Heb 1:3 "Charakter" and "Hupostasis"?
"…kai charakter tes hupostaseoos autou…”
New International Version:
New Living Translation
"The Son radiates God's own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven."
English Standard Version
"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."
Berean Study Bible.
"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."
Here we see in these translations, expressions, such as,
"exact representation of his being" NIV
"expresses the very character of God" NLT
"he exact imprint of his nature" ESV
"the exact representation of His nature" BSB
Here we see, that, Christ is an 'exact representation of someone else, an expression' of the character of someone else, an exact imprint of the nature of someone else, an exact representation of someone else [His nature].
Something that is ‘representative… is a copy, radiance, mirror, imprint... or stamp’ of another thing or person cannot be that, which such, ‘represents… is a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp of’; thus, if Jesus was God, then, he would not be “a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp…an imprint” of himself, because, he would be that self…!
“…kai charakter tes hupostaseoos autou…” [and the representation of the substance of Him]
Here we clearly see that Paul uses the term “hypostasis” which various translations render that term “being, character, nature, person, essence, substance…” Paul is here talking about that which is real, reality and what Trinitarians seem to miss or just wish to ignore is that Paul uses the term “charakter” in association with “hypostasis”!
What does that mean?
The Greek term "charakter", comes from a tool that craftsmen would use, the “charakter” was a tool used for engraving purposes, the engraver would take some material and then very carefully began to carve an exact impression or likeness of something else, the engraver would want to capture the innermost ‘character’ of the subject, the term ‘charakter’ in time, came to represent a ‘mould’ and then, as time moved on it came to be a “stamp or an “impress” used in the manufacture, production of coins, it came to mean, a ‘copy, stamp, impression…’ of the subject matter, it was not meant to be that subject, but to merely ‘mirror, reproduce, reflection, be an expression of…’that subject, its purpose was to ‘communicate, express, reflect, radiate, mirror, represent…’ that which was ‘real’ the ‘reality’ of the subject; in every situation, the ‘charakter’ was to show or represent the ‘hypostasis’ [reality, that which is real…] it was not to convey the idea or thought that it “charakter” itself was the actual thing (subject) but to properly convey that which it reflected, represented, expressed...it was not the subject or the actual substance, nature…of the subject itself!
Trinitarians do not want to see this and that Christ is the express and exact *REPRESENTATION* of the Father (subject) no matter how wonderful or glorified Christ is, he is still a representation of the substance or being of God, not "the God"* himself, Jehovah God carefully concealed in his son (withing the limits of the human condition) the qualities and character he himself has and as such, when Jesus was on the earth, he was able to give his followers a glance of his Father, by exhibiting the qualities...that belonged to the Father, the Source of such, the son radiated, reflected...these qualities, so much, that he could say to his disciples, when "you see me, you see the Father", the son mirrored the Father's qualities perfectly, a far as the human conditioned allowed!
Illustration:
Trinitarians say they are representative (representations) of their church in that they are living representatives of the reality i.e. that which is ‘real’ = their church and then it could be said that, the two, the Trinitarians and their church constitute “God”, and why, that would be, because the two are the hypostasis [representative, reflections…] of how such is organised, structured, arranged, put together, composition of parts…!
Trinitarians have created a paradox and play the word game, but it still does not stop the truth from being manifest in some way…!
Just one last point:
Heb 1:3 NWT
"He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being..."
God's son is a copy, an imprint, a radiance, mirror... or stamp of God's "being" i.e. substance, he (Jesus) is not that substance or of that substance, no more than the moistened wax (material) left with an impress, is of the same substance (material) as the seal that impressed or imprinted it!
Once again, something that is ‘representative… is a copy, radiance, mirror... or stamp’ of another thing or person cannot be that, which such, ‘represents… is a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp of’; thus, if Jesus was God, then, he would not be “a copy, a radiance, mirror... or stamp…” of himself, because, he would be that self…!
To put it another way, Jesus is not of or shares the same "being" as the Father; this is interesting, as, for example, "being" is defined either as, an individual, a person and Trinitarians will on occasion employ this definition, as it then allows them to use the personal singular pronouns "I, he, him, you..." with the term "God", but, when pressed for a proper definition, of the term "being" they are hesitant, because they want the term "being" to sound, as though they are talking about an individual or person, thus allowing them the use of the singular pronouns in connection with the term "God", but, what they actually mean, when it comes right down to it, is that Trinitarians don't mean person...but "substance", which is synonymous with "nature..." and the Greek term for "substance" is "ousia", and most ordinary lay Trinitarians, unless they have studied the origin of the term "ousia", which origin lies in Greek philosophy, will have no idea and therefore, will be wholly ignorant as to the origin, that such "ousia" [substance...] lies at the root of Greek philosophy and that root is Aristotle, as the "ousia" chosen at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, was Aristotle's 3rd definition of such term and it was this "ousia" adopted by the Trinitarians, such an Aristotelian "ousia" is not to be found in the bible, so the Proto-Trinitarians,already seduced by Greek philosophy, especially, the emerging Neo-Platonism (and its substance sharing concept, see, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus...) had to look outside of the bible for a term that would suit their contrived doctrine and such a term they found in Greek metaphysics of the pagan Greek philosopher, Aristotle, but, such an extra-biblical term is wholly pagan and by adopting and ratifying such a term, Trinitarians are really pagan Christians, but most do not know it, because they do not know about the origin of their "substance" [ousia] term, as such lies with Greek mythology and not the bible!
No comments:
Post a Comment