and explicitly follows all of the Father's requests as Justin Martyr claims. The Holy Ghost is yet another "invisible" spirit-entity distinct from the Father and pre-existent Christ. Each of these entities is a "God" in that each has the same underlying "God" structure. These two additional entities are not created and each is eternal in the same sense as the Father is eternal.

Today, this is how they are unified. The idea that God is the one and only one entity of this Divine type is stated hundreds of time in the Bible. This absolute idea is modified by the philosophers to mean that there can be more than one such entity as long as they have the same underlying "God" structure, the same "substance," the same "hy(u)postasis" (standing-under, an assumption). Indeed, this Greek term - hypostasis(es) - is used as a type of code word within much of today's Christian theology. For this theory, the claim is that when the Bible states there is one God this means that there is one "God" determining substance they each possess.

If there are "three" such entities, can there be many more? A major religion states that there can be millions of such "Gods." Such polytheism is the foundation for the philosophers of Christianity and cannot be found in any direct form within the Scriptures unless special meanings are given to the terms used, alterations are made or new terms added. This need not in itself make such polytheism incorrect.

This polytheism was instituted by Justin and others in the second-century for various reasons. Justin implies, in his extant writings, that the pre-existent Christ concept destroys the one-God absolute monotheism of the Jews. It was not the invisible God, or His agent, that conversed with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. but, rather a different God, the pre-existent Christ [7, p. 223]. Further, Justin claims that the Jews, as represented by Trypho, are being persecuted for specific reasons. According these things have happened to you in fairness and justice for you have slain the Just One [7, p. 202]. Further, they do not repent from (their) evil deeds [7, p. 200]. For after you crucified Him . . . . You do not repent of the wickedness which you had committed [7, p. 203].

Justin and others were so nieve that they could not accept that God ordained that Jesus should suffer and die on the cross exactly as He did. Without this, "death" would not have been defeated and our salvation would not be possible. The Jews did not independently cause Jesus to die on the cross. The crowd calls for His crucification and Pilate decides to grant their request. But, God Himself requires this event to occur.

Further, it is stated that this polytheism was introduced to help reduce the suffering experienced by those that follow Biblical teachings as "wrongly" understood by the authorities. These philosophers were not attempting to substitute for the accepted polytheism a strict monotheism, but rather they were following polytheistic ideas.

In Justin's first apology to the emperor, he writes,

"And when we say that the Word, who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: . . ." [7, p. 170]
Justin then lists many of the sons of Jupiter with attributes that correspond to those of the man Jesus.

To continue substantiating this claim, Justin proposes that this Christian polytheism was known by the "demons" and they inspired the poets to created mythological "sons" in order to discredit the Christians. Justin writes that this Christian concept of more than one "god-type" of entity does parallel the gods accepted by most other members of the society in which these Christians find themselves. Justin continues to argue that Christians of his time should not be persecuted for their belief in these newly revealed spiritual entities since they correspond to similar entities that are worshiped. The view was and is that the pre-existent Christ spirit-entity changed into the man Jesus. The facts are that there were Logos-Gods. For example, consider Zeus's son Hermes who was the god of speech, language, oratory (oracles) [[logios]] and the like. He is the "logos" of this "Zeus" myth.

In later times, this polytheistic notion of "changing into" is strongly expressed. Eusebius writes in his "The History of the Church" [10, p. 35]

"Reason would never allow that the uncreated and immutable substance of Almighty God should be changed into the form of a man, or, alternatively, that by the illusion of any created thing it should deceive the eyes of the beholder, or that Scripture should falsely invent such a tale. Who then could be spoken of as God, and Lord who is the judge of all the world and does justice, appearing in human shape? As it is not permissible to suggest the First Cause of the universe, there is only one answer - His pre-existent Word."
Rather than follow Paul's advice and wait until we are "face-to-face," these philosophers must, I suppose, develop such notions in order to justify their existence as intellectuals. Indeed, after 800 years of effort, it was discovered how to cloak the concept in vaguely known philosophic terms. This vagueness has not altered the basic polytheistic foundation. The "Church Fathers" simply used forbidden modes of analysis rather than accept the strict first-century meanings for the Biblical terms. Thus, they embellished the notions by altering the Scriptures in various ways. They did not follow Paul's advice.

John tells us exactly who Jesus is. His statement cannot be misinterpreted. The three most ancient Greek manuscripts are all consistent in the Greek. John 1:18 states that Jesus is "The only-begotten [[generated]] God." For the logos concept and our present level of comprehension, God "mentally" collects His Father attributes and personalizes them via the notion of His Son - the Jesus representation. These attributes include Jesus as "representing" His created physical and physical-like realities. Hence, collectively, these constitute an absolute representation for the Father's attributes, the only-begotten God, that carry God's personal name Jesus or Jesus Christ. He is perceivable as the Son of God and the glorified Jesus.

However, to remove any idea from John's statements that the manifestations are "generated" by the invisible God, rather than those of a pre-existent spirit-entity, the last word "God" has been altered in all of the major Biblical translations. The term "Son" is substituted for "God." If one assumes that John is in error, then the entire Bible is suspect; it would not be trustworthy.

John uses this logos [[account]] coupled with the term God to indicate its contents. Is it possible that the Holy Ghost actually deceives John, an individual who most probably holds the Hebrew view against idol gods, and doesn't mention that the "logos" concept is modeled after Hermes, a son of Zeus? It was a well know Greek practice in drama to name an account after a specific character, for example Antigone and Media. In John's writings, we find that this specific account can be titled with the name Jesus or Jesus Christ (Rev. 19:13). Of course, this does not prevent, as mentioned, individuals from accepting that later "revelation" indicates that these original understandings should be altered. Indeed, this type of "revelation" can be used as a reason to make extensive alterations in the first-century understandings. This is exactly what has been done to justify some rather dangerous cults.

Relative to transforming thoughts into various realities, consider the following translations. (KJV) King James Version, (ASV) American Standard Version, (ML) Modern Language, (NLT) New Living Translation, (ESV) English Standard Version, (RSV) Revised Standard Version, (DBY) Darby Translation, (WEB) Websters Bible, (HNV) Hebrew Names Version. Generally, in Genesis we have "God said, Let there be . . . " and physical entities appear. The Hebrew for "said" is 'amar. This word is also translated as "think," "thinks" and "thought." This is a special idiom peculiar to the Hebrew.

Here is how it is translated in three places in various Bibles. " 'amar" is translated as "think" or "thinks" in 2 Sam 13:33 in KJV, ASV, WEB, HNV; "thought" in ML. It is translated as "think" or "thinks" in 2 Chr. 13:8 in KJV, NLT, ESV, RSV, ASV, DBY, WEB, HNV. It is translated "think" or "thinks" in Ecc. 8:17 in KJV, ML, DBY, HNV. Thus, it is very reasonable and obvious that the idea behind all of the Genesis statements is that "God thinks, Let there be . . . ." This is the same as when we "speak" within ourselves, mentally speak.

For years, people have stated that the Biblical God is better understood as a mind. "According to what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is any thing else we know" [2]. These uses of 'amar and observations of others is why the previously constructed mathematical model that mimics modes of deductive thought is applied to God's creationary processes. This leads to the general conclusion that, for comprehension, the invisible God transforms His thoughts, His ideas, into physical and other realities. This is what the complete Jesus concept - the logos - entails. God transforms this logos - a complete logical account - into physical and other realities.

As mentioned, we are told that Jesus is the only-begotten God (John 1:18). Hence, He carries this additional title due to the attributes He is accorded. Indeed, He is accorded all the intended attributes after He is perfected (i.e. "finished," "mature" or "complete.") (In Rev. 22: 3-5, the linguistic construction implies that John's only-begotten God and the "Lamb" are synonymous.) These are additional hyper-attributes that He acquires when He is perfected. In general, hyper-attributes are displayed in restricted form during His earthly ministry. The Jesus account, the Son of God, is the most important aspect of His existence. Indeed, without this Jesus aspect there would be no logos and no physical universe. As indicated, the New Testament tells us that the physical creation of our material universe is a Jesus manifestation. Various Jesus type manifestations, including those during Old Testament times, are an integral part of this general concept.

The Jesus account is a type of ultimate agent that represents the Father and through which the universe comes into being via the transformation of God's thoughts into physical reality. Paul testifies to this. ". . . neverless for us, there is one God, the Father, out of [[from]] whom all is [[created]] and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all is . . . ." (1 Cor. 8:6 (Oldest Greek Manuscripts)). Recall that the word "through" signifies an agent (representative) and denotes to mediate and does not denote original ownership. Notice that Paul states that comprehending God, in this way, as the Father is "for us."

The relation between the Father and the Son is also how the title "Son of God" can be interpreted. One problem that presents itself is the notion of "time" relative to the logos-thoughts. In John's "In the beginning," the "beginning," comes from the Greek for "origin" and refers to "time." Hence, the beginning of "time." Outside of physical time, God should not be classified relative to such a time notion. For our present level of comprehension, in order to avoid a time notion, it is better to state that He "exists."

God presents Himself in various forms that can be difficult to describe. By design, the Jesus form is knowable. Potentially, Jesus has describable attributes that the invisible God does not, in generally, directly exhibit; Jesus' human and glorified human-like attributes. The attributes Jesus displays depend upon the circumstances.

Recall again that each description of Jesus that is given is restricted to a particular environment. Jesus, in His perfected form, is related in a rather special way to the God's Spirit. He must possess specific hyper-attributes of God. These are those that are detailed by the "logos." How this is accomplished and the fact that He possess them all is presently incomprehensible. At present, our knowledge of how God's Spirit is related to other entities is restriction to the "indwelling" property. For Jesus, as He is restricted to the physical universe, this is Biblically acknowledge in Matt. 3:16-17.

The concept of God's Spirit is a highly difficult properly to describe. This is especially so when one considers that today our society is strongly attuned to the concept of a "material reality." As John 1:18 states, "No one hath seen God at any time." This "seen" is to perceive with the eyes. A mathematical model [6d] rationally predicts that the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and other entities affect our thinking. Many individuals, including myself, have witnessed "miracle events." These are usually one-time physical events that do not follow any known physical law and have a describable purpose. Individuals, including myself, have physical indications that under specific conditions the Holy Spirit is active. But, this gives no indication as to how an invisible entity can possess the behavioral properties that are the very essence of its classification. These properties are not described via physical measures, measures that are used to identify entities that reside within our universe.

For Quantum Field Theory, there are the invisible quantum fields. They cannot, generally, be perceived by any sensors. If they exist, their presence is only indirectly indicated when various physical properties they are claimed to carry (possess) produce assumed "particles" that affect gross matter. Some physicists are so enthralled by this concept that they substitute field-language terms for the term "particle." A particle is a "ripple" in the field, an "excited state." The behavior can be described using "particle" language. This, of course, has no meaning unless one can identify more exactly what field entities are "rippling" so as to distinguish them from those that are not "rippling." This notion comes from the "vibration" language. Things that are represented by the notion of vibration can be endowed with energy. Since Planck's constant is in terms of the joule-second unit, trivially, multiplying this by a "frequency" yields "energy." Of course, these excitations must yield specific characterizing properties in order for them to behave as if they are "particles."

For pure quantum field theorists, these fields are assumed to exist as primitives. Even if one replaces such fields with "string" behavior, then the same "primitive" notion applies to strings as well. A "primitive" is a physical entity that is not considered as composed of more fundamental entities. Quantum fields have physical properties and theoretically they identify each quantum physical "particle." Of course, from such particles our entire physical universe is assumed to emerge. This example, among others, is given only to indicate that a present-day physics community accepts various "invisible" entities that only indicate their presence via predicated effects as displayed by gross matter.

The atheistic view is that these results are rationally predicted and, thus, no God is needed. However, the GGU-model predicts the exact same physical results, where such a field theory is used as a mere instrument for calculation. That is, the invisible primitives are imaginary and the extensive mathematical processes used to predict the behavior of gross matter only indicate that it is but a scheme for predicting behavior that, from the secular viewpoint, we cannot otherwise comprehend. For the physics community, not accepting the existence of the invisible Spirit of God cannot be based upon a rejection of invisible entities.

Are there non-comparable hyper-attributes of the Father? The most obvious is that the Father is pure Spirit. In His human or His completed form such as in Revelations, Jesus is not described as an invisible spirit-being. Each description of Jesus that is given is restricted to a particular environment. But, Jesus, at the very least, in His perfected form is related in a rather special way to this Spirit. He must actually possess, at the least, all of God's hyper-attributes that are related to His "logos" in some presently incomprehensible way if He possesses but one of them. The restriction of God's Spirit leads to an "indwelling'" property.

The GGU-model has a feature that indicates why speculative details relative to an invisible spirit entity need not apply to the Spirit of God. It is shown in [6c] that "ultranatural events" occur whenever physical events occur. For this theological interpretation, ultranatural events appear to be associated with the Spirit's interactions with His created realities. The mathematics predicts that there is a higher-language (i.e. hyper-language) that hyper-meaningfully describes these events and that no biological entity can have complete comprehension as to all aspects of these descriptions. This higher-language is the type of language that is most likely necessary to give an in-depth description for God's non-physical world. We are promised that any problems we continue to have in comprehending Jesus will be eradicated when we are "changed" so as to be in His presence. As mentioned in Rev. 22:3-5, His glorified church should be able to more fully comprehend the equality of Father, and Son hyper-attributes including those hyper-attributes that are not comparable to any human attribute. This, of course, also relates to the immaterial aspects of His Spirit.

It is shown, in section 9.2 of [6c], that there is an additional "alphabet" that is used for this higher-language. What is presented there includes a higher-alphabet for the higher-form of natural numbers. Recall that Hebrew uses its alphabet to form its basic numerical system. But, it does not use the basic combination of symbols to represent the numbers 10 + 5 = 15 or 10 + 6 = 16 since these yield a non-numerical concept. They form alternate names for God. From the alphabet viewpoint, these higher-numbers cannot all be formed by use of a finite-string of original alphabet symbols. Due to a property of the mathematics used to generate the GGU-model, they could be formed from a hyper-finite combination of the finite Hebrew alphabet. Or, there can be an additional hyper-alphabet.

In mathematical logic, an extended symbolism is often employed, where this symbolism conceptually carries information that corresponds to each informal natural number. Since we are now able to imagine the infinite set of natural numbers [6e], then accepting an additional set of alphabet symbols is not only rational but imaginable. These new alphabet systems can be used to produce hyper-meaningful statements. This is not the same as the examples for the general paradigm given in [6c]. Using this approach, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul's statement 1 Cor. 13:12, relative to knowledge given to members of His glorified church, and his statement about a higher-language (2 Cor. 12:4) will yield additional facets of God's Spirit that, at present, are entirely incomprehensible.

The concept of a higher-language and higher-alphabet represents a model that need not correspond to the standard notion of expressing ideas by a sequential list of symbols. When knowledge is obtain in this sequential manner, then it is usually associated with a time component. However, relative to a higher-language, a string of symbols need only be a model for acquiring knowledge, as a totality, without the need for such a step-by-step process.

It is necessary that the "representation" notation be applied. This means that the perfected Jesus is the only-begotten God, a perfect representation for the invisible God's Father attributes, and as such carries this title. As rationally deduced and as mentioned elsewhere, if Jesus displays but one of the Father's hyper-attributes, then He possesses all of them when viewed from the Third Heaven. (Using a technical approach, this last statement is verified by equation (3) in [5].) These statements are not dependent upon our present level of descriptive knowledge.

Looking at the hyper-attributes Jesus displays in His perfected form, it is self-evident that Jesus is a "personal name" for the Father, where this further indicates that He is the Saviour of the Old and New Testaments. This correspondence is mentioned in Isa. 9:6, where Jesus is called the "everlasting Father." In the Old Testament, it is stated that the Biblical God is the only Saviour. And, "Jesus" is the Greek [[(modern form) Ιησουν (oldest Greek manuscript form) IHCOYN]], Joshua, Jehovah-is-salvation or Jehovah-is-Saviour. The LORD (KJV) which appears for the Tetragrammaton YHWH 6,800 times in the Bible, is today generally noted as Jehovah.

Jehovah has a very general meaning immediately related to the phrase "I am." It expresses the concept of the "self-existent one," an "Eternal one." Then, relative to the created universe, the term is expanded upon to give it greater significance for all of humankind. Thus, a basic expansion included in the name Joshua is the concept of "the Saviour." Apparently, in order to honor God in this way, during Biblical times many individuals carried the name Joshua. This name is what an angel stated that Joseph should call Him (Matt. 1:21). Hence, the name itself represents the most important restriction of God's attributes to our created environment. Certain attributes are not, at present, being observed and others, such as "Eternal," cannot be observed by a time dependent entity. It was not until the New Testament, where a much, much fuller expansion is described, that Jesus is recognized as a "personal" name.

Hence, relative to the restriction concept, one can apply the faith [[pistis]] notion; an assumption of what is being expected, a conviction concerning matters which are not being observed and Paul's statement ". . . then I (we) shall know fully" (1 Cor. 13:12 (NIV)). If there are other non-qualified attributes, then each needs to be accepted in this manner. As mentioned, it is shown in the mathematics paper [6b], that the strength of a qualified hyper-attribute is only partially measurable by the mathematics applied. Such measures do rationally imply the existence of an ultimate measure, an ultimate-hyper-attribute, which needs to be accepted as a faith statement.

Paul was, for a time, with the other Apostles and preached the same message (Acts 9:27-28). Peter states (2 Pet. 3:15-16) that Paul's letters express the same doctrine as that of the Apostles, although "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand" (NIV). Among others, such a letter is most likely Colossians. Hence, whenever one considers Paul's writings they need to be consistent with the concepts understood by the Apostles, especially those of John.

Different "Jesus" manifestations and the logos concept make Biblical passages that have been considered as difficult to interpret somewhat more easily understood. Consider from the Literal Greek Col. 1:15 - 17. "Who is the image of the invisible God, [[A describable set of Father attributes. A most significant aspect of God's plan.]] Firstborn of every creature. [[If an ordering is considered for the logos events, then the idea of presenting the various Jesus manifestations and all that this yields is an event that precedes the creation of every other creature.]] for in Him is all created, . . . , [[Jesus represents, as an image, all the Father creation attributes. This includes the mathematically modeled creation attributes. In various places, the "Him" can refer to the logos account since John directly implies that this account can be named as the "Jesus account" or simply "Jesus" (John 1:5). In order to enhance the pre-existent Christ concept, the "in" is, however, often translated as "by".]] all is created through Him and for Him, [[As mentioned, this is a type of agent and it denotes to mediate and not original ownership. In totality, Jesus is the entity we worship as God and Saviour and is the only entity with comprehensible Father attributes.]] He is before (relative to created time ) all (of the created stuff) [[This is obvious. This concept exists in a sequential sense prior to the described creation activities.]] and all (created stuff) has cohesion (holds together) in Him." [[The theologically interpreted GGU-model shows how cohesion is a direct result of the creator attributes. Logically the two "all" quantifications have no truth value unless they are interpreted. You must specify the domain to which the "all" applies. This is a list of the "stuff" the Bible states is created.]]

A few more Scriptural examples of how Jesus relates to the Father attributes should suffice. In John 14: 9 - 11. Jesus states, "He who has seen me has seen the Father. . . ." The Greek word translated "seen" means "to perceive with the eyes." They have, indeed, seen restricted and displayable attributes of the Father. They cannot "see" any more than the ones Jesus displays. "Believe me, I am in the Father and the Father in me." This is the clearest absolute statement of an equality of various Jesus and the Father attributes. For Jesus, each Father related manifestation is restricted to the environment where it appears.

There are various examples where the most ancient Greek manuscripts have been altered by most translations. For various reasons, the book called "Hebrews" was one of the disputed books. However, the arguments were not persuasive and it is included as an official New Testament book. In Hebrews 1:8, the NIV states "But about the Son he says." But "he says" does not appear in the Greek. It should be "Yet as far as [[relative to]] the Son." God did not directly make this statement which is from Psalm 45:6, 7. It is the Psalmist making the statement and the writer of Hebrews is employing the Psalmist words as his own. Indeed, the linguistic structure of this statement is not as God expresses Himself in the Old Testament.

The NIV adds words at the start of Hebrews 1:10 -12. The phrase is an altered "He also says." The "He" and "says" does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts. These verses are not direct quotations from God, as the additional two words would have us believe. They are quotations from Psalm 102:25-27, which are not direct quotations. It is "a prayer of an afflicted man" (NIV) and, once again, the writer of Hebrews uses these statements to describe characteristics of the Father and, hence, those of the only-begotten God concept. Then Hebrews 1:13 is from Psalm 110:1 and David seems to indicate that this is a type of direct quotation from God relative to their original notion of a Messiah. Thus, we have a mixture of direct quotations from God, Old Testament statements made by others, and added words or phrases. Do the added words imply that God, the Father, rather than the Psalmist, is speaking about the pre-existent Christ as a separate entity rather than the only-begotten God in all of His manifestations as an absolute representation of Himself to His church? Are such additions made in order to alter the "only-begotten God" concept and enhance the notion of a pre-existent Christ as a spirit-entity?

If there is but one contradiction within the pages of the entire Bible, then it becomes a worthless document. There is, at least, one that is fostered by the addition of words to Hebrews. The above Hebrews 1:8 "he said" addition is enhanced by Today English Version, where it is stated as "God said." For this Psalm, its very structure indicates that this is not true. It is the writer of Hebrews stating the words of the Psalmist. The addition of such words has produced the contradiction "God has said a statement and God has not said a statement." Of course, this is corrected by removing the added phrase. Is it reasonable that in the finest piece of Greek prose that appears in the New Testament, Hebrews, that the writer believes that it is necessary that God "utter" a Psalmist statement as a means of expressing His thoughts? In various cases, is it not more reasonable that the Psalmist statements reflect the views of the writer of this letter, views that are certainly correct about the perfected Jesus? One can also ask, does God, through this writer, intend to mislead?

Today, polytheistic Christianity is most strongly defending via a 800 hundred years of effort that, in order to hid its actual foundations, employs a rather vague philosophic language. This polytheistic interpretation does not contradict the mathematics that leads to the equations (2) and (3) in [5]. Whether one accepts this type of polytheism rather than Apostolic Christianity depends upon other factors external to the mathematics itself. Then as stated previously, "Does the acceptance of this polytheistic concept actually affect salvation if individuals follow the explicit directions of Jesus and His Apostles?"

The Scriptures state specifically that Christ is pre-existent only in the sense of being the absolute essence of the invisible God's logos that, if a sequential ordering is applied, precedes creation. There exists one and only one non-created entity - the partially describable invisible God. Everything else that exists is the product of His thoughts.

The important reference [5] is the next level of complexity in modeling the Jesus attributes. It presents more detailed descriptions as to the methods employed, but it does not give the actual mathematical "proofs" used to obtain the results stated. These appear in references [6c] and [9].

Reference

[1] Eysenck, H. J. in "The Humanist Alternative; Some definitions of Humanism," (ed) Kurtz, Paul, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, (1973).

[2] Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, MacMillan Paperbacks, New York, (1960), p. 32.

[3] Vine, H. E. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Revell, New York, (1940).

[4] The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol 1, (1975), p. 548-549.

[5] Herrmann, R. A. Modeling Divine Attributes or http://raherrmann.com/attributes.htm or The vixra.org version.

[6a] Herrmann, R. A. Measuring Intelligence http://raherrmann.com/measureintell.htm

[6b] Herrmann, R. A. Mathematics paper Immeasurable http://raherrmann.com/measureintell.pdf

[6c] Herrmann, R. A. The Theory of Ultralogics, Part I and Part II.

[6d] Herrmann, R. A, Nonstandard Consequence Operators Generated by Mixed Logic Systems "The rationality of hypothesized immaterial mental processes," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 43(2)(2006):127-129.

[6e] Herrmann, R. A., How to Imagine the Infinite.

[7] Justin Martyr, Vol. 1, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Eerdman's Publishing Co. Grand Rapids Michigan.

[8*] Who is Jesus?

[9] Ultra-logic-systems and *developmental Paradigms http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0145v1.pdf

[10] Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, (Tr., G. W. Williamson), Dorset Press, New York, (1965).


Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.