• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

God's Word in the O.T. and N.T., Logos and Dabar

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Evangelion, Jan 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    LOL! Firstly, the name which the later Jewish mystics gave to him is Metatron, not "Megatron." (See here.) The author of the book of Jubilees calls him Mastêmâ, while the Catholic Encyclopaedia concludes that he is Michael.

    Regardless of his specific identity, he is most definitely the angel of Yahweh's presence, and may be rightly called the name-bearing angel, since this is his primary function (as we see from the record of Exodus itself.) :cool:
     
  2. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    Documentation and evidence for what, pray tell? Remember, you're the one who's supposed to be providing documentation and evidence to prove your assertion that the Johannine Comma was part of the original NT mss. The burden of proof lies with you.

    If I don't get that proof, there's nothing to refute. It's as simple as that.

    Meanwhile, your Websites only offer speculation and obfuscation. The first attempts to present a "grammatical" argument for its inclusion, which Gary Hudson has refuted here. (Hudson has another excellent article on the deceptive methods which KJV-Onlists will use to defend the Comma, for which see here.)

    The same Website further suggests that the contentious passage was "suppressed by Origen" (a wild conspicary theory) and claims (without any historical proof whatsoever) that "In the contest with Arians, the Council of Carthage, and other early "Fathers" appeal to this verse with questioning confidence as a decisive testimony against them."

    It claims also that the verse existed in the Latin texts from the very beginning (again, there is no proof advanced for this insupportable assertion) but ignores the fact that both the Latin and the Greek arms of the Church were brought together during the Arian debate. Why, then, did the Latins not produce the Comma immediately?

    As Metzger, White and others have shown, the simple reason is that it didn't actually exist at this stage. :D

    The second Website spends all its time on Cyprian's work (for which see Wallace again), but again fails to explain why the verse was not raised at the Council of Nicaea. No textual evidence is presented in support of the claim that the Comma is an original part of the text.

    The third Website simply repeats the errors of the first two, but adds to its calumny with the following unsubstantiated claims:

    • 1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

      2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

      3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

      4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

      5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

      6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)

      7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

      A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)

      B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)

      C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)

      8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
    But we are not given any direct citations from these individuals (how strange!), nor are we referred to the texts from which they had taken their gloss (a curious omission!)

    When does Tertullian quote the verse - and in which of his works might it be found? Where does Athanasius quote the verse - and why was this not recorded at the Nicene Council?

    And so on, and so forth.

    There is no proof presented by your little Website here - just a list of baseless claims.

    ROTFL! The Zohar teaches no such thing, as I have demonstrated on numerous occasions. Moreover, the Zohar is not a pre-Christian source, and therefore tells us absolutely nothing about the Judaism before and during Jesus' day. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

    So now you are appealing to your interpretation of a Medieval Jewish work, which was entirely unknown to any of the Biblical writers. Hilarious! :D

    All this tells me is that later Jewish converts to Christianity read the Trinity back into the Zohar. It does not prove that the authors of the Zohar itself, believed any such thing. (Which is precisely what you're suppose to be proving.) Nor does it prove that the pre-Christian Jews, or the Jews of Jesus' day, believed any such thing. (Which, again, is precisely what you're supposed to be proving.)

    Any more irrelevant material where this came from? The Bhagavad Gita , perhaps? :D

    ...because it is totally irrelevant. :cool:
     
  3. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Incidentally, here's a quote from the Jews for Judaism Website, which comments on the deceptive twisting of the Zohar by Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum (founder of the Jews for Jesus ministry.)

    • Question: Is it true that the Zohar's commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) confirms the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?

      Answer: Not at All! This is a trinitarian related fraud, possibly created by the founder of the American Board of Missions to the Jews (now known as the Chosen People Ministries), Itsak Leib Jaszovics, alias "Rabbi Leopold Cohn," a saloonkeeper, convicted of forgery in Hungary. (For further information see, David Max Eichhorn, Evangelizing the American Jew, Middle Village, New York: Jonathan David Publishers, 1978, pp. 172-174.).

      The claim that the Zohar's commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4 confirms the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is based on a spurious passage attributed to that volume.] It appears in Cohn's tract, Do Christians Worship Three Gods? (pp. 4-5), published by the Chosen People Ministries.

      On the basis of his forgery, Cohn concluded that "According to the Zohar the Messiah is not only called Jehovah but is a very part of the triune Jehovah" (p. 5). This forgery is also perpetuated in the literature of the Jews for Jesus missionary organization. Using Cohn's spurious passage, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a born-Jewish Christian missionary, writes:

      "The Zohar, the great book of Jewish mysticism, recognized the concept of plurality in the Shema and commented as follows: Why is there need of mentioning the name of God three times in the verse? The first is the Father above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And the third one is the one which is below (meaning the Holy Spirit who shows us the way) and these three are one."
      (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jewishness and the Trinity, San Francisco: Jews for Jesus, 1978, p. 8. This article was first published in the Jews for Jesus publication Issues: A Jewish Christian Perspective, 1:8, 1978).

      Fruchtenbaum quotes faithfully Cohn's fraudulent passage. However, a simple examination of the relevant Zohar commentary on the Shema reveals that no such text exists in the Zohar. It should be noted that many other missionary organizations have quoted Cohn's forgery in their literature.
    See here for the relevant article.

    Here's a hint - if someone has to lie in order to support their argument, that argument obviously wasn't a very good one in the first place. :cool:
     
  4. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    I was told by one of the TOL members (yes, a Trinitarian member) that you were banned for profanity. Since experience has taught me that your language is somewhat "colourful" (to say the least!) I had every good reason to believe it.

    No, I cannot "admit that this is a deliberately false accusation", for I have yet to see any evidence that it is. Moreover, I had it from a Trinitarian TOL member. :D

    Oh, really? That's not what the people at TOL told me. And how could you possibly be banned for "a lie by another Christadelphian"? Since when have the TOL moderators been in the habit of taking their marching orders from Christadelphians?

    A peculiar claim, indeed... :cool:
     
  5. EPHRIAM777

    EPHRIAM777 A REAL NICE GUY..!

    448
    +0
    ....at 11:47 AM Evangelion said

    If you had taken the time to study Philo yourself, you wouldn't need me to explain his theology to you. :cool: [/B]


    Eph writes...

    OUCH....blunt and to the point...No pullin a punch I see...Hey EVAN..have ya been online a bit too long today...???

    Have a cookie or something...!


    :pray: ( don't hurt me next )...!
     
  6. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    I'm just piling up the evidence. Don't mind me. :)

    No, you've totally misread it (and totally misrepresented it. As usual.) The JE isn't saying that this "proves something about Christianity" - it simply observes that the same concept appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (as Irenaeus himself correctly observed.) Ever since Philo's innovation, the concept has been greatly abused by many different kinds of heretics. Marcus was just one of many.

    You're looking for conspiracy theories, in the hope of finding some excuse for avoiding the argument. You did the same thing with Dunn. It seems to be your modus operandi.

    No, what it's saying is that Christians are not at liberty to claim (quite arbitrarily, of course) that this memra is somehow a literal, divine person distinct from the Father. IOW, you are doing what you've just accused the JE of doing; superimposing your own theology onto someone else's religious books.

    The irony is priceless. :D

    Well, do you think it's a reasonable suggestion, or not? Do you think that they did make little use of the term because of the Christian overtones which were later superimposed over it? I suggest that this is perfectly true!

    But of course, the evidence for your claims is still sadly lacking...

    Seeing that it appears regularly in an ancient Hebrew source, written by men who did not believe in the Trinity (let alone a plurality of persons within the Godhead), I have every good reason to believe that it is a typical Hebraism. I don't need "authorities" to tell me that!

    Are you honestly trying to suggest that the writers of the OT saw this phrase as a reference to another divine person within the Godhead? If so, where is this ever taught in the OT?

    I'd like a straight answer, please.

    No, the relevance has yet to be established. Where is the evidence that the writers of the OT understood this phrase as a reference to a literal, divine person distinct from the Father? Where is the evidence that this is the concept that the phrase was intended to convey?

    I keep asking these questions, but you consistently fail to answer them. All you've shown me so far, is your personal interpretation of the OT text. That doesn't prove anything. :cool:
     
  7. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    ROTFL! No, you've only shown that later Jews were converted to Trinitarianism. Don't try and wriggle out by pretending to misunderstand me. I am asking you to tell me why the Jews who wrote the OT under divine inspiration, weren't Trinitarians. I want you to tell me why they did not believe the dabar to be a literal divine person, distinct from the Father. I want you to tell me why God never explained this to them.

    I have asked this repeatedly. I have been met with evastion, obfuscation and sheer desperation.

    Again - I am asking you to tell me why the Jews who wrote the OT under divine inspiration, weren't Trinitarians. I want you to tell me why they did not believe the dabar to be a literal divine person, distinct from the Father. I want you to tell me why God never explained this to them.

    Moreover, John does not refer to the logos as a literal person until verse 14, when the logos ginomai sarx. You have proved nothing here, and you are still evading my question. :cool:
     
  8. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    Oh, really? It's possible that God forgot to tell them He's really a Trinity?

    What a funny sort of god you must believe in.

    This doesn't prove anything about the Trinity. It makes no reference to a plurality of persons within the Godhead. It only tells me what I already knew - that some of the Jews misunderstood the Messianic prophecies. Not once does Peter say that they also failed to recognise the references to Trintiarianism in the OT. So why doesn't he say this, OS?

    Meanwhile, we have a plethora of prophecies about the Messiah. We have a record of clear, divinely inspired revelations on the subject, which were delivered directly to the prophets themselves.

    But none of the prophets ever make any mention of the alleged "Tri-unity" of God, much less a plurality of persons. It is simply not taught. The revelation simply isn't there.

    So you're comparing apples with oranges, which results (yet again) in another irrelevant objection.

    No, I blew it off because Philo's own work flatly contradicts it. So your source actually failed to tell the truth about Philo and is therefore useless.

    ...which again only begs the question "Why didn't the OT Jews believe in a plurality of persons within the Godhead? Where is your evidence that such a doctrine was revealed to them?"

    If you're trying to say that the word of God here is the pre-incarnate Christ, why don't the apostles ever make such a claim? Why doesn't Christ ever make such a claim? Why didn't God explain it to the OT prophets at the time?

    As usual, too many unswered questions. :cool:
     
  9. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    Oh, really? It's "entirely possible" that God forgot to tell them He's really a Trinity?

    What a funny sort of god you must believe in. :D

    This doesn't prove anything about the Trinity. It makes no reference to a plurality of persons within the Godhead. It only tells me what I already knew - that some of the Jews misunderstood the Messianic prophecies. Not once does Peter say that they also failed to recognise the references to Trintiarianism in the OT. So why doesn't he say this, OS?

    Meanwhile, we have a plethora of prophecies about the Messiah. We have a record of clear, divinely inspired revelations on the subject, which were delivered directly to the prophets themselves.

    But none of the prophets ever make any mention of the alleged "Tri-unity" of God, much less a plurality of persons. It is simply not taught. The revelation simply isn't there.

    So you're comparing apples with oranges, which results (yet again) in another irrelevant objection.

    No, I blew it off because Philo's own work flatly contradicts it. So your source actually failed to tell the truth about Philo and is therefore useless.

    ...which again only begs the question "Why didn't the OT Jews believe in a plurality of persons within the Godhead? Where is your evidence that such a doctrine was revealed to them?"

    If you're trying to say that the word of God here is the pre-incarnate Christ, why don't the apostles ever make such a claim? Why doesn't Christ ever make such a claim? Why didn't God explain it to the OT prophets at the time?

    As usual, too many unswered questions. :cool:
     
  10. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    Who cares? What it doesn't say is that this "word" is a literal, divine person distinct from the Father. So all you've done here is to prove (yet again) that the evidence you so desperately need for your anachronistic mangling of the text, just isn't there.

    Meanwhile, let's ask John Gill (your favourite commentator) about another passage where the same phrase is used:

    • the word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer;
      with whom he had used to advise about the will of God on various occasions, though in this he had neglected to consult him; the Targum calls it the word of prophecy from the Lord:

      saying; as follows.

      (c) åé÷í "et surrexit", Pagninus, Montanus, &c.
    Ooops! The Targum calls is "the word of prophecy from the Lord." (Which is precisely how Adam Clarke interpreted this phrase.)

    Here's another one from Gill:

    • 1Ki 6:11 - And the word of the Lord came to Solomon,....
      The word of prophecy, as the Targum, foretelling what would be the case of this building, according to the obedience or disobedience of him and the people of Israel; which was brought to him either by an impulse of the Spirit of God upon him; or by the hand of a prophet, as Kimchi thinks; and some of the Jewish writers (y), as he particularly, name Ahijah the Shilonite as the prophet that was sent with this message to him:

      saying,
      as follows.

      (y) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 20. p. 53.
    And again:

    • 1Ki 17:2 - And the word of the Lord came to him,....
      The word of prophecy, as the Targum; this shows that by word, in the former verse, he means the word of the Lord by him:

      saying;
      as follows.
    And again:

    • 1Ki 21:28 - And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite,....
      After he was gone from Ahab, and Ahab had been some time in this humble posture; the Targum calls it the word of prophecy, and so it was, as the next verse shows:

      saying: as follows.
    Examples could be multiplied. :D

    When written, a figure of speech becomes a literary device.

    LOL, I see. It's got to be "saying" something, does it? Picky, picky...

    ROTFL! :D Good catch! You get a smiley for that. :p

    What spin?

    I asked you this before, and you were strangely quiet...

    No, it's true because you jumped over my references, and threw out a bunch of irrelevant passages of your own.

    The Targumim (most of which were written after Jesus' day) are not equivalent to the OT. They're largely paraphristic, with rabbinical commentaries. Most of them don't even cover the full range of OT books. Targum Onkelos, for example (variously dated between the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD) only contains the Pentateuch. Others only address the prophetic works.

    Of Onkelos' literary peculiarities, the Catholic Encyclopaedia notes the following:

    • As regards the character of the translation it is, taken altogether, fairly literal. Anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions are avoided by roundabout expressions or in other ways; obscure Hebrew words are often taken without change into the text; proper names are frequently interpreted, as Shinar-Babylon, Ishmaelites-Arabs; for figurative expressions are substituted the corresponding literal ones.
    There's a world of difference between the OT and the Targumim.

    Don't you know the difference?

    ...which it doesn't, since (a) the OT is written in Hebrew, and (b) the Targumim are not equivalent to the OT. :p
     
  11. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    Why should I? It's not what Jesus quoted, it's not what any of the NT writers quoted, and it adds absolutely nothing to this debate.

    Isn't it interesting that your sources become further and further removed from the Hebrew OT, the more I press my argument?

    Oh, goody! This will be fun!

    Not only are the sentences totally different (both in their construction and their arrangement), but there is no evidence of plagiarism here. How else am I supposed to refer to Philo, pray tell? You're saying that I'm a plagiarist because I say who he was and where he lived. That's absolutely pathetic.

    Moreover, I was not even aware of Raddatz' Website until you spat the dummy.

    ...or anyone else's, for that matter.

    No, the definition from UC Davis does not even come close to convicting me.

    Alas, no.

    ...for which I provided not only a footnote, but also the relevant page numbers. Which you have consistently ignored.

    Which means that you're only interested in slandering me.

    Wasn't the footnote enough? I added it at the bottom of that entire paragraph, including Geisler's own direct quote from Philo. That whole section was clearly referenced. You've been given the page numbers.

    But you don't dare to look it up, because that would prove you wrong... :D

    • Raddatz says "reconcile Judaism and Greek philosophy."
    • I say "interpret Scripture in terms of Greek philosophy."
    The two sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. Their meaning is entirely disparate. Moreover, that is what Philo tried to do! (How else am I supposed to say it?)

    • Raddatz says "had a form of the logos doctrine ready made for the Trinitarians."
    • I say "Philo's philosohy was the original source' of what later became the logos theology of mainstream Christianity."
    Again, the sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. Their meaning is entirely disparate. As before, we're not even saying the same thing.

    • Raddatz says that Philo was "a liberal Jewish philosopher of the priestly class in Alexandria."
    • I say that he was "a well-educated Hellenic Jew from Alexandria."
    • Raddatz says that Philo "was laying the groundwork for the false Trinitarian doctrine."
    • I say that he "had a considerable influence on Christian leaders of the 'Alexandrian School', such as Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr."
    Again, the sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. Their meaning is entirely disparate. As before, we're not even saying the same thing.

    • Raddatz says that Philo's greatest contribution was "his fantastic method of allegorisation."
    • I say that "his allegorical method for interpreting Scripture also influenced Origen, Amgrose, Augustine, and others."
    Again, the sentences are clearly not equivalent. Indeed, they don't even say the same thing. We're both talking about Philo's use of allegory, and the fact that it influenced the later Christians. (How else am I expected to mention his use of allegory and its influence on later Christians without being accused of plagiarism?)

    So really, when it all boils down to it, I'm being accused of plagiarism because (a) I said that Philo was an Alexandrian Jew, (b) I said that Philo's logos concept was later reinterpreted by Christian theologians, (c) that Philo's use of allegory was similarly influential, and (d) that Philo attempted to interpret Scripture through Greek philosophy.

    Wow, you'd have a field day with history books, wouldn't you? Plagiarism ahoy! ("Look, Marcia - this guy says that Washington was our first president - and this guy says it too! I'll get those durned plagiarists, you just see if I don't!") :D

    Again - to date, you've pointed to a mere four sentences in which the same topic is discussed, using vaguely similar language.

    You have also ignored Geisler and www.jewishencyclopaedia.com, which discuss the same topic using near-identical language.

    I require you to address these two sources. If I am guilty of plagiarism, then so are they.

    Yep, you'll learn a lot, I'm sure. :D

    Why?

    From whom?

    ...which I then went on to prove.

    Yes. I demonstrated this in my original series of posts. Didn't you see the quotation from Geisler? He supports this argument quite cheerfully.

    Oh, it's true that similarity is not proof of derivation. But Philo's influence on the later Christian theologians is well documented - yes, even amongst mainstream Christian authors, such as Geisler.

    I suggest that it's time for you to extend the breadth of your reading.

    No, it's also the purpose of God - whether spoken or conceptualised.

    Pffft! Mere literary device.

    Where is your evidence that this was a literal divine person, distinct from the Father? Where is your evidence that this is what the pre-Christian Jews believed?

    Why won't you answer my questions? Why do you keep trying to take shelter in irrelevant references to Jewish converts of the post-medieval era? Don't play dumb with me, OS. Just try and squeeze out an answer, OK?

    Because (a) there is no evidence that a literal divine person distinct from the Father is here referred to, (b) there is no evidence that this is what the writers (or any other pre-Christian Jew... or any Jewish Christian of the 1st Century) believed any such thing, (c) there is no evidence that this is anything more than a literary device, and (d) your argument is a hopeless anachronism, supported by none but the most subjective of commentators. :cool:
     
  12. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Are we on speaking terms?

    I wasn't even aware that we had anything to say to each other. :cool:
     
  13. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Ephraim -

    LOL, believe me, that was nothing more than a tickle. :cool:
     
  14. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Ben -

    *snip*

    Straw man. That was not my argument.

    Meanwhile, Jesus makes no reference to his personal "essence." Not once does he claim to be God by virtue of his alleged divine nature.

    John 1:3 does not mention Jesus. It only mentions the logos of God, through which (as the Greek is more correctly rendered) the creation was performed.

    Thus:

    • Psalm 33:6.
      By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
    What "word of God" was it, through which all things were made? We are told that it was the breath of His mouth - IOW, the spoken dabar.

    Your interpretation contradicts the OT and is therefore insupportable.

    This doesn't tell me that he is equal to the Father. All it does is to prove my points about agency and representation, as previously noted.

    This doesn't say that Jesus is equal to God in salvic authority. It only says that the Son is the conduit through which we approach the Father. It specifically relegates Christ to a subordinate place in the salvic process.

    Christ was the sacrifice; now he is the High Priest. In neither role is he equal to God. Study the Law of Moses.

    LOL, you're ignoring the necessary qualification of this reference, as demonstrated by alternative texts.

    Namely:
    • II Kings 13:5.
      And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.
    • Nehemiah 9:27.
      Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.
    • Isaiah 19:20.
      And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
    • Obadiah 1:21.
      And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's.
    How many saviours, Ben...? :D

    A similar argument (another Trinitarian equivocation) is frequently made from the Biblical use of the word "redeemer." But, as with the word "saviour", the context is simply ignored by Trinitarian exegetes. Neither word is exclusive to God.

    Jacob refers to an angelic redeemer (Genesis 48:16.) Mortal men (Boaz, for example) were also redeemers. (An entire section of the Law was devoted to this topic.) The difference betwen Christ and mortal men, of course, is that he alone was capable of redeeming us from sin. And how was this done? Through the aid of another redeemer - God.

    Hence:
    • God, as Redeemer, provided the perfect sacrifice and thereby, a new way of life.
    • Christ, as redeemer, was that perfect sacrifice, and thereby, the gateway to that new way of life. (Hence, "No man cometh to the Father except through me.")
    This typology was clearly illustrated in the "sacrifice" of Isaac, the feast of the Passover, and the Law of Moses.

    There is no support for the deity of Christ here. :cool:
     
  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    I Kings 6:11, from the KJV:

    • And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying,
    The same verse, from the New English Translation - an evangelical publication, no less:

    • The Lord said[23] to Solomon:
    This is how the NET customarily renders "And the word of the LORD came to (x), saying..." The entire idiom is compacted into the basic meaning of the Hebrew itself, namely, "God said to (x)." (The NET also translates it as "the word of the Lord came to him", and similar constructions.)

    The NET contains a footnote against this verse, which says:

    • Heb “the word of the Lord was.”
    Oh, and I've just realised that I said "The corresponding foonote for this verse says." (But since when did foonotes talk...?)

    You see the relevance of this observation, of course. That same Hebraism finds a corresponding idiom in English. :cool:
     
  16. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Meanwhile, here's a question for any Trinitarian who wishes to answer:

    • How many disciples did Jesus baptise?
    :cool:
     
  17. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    :)
     
  18. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Evangelion- did I see where you stated that the "Word of God" in Revelation 19:13 was a "title?"

    Rev 19:13 And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his NAME is called "The Word of God".

    Not that it really matters either way to me. But..

    YHWH is a "name" not a "title." If "Word of God" is a substitution for "YHWH" then by your reasoning...:rolleyes:
     
  19. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others

    Second time the subject of this thread is NOT Philo, you started it so stick to the subject. YOU brought up Philo it is up to you to support what you say about him. The reader should not have to guess your sources and go look them up.

    This is the flimsiest cop-out I have seen yet. Maybe you should study English, then you wouldn't have to have me explain it to you. Your quote says the "unknowablility of God" NOT "God's essence" or "in one sense", etc. etc., "and "God can be known" If you meant essence or anything else then you need to write those words in there somewhere.

    Since you claim to have studied Philo, where does he "concluded that we can know God in one sense, but not in another.
     
  20. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Without properly citing or referencing you source. According to UC Davis and most other colleges, if a work is paraprhrased it must be cited. whining and crying about what someone else might or might not have done won't change it. Remember way back about your first year of school? "If everybody else jumped off the top of a building would you jump off too?" Aren't "brothers of christ, which is what you are supposed to be, held to a higher standard that secular writers?

    And we might just look into John 1:18 also, back about page 1 or so. Do you have your excuses and equivocations ready?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...