If Jesus is the TRUE God, who is his SON Jesus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Please correct me some more Kain

Jewish Encyclopedia, On The Zohar
These and other objections of Emden's, which were largely borrowed from the French ecclesiastic Jean Morin ("Exercitationes Biblicæ," pp. 359 et seq., Paris, 1669), were refuted by Moses ben Menahem Kunitz, who, in a work entitled "Ben Yoḥai" (Budapest, 1815), endeavors to show the following characteristics: that the vowel-points were known in Talmudic times; that the rites which Emden claimed to have been ordained by later rabbinical authorities were already known to the Talmud; and that Simeon ben Yoḥai, who before taking refuge in the cave was designated only by the name of Simeon, is credited in the Talmud with many miracles and mystic sayings. Another work in favor of the antiquity of the Zohar was published by David Luria under the title "Ḳadmut ha-Zohar" (Königsberg, 1855 [?]). It is divided into five chapters, in which the author gives proofs that Moses de Leon did not compile the Zohar; that the Geonim in Babylonia cite cabalistic doctrines from a certain "Midrash Yerushalmi," the language of which strongly resembles that of the Zohar; that the work was compiled before the completion of the Talmud; that a great part of it was written in the period of Simeon ben Yoḥai; and, finally, that the Aramaic language was used in Talmudic times as well as in the geonic period.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z

Read on, Old Shepherd, read on. Read of the Hindu influences, and later the Christian influences. The Zohar is a great mess of a book with various authors who made additions and alterations over time, non-canonized and is not related to the core Jewish or Hebrew faith.
 
Upvote 0
"I totally agree, God is one, Christ is God, Holy Spirit is God, The Father is God..therefore 3 in 1 and 1 in 3."

I counted God 3 times. That's 3 different Gods you glorify. Call it one if it will make you feel better, but know that it is 3.

Of course, your statement contradicts much of the New Testament where the desciples and Jesus himself repeatedly claim that only the Father is God.

But hey, they must be lying while your telling the truth.

Do you also pray to the saints?
 
Upvote 0

franklin

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
May 21, 2002
8,103
257
Bible belt
Visit site
✟9,942.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
   Originally posted by LouisBooth
IF they adhere to essential christian docterine they are:)
What is so essential about the doctrine of the trinity booth?  The only thing that makes it essential is the traditions of men!  It certainly isn't essential according to the scriptures! 
  
"Please NOTE that apostle Paul SAID Christ was "in the very nature OF God." This is NOT saying that "Christ was God." [/B]

Amen to the guy who made this statement!  I don't think this is you, right booth?  Christ never made any claim that He was God! 
  
Yes, that's exactly what Paul ment!! I think it would help if you actually realize that. If you have the nature of God, you're God. [/B]

No booth that is not what Paul meant!  Paul never said Christ was God or equal with God just because Christ had the nature of God!  Do Christians have a God like nature?  Does that mean you are God?  Comon booth, open up your eyes!

3 times, but there is one God...water, ice, steam..I said H20 3 times, but there is only ONE molecule that is H20 :) God is three in one and one in three. [/B]


I think this is one of the most popular of all the comparisons to the trinity which proves how desperate you defenders of this false doctrine are!  It's almost an embarrassment to the faith!  I think it's time for you to put the Bible above tradition and forsake these false doctrines that you keep clinging to booth!
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"What is so essential about the doctrine of the trinity booth? "

Yes, Trinity is part of essential christian docterine according to historical christianity :)

"Christ never made any claim that He was God! "

Yes, that is a claim to be God. A dog has a nature of a dog, that makes him a dog. Christ had the nature of God, that makes him God.


"Paul never said Christ was God or equal with God just because Christ had the nature of God! "

*chuckles* yeah he did, Col 2:9 says exactly.


"It's almost an embarrassment to the faith! "

Not at all, its a way to show truth that Christ himself used. Its call an analogy. I guess you think the way Christ taught people was desperate too...maybe..desperate for them to understand ;) Just like we are with you.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by edpobre

Don't be a cry-baby OldShepherd. Can you not handle your own battles? If you don't want to be callled blind, then open your eyes and show me you can see. If you don't want to be called crazy, insane or out of your mind, then THINK (at least once) before you open your mouth. That's all I can agree to.

Well I see what the problem is, you are here looking for a fight. On the other hand I am here to further the kingdom of Christ, to share the gospel, and hopefully to learn. The only thing that you can teach me, I can find in any barrroom in the world, fights, name calling and insults.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Se7en
Then please, explain to me how a group of learned scholars could miss such an important fact that any layman could dig up through a web search...  Why would this verse be removed from modern Bible translations?  I highly doubt the NIV scholars were anti-trinitarians (as several other footnotes deal with the deity of Christ), and most certainly were not anti-Christian.
I don't know and I don't care why the NIV translators did what they did. I have researched this issue for myself and as I said do a little search online. Type 1 John 5:7 or Johannine Comma, in Google or Yahoo and see how many well documented sites you find which show many, many MSS and other sources which have the verse. Here are a few.


http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp?FROM=biblecenter

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/vindicationof.htm

http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/1jn57.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

 

I would also venture to say that even if 1 John 5:7 is accurate as printed in the KJV, it does not magically turn God into a triune deity.  Yes, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in disposition, heart and mind.  The verse does not say that they are explicitly one God, co-equal and co-eternal.  If the trinity is the key to Christianity, the surely it would have been clearly and unquestionably mentioned more than once. 

"are one in disposition, heart and mind." Adding to the scriptures to make it fit your beliefs. If John had intended to say that then he would have done so. And once again how did the early church interpret this pasage? See Cyptian, Tertullian, etc.

"it would have been clearly and unquestionably mentioned more than once." Is that a fact? How many times did God give His name in the O.T.? How many times is the great Shema, "Hear O Israel he Lord Our God, the Lord He is One."? How many single prophecies are there in the O.T. about Jesus, Psalm 22 for example?
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by franklin
Any questions mr OS? ....... 

Be sure your beliefs are derived from and founded upon God's Word, not man's speculations. Anyone who learned their "theology" direct from the scripture would never believe in the Trinity, because there is no such thing taught anywhere therein.
Where have I ever posted any "men's speculations"? My posts have been solidly grounded in scripture, with personal exegesis from the Hebrew and the Greek. Your post contained 5 verses of scripture. My Bible has 31,172 verses, now all you have to do is harmonize those five verses with the other 31,167 verses and address the dozens of verses I have posted in this and other threads.

I'll tell you like I told Ed. Jesus said He would build His church upon the rock and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. There must be a record of that church in 100 AD, 200 AD, 300 AD, etc. Show me some evidence that any early Christian, you remember them guys, they were tortured and horribly murdered because they would not deny Christ and worship Caesar, any evidence that the early church believed as you do.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Kain
Read on, Old Shepherd, read on. Read of the Hindu influences, and later the Christian influences. The Zohar is a great mess of a book with various authors who made additions and alterations over time, non-canonized and is not related to the core Jewish or Hebrew faith.
I do NOT see any proof or documentation of that. If you are going to refute or rebut what I post then post your evidence. I am not going to dig through your link to support your argument.

I have an idea since you claim that the N.T., Christianity, Trinity, etc. was copied from pagan legends, why stop there? Why not go all the way? If similarities with ancient pagan beliefs and practices constitutes proof to you then here are a few sites with the same caliber of proof that the entire Old Testment was copied from Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian legends.

http://www.ancientworlds.net/23303

http://www.flood-myth.com/faq.htm

http://www.pip.com.au/~paceman/GILGAMESHDISCOVERY.html

http://connectionsjournal.com/files/archive
s/robinandsummer/bibleroot.html

DISCLAIMER. I do NOT believe that either the O.T. or N.T. or any beliefs or practices in either were copied from pagan legends but have posted this "Devil's Advocate" argument to demonstrate the fallacy of Kain's assertions that the Christian Trinity was copied from pagans. OS
 
Upvote 0

Se7en

hasta la victoria siempre
Sep 10, 2002
44
0
Earth
Visit site
✟7,666.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by OldShepherd

"are one in disposition, heart and mind." Adding to the scriptures to make it fit your beliefs. If John had intended to say that then he would have done so. And once again how did the early church interpret this pasage? See Cyptian, Tertullian, etc.

What, are you denying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in disposition, heart, and mind? I don't see how I have added anything.
and these three are one God, co-equal and co-eternal. - That seems like quite the addition to me.
I wouldn't say I have any beliefs on this topic as I am most certainly still searching, but thanks for telling me I do.

"it would have been clearly and unquestionably mentioned more than once." Is that a fact? How many times did God give His name in the O.T.? How many times is the great Shema, "Hear O Israel he Lord Our God, the Lord He is One."? How many single prophecies are there in the O.T. about Jesus, Psalm 22 for example?

Well now, why didn't Yeshua himself mention the Trinity? Surely if the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity then He would have mentioned that He, His Father, and the Holy Spirit comprise the one true God...but Yeshua said His Father is the one true God and that the Father is greater than He. Certainly this, at the very least, puts a dent in the man made creed which states the glory is equal and the majesty co-eternal.

"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 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.

They even tell me that I can't be saved without excepting the Trinity, yet Christ said to repent and be baptized. Yes, Yeshua was the Messiah prophesized in the OT, but was He God?...I'm not sure.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Se7en
What, are you denying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in disposition, heart, and mind? I don't see how I have added anything.
and these three are one God, co-equal and co-eternal. - That seems like quite the addition to me.
I wouldn't say I have any beliefs on this topic as I am most certainly still searching, but thanks for telling me I do.
I don't appreciate people trying to put words in my mouth. What I said was those particular words are an addition to what is stated in that verse. Do other verses state and imply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in nature, dispositon, heart, etc., yes!

"and these three are one God, co-equal and co-eternal." And where have I, or anyone else added these words to that partcular verse?. If you want to discuss what is stated in one or all of the creeds then start a new thread.

Well now, why didn't Yeshua himself mention the Trinity? Surely if the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity then He would have mentioned that He, His Father, and the Holy Spirit comprise the one true God...but Yeshua said His Father is the one true God and that the Father is greater than He. Certainly this, at the very least, puts a dent in the man made creed which states the glory is equal and the majesty co-eternal.
Not at all read the other 31,170 verses in the Bible. Especially 1 John 5:20

Jesus Christ, this is the true God and life eternal."

All these objections you are raising have already been answered on this thread and a few others.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Posted by El Pobre
You are GRASPING at straw OldShepherd. You are losing it! I understand John 8:40 and John 17:3 pretty well. How about you?

How do I interpret John 10:3, 17:3, and 8:40?

John 10:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

In this verse Jesus is speaking to God, in the second person, I-you. Does that prove that Jesus is not God? No it does not!

In this same verse Jesus refers to Himself in the third person. If John 10:3 proves Jesus is not God, then it also proves that Jesus is not Jesus, because He refers to Jesus Christ, in the third person, so He must be someone else. Jesus very often refers to Himself in the third person. He refers to Himself as the “son of man”, eighty times. For example Matt 8:20.

Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

The first person would be, “I have not where to lay my head.”. Does this prove that Jesus is not the “son of man, that Jesus is speaking about someone other than Himself? No! In Matt 16:13, Jesus very clearly identifies Himself as the “son of man

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

John, the same disciple who wrote John 10:3, also wrote 1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Here John says that Jesus is the true God. Since the Bible teaches and Trinitarians believe that Jesus is God, there is no conflict.

John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Jesus, in this verse, refers to Himself as a man. But nowhere does Jesus ever say that He is only a man! Jesus is both, “son of man” and “son of God.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

When a cow has young, it is a young cow, not some other kind! When a man has a child it is a young human, not some other kind. The “son of man” is a man. What “kind” is the “son of God.? Unless God changed Genesis 1:24, there is only one “kind”, Jesus, the “son of God”, can be.”

The disciple who wrote John 8:40 also wrote John 10:30.

John 10: 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.* * *
30 I and my Father are one. * * *
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

The Jews, who heard Jesus, in the temple, understood exactly what Jesus was saying when He said He and the Father were one, Jesus was positively claiming to be God! “You being a man make yourself God.”

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

John gives further testimony that Jesus and God are one, as Jesus, Himself, said in John 10:30

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

”He which is of God, He has seen the father.” Jesus, whom heretics, like the Iglesias ni Manalo, say is “only” a man, “has seen the Father

John 12:45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

Twice, in John, here in vs. 12:45 and in vs. 14:9, Jesus says that to see Him is to see the Father and never once does Jesus explain that He is only speaking figuratively, symbolically, or metaphorically.

In John 14:7-9 Jesus further claims to be God. Jesus says that He and the Father are one and to see Jesus is to see the Father.

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

”Henceforth”, i.e. “from now on”, you have seen Him, i.e. the Father. But Jesus must be wrong because Ed posted some verses where Paul said that God was invisible.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

Well, this just cannot be, because the cults have “proof texts’, written by Paul, such as Romans 1:20 and 1 Timothy 1:17, which say God is invisible. But here Jesus, Himself, says anyone who has seen Jesus, has seen the Father. Notice Jesus does not say “figuratively”, “metaphorically”, "symbolically", “image”, ”shadow”, “manifestation” etc, but they have seen the Father.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

“both seen and hated both me and my Father.” They have seen both Jesus and the Father! The teaching of cults like the Iglesias ni Manalo is based on one or two twisted, out-of-context, verses. In the above verses, written by John, Jesus Himself, very clearly states, five, (5), times, that God, the Father, has been and will continue to be seen!

Is Jesus right? Or are the blasphemous cults which contradict the words of Jesus Christ, right?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by OldShepherd
I do NOT see any proof or documentation of that. If you are going to refute or rebut what I post then post your evidence. I am not going to dig through your link to support your argument.


I'm not going to cut and paste the entire essay for your benefit. The link is there for anyone who wants to find the truth. The relavant portions I already quoted in posts above. The point is, the Zohar is not considered to be a reliable text, it has various sources, with various influences. It's not something that can prove a pre-Christian trinity in Judaism.

The fact that you have to resort to the unreliable Zohar as proof of your trinity shows the kind of shaky ground you stand on in this topic.

I have an idea since you claim that the N.T., Christianity, Trinity, etc. was copied from pagan legends, why stop there? Why not go all the way? If similarities with ancient pagan beliefs and practices constitutes proof to you then here are a few sites with the same caliber of proof that the entire Old Testment was copied from Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian legends.

http://www.ancientworlds.net/23303

http://www.flood-myth.com/faq.htm

http://www.pip.com.au/~paceman/GILGAMESHDISCOVERY.html

http://connectionsjournal.com/files/archive
s/robinandsummer/bibleroot.html

I make no such claim. Parts, not all of both the Old Testament and New Testament, and Chruch creeds are influenced by more ancient religions. The influence of course, goes both ways.

DISCLAIMER. I do NOT believe that either the O.T. or N.T. or any beliefs or practices in either were copied from pagan legends but have posted this "Devil's Advocate" argument to demonstrate the fallacy of Kain's assertions that the Christian Trinity was copied from pagans. OS

The only falacy here are your counter-historical opinions.
 
Upvote 0

franklin

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
May 21, 2002
8,103
257
Bible belt
Visit site
✟9,942.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
   Originally posted by LouisBooth
Yes, Trinity is part of essential christian docterine according to historical christianity :)
  
CHUCKLES!!! didn't it ever occur to you booth that the historical church fathers were wrong?!?!!!  Wrong on many doctrines?  (grin)
  
Yes, that is a claim to be God. A dog has a nature of a dog, that makes him a dog. Christ had the nature of God, that makes him God. [/b]
  
SIGH AND CHUCKLES AND LOL'S.... Boothe.... NO, Christ never claimed to be God!  Why don't you just look in the scriptures and let the scripture be it's own interpreter and not allow man's opinions to influence your mind as you always do!   Christ was a man with flesh and blood and bones as stated in the scriptures, God is not flesh and blood but is spirit!  Get it right for once already! 2 John 1:7, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."  chuckles booth, Where in this passage do you see John saying, that those who confess not that Jesus Christ is God in human form is a deceiver and an antchrist?  Christ came in the flesh as a fully 100% human flesh and blood man!  A man that had to be a substitude for all of mankind in order to have His blood shed for us.  God cannot shed blood because God is spirit!  Got it?

   "Paul never said Christ was God or equal with God just because Christ had the nature of God! "
*chuckles* yeah he did, Col 2:9 says exactly. [/B]

HEAVY ON A MULTITUDE OF CHUCKLES AND LOL'S !!!!! Naw, no way booth, once again go to the scriptures your referring to, Paul never said that and if he did he'd be contradicting inspiration! You need to compare this passage of scripture with other scripture!  There is overwhelming scriptural proof that God is the father of Jesus!  If Jesus was co-equal part of the Supreme Godhead, why was his own honor nothing and God's honoring him everything? Does a co-equal, co-eternal part of the Godhead need to be taught? Do not the Scriptures reveal that God is "infinite in knowledge?"
  
Not at all, its a way to show truth that Christ himself used. Its call an analogy. I guess you think the way Christ taught people was desperate too...maybe..desperate for them to understand ;) Just like we are with you. [/B]
 
It's called an analogy ? And a poor one at that! Show me from scripture where Christ used some of the rediculas analogies men use today!  He never taught that God and Himself were part of a trinity!  And no, I never implied Christ was expressing desperation in any of His teachings!    "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!" Mark 1:24  The demons even knew that God and Jesus were different.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

franklin

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
May 21, 2002
8,103
257
Bible belt
Visit site
✟9,942.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by gunnysgt
Is Jesus God Is Jesus Christ God?

Hi sarge,  Thank you for the links for those articles....  This is a quote from one of those articles:

Heresy: "False doctrine or teaching, any idea that is contrary to the historical concensus to the church".

I believe the true definition of heresy should be: 

"False doctrine or teaching, any idea that is contrary to the inspired word of God".


Sorry Sarge but, I have to put my trust in the concensus of the inspired word of God and the Apostles who wrote it first! 
The historical fathers were fallible and have been proven wrong not only on the trinity but on a number of other teachings and doctrines as well.

Be sure your beliefs are derived from and founded upon God's Word, not man's speculations. Anyone who learned their "theology" direct from the scripture would never believe in the Trinity, because there is no such thing taught anywhere therein.
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"didn't it ever occur to you booth that the historical church fathers were wrong"

Wow, you think the apostles where wrong?

"NO, Christ never claimed to be God! "

Yes, he did, quite a few times in fact, in word and in deed.

"Christ came in the flesh as a fully 100% human flesh and blood man"

I agree, and he was also 100% God, for that's what the bible says. Its called the incarnation ed..opps..I mean frank ;)

"There is overwhelming scriptural proof that God is the father of Jesus!"

I agree, but you seem to misunderstand this title, it has nothing to do with an inferior/superior relationship.

"If Jesus was co-equal part of the Supreme Godhead, why was his own honor nothing and God's honoring him everything? "

He was living as an example, he states as much himself frank. Read it for yourself :)

"Does a co-equal, co-eternal part of the Godhead need to be taught? Do not the Scriptures reveal that God is "infinite in knowledge?" "

If he limits himself yes he does. Christ limited himself making himself bound to the flesh and the drawbacks of it such as having to be taught.

"Show me from scripture where Christ used some of the rediculas analogies men use today"

Wow frank, you really don't read the bible much do you? Christ used parables, which are also know as analogies. :) Hmm...there are several..how about the one about the seed scattering farmer, or of the talents, or what about the bridesmaids? Are those enough examples for you?

"He never taught that God and Himself were part of a trinity! "

Yes he did, it just seems you can't see it for some reason frank, either that or you don't want to because you'll have to admit you're wrong. Pride before the fall frank... :)
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Kain
I'm not going to cut and paste the entire essay for your benefit. The link is there for anyone who wants to find the truth.
Didn't ask you to quote the entire article. The fact that you have to exaggerate what I say is a strong indication your argument just ran out of steam.
The relavant portions I already quoted in posts above. The point is, the Zohar is not considered to be a reliable text, it has various sources, with various influences. It's not something that can prove a pre-Christian trinity in Judaism.
The point is the quote I posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, with a link to that article, just blew your 2-3 sentence out-of-context quote out of the water. You didn't prove your assertions. You have not produced any credible evidence of any of your claims about the Zohar.
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Site Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟58,262.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by franklin
Be sure your beliefs are derived from and founded upon God's Word, not man's speculations.

Ecclesia - Church or Assembly

~ By E.L. Bynum

The critics of the King James Version never seem to let up in their relentless attack. Many critics are simply modernistic or of the new evangelical persuasion, and these we can understand. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand why professed fundamental Bible believers would join this insane attack upon the Word of God. When I continue to hear and read these attacks by men who are otherwise sound in the faith, I can only say, "Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do."
Independent Baptists generally place a strong emphasis on the local church. Many of them, and rightly so, refuse to believe that the Bible teaches the existence of a universal invisible church , or body. I happen to be of that persuasion. Some of these dear brethren have been led to believe that some words are wrongly translated in the KJV, and that they would be helped doctrinally in their stand against the universal invisible church theory, if the translation was changed. With this we do not agree.

Is Ecclesia Translated Wrong In The KJV ?

The Greek word "ecclesia" is translated "church" in the KJV, where the Scripture is referring to the Lord's church or churches. When the Bible is referring to a lawful or unlawful assembly of citizens, such as in Acts 19:32, 39, 41, it is translated assembly. In fact, these are the only three verses in the KJV where it is so translated.

To find out the meaning of a word in English, we consult a good dictionary, such as Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. To find out the meaning of a Greek word, we consult a concordance, lexicon, or Bible dictionary. You cannot always depend upon those authorities, as to the true meaning of a word used in the Bible. It is generally needful to find every time that peculiar word is used in the New Testament. From the clear context of how it is used in many different instances, we can discover its true meaning in the Scriptures.

What Is The Meaning Of Church ?

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary has this to say of the origin of our English word church. "church. N. [ME. chirch, cherche; AS. circe, cyrce; Late Gr. kyriakon, a church, from Gr. kyriake (supply doma, house) the Lord's house, from kyriakos, belonging to the Lord or Master; kyrios, lord, master; kyros, supreme power, authority.]"

This simply means that the word is traced back through Middle English, Anglo Saxon, to the Greek. That the local church is the Lord's house, is certainly not something that is contrary to the Scriptures. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15). The church certainly is the Lord's house, and it does belong to our Lord and Master.

Webster gives many different examples of the meaning of church. One of them is, "any organized body of Christians occupying the same edifice for religious worship; a congregation; as, a pastor and his church." Does this not sound very much like the true meaning of church or ecclesia, as found in the New Testament? Yes, it does, for the church is a called-out assembly.

Of course Webster also gives examples of other definitions of church,such as the building, or a universal body, etc. I can almost hear someone say, that is the reason why ecclesia should not be translated church in the first place. Let us go on to further study before jumping to such conclusion.

What Is The Meaning Of Ecclesia ?

When we consult the authorities on Greek words, we come up with confusing answers to that question. W.E. Vine, in his word studies, tells us that Ecclesia means a called-out assembly. But he says, "It has two applications to companies of Christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era...(b) in the singular number..to a company consisting of professed believers..." So Vine leaves you with some unscriptural definitions, just as surely as Mr. Webster does.

When we consult Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, we come away realizing that his definitions are also confusing and contradictory. He also indicates that ecclesia is a called-out assembly, which is good as far as it goes. Yet, he turns right around and gives many other definitions that are most certainly contrary to New Testament usage. He says that ecclesia also means, "the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth; collectively, all who worship and honor God and Christ in whatever place they may be." That is the false universal church theory, and you cannot make anything else out of it.

You will run into the same thing if you consult Strong, Berry, or Vincent. Some have called attention to the fact that Berry in his Interlinear New Testament renders ecclesia as assembly in every place where it is found. These same people fail to tell you how Berry defines ecclesia in the back part of the same book. He gives more than one meaning. He says ecclesia means, "an assembly of Christian believers, a church in one place..the whole body of believer on earth..or in heaven." This brings us right back to the universal invisible church, which Berry allows for in his definition.

I wonder how many of those who clamor for ecclesia to be rendered assembly, have looked up the English word "assembly" in a good dictionary. It certainly has some meanings that are fitting to describe a New Testament Church, but some of them just would not fit.

Many who object to the word "church" in the KJV, also object to the transliteration of baptizo in the KJV. They think that it should have been translated immerse instead of baptize. This leads to another problem. If the Greek sunagogee had not been transliterated synagogue, it would very likely have been translated assembly. In that case you would have had the same English word for a church as for a Jewish synagogue. Both Vine and Webster agree that a synagogue is an assembly or a congregation. Would not that have been a confusing situation, when reading the New Testament ?

How To Know The Truth

You cannot know the whole truth on the meaning of ecclesia, church, or assembly without studying the Word of God. If you depend on the experts, you will surely go wrong. If the word "ecclesia" was translated "assembly", then you would still have the same division over its meaning as you currently have over the word "Church". Some honest brethren will disagree with me about the meaning of church. We would still have the same disagreement if it was translated assembly. It is a matter of interpretation of the Scriptures, and it will also remain so.

Many of those who lean toward changing church to assembly, also lean toward the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, and the New King James Version. It is interesting to note that all three of these version render ecclesia as church.

It is our contention that it is the business of the Christian to study the Word of God for himself. It is the business of the teacher, and the preacher to study and explain the words of the Bible. We have always contended that the church is a called-out assembly. We can expound upon that without declaring that the KJV is wrongly translated. I would plead with brethren to cease this constant criticism of the KJV and simply preach and teach what the Bible says. It is sinful to destroy faith in the Word of God.

To Those Who Disagree

There will be some who will continue to declare that the KJV is wrong in translating ecclesia as church. Your sincerity will be far more convincing to me,when you take the name "church" off of your building and put the word "assembly". Of course, you are going to be a little late, for the Assembly of God has already beat you to it, and you can see just how much assembly has kept them straight on doctrine.

If the name of your assembly is Trinity Baptist Church, and you say that the KJV is wrong, then you are also wrong in perpetuating an error. If church is wrong in the Bible, then it is wrong on your building and all the advertisements that you print. In all honesty you ought to call it Trinity Baptist Assembly. If you believe Baptist and baptism are translated wrong in the KJV, you ought to change the word Baptist to immerser. Then you could call it Trinity Immerser Assembly. Why not call a business meeting of the assembly and tell them how unscriptural the words "church" and "baptism" really are, and challenge them to vote the name change? Of course I can't predict the result of such a meeting. It might mean that some pastors would be looking for another immerser assembly to pastor. But if you really believe you are right on this Bible translation issue, you ought in all honesty to take your stand. As for me, I will take the KJV just as it is written. I have no sympathy for the scholars in their tampering with the Word of God. They leave you nothing that you can stand upon, except their scholarship. To hear them tell it, the KJV is not infallible, but they seem to think that they are. As for me, I had rather have an infallible Bible, than an infallible scholar any day of the week. The scholar will die, and other scholars will disagree with his conclusions, but the Word of God will never die. (See Isa. 40:8)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Didn't ask you to quote the entire article. The fact that you have to exaggerate what I say is a strong indication your argument just ran out of steam.

The point is the quote I posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, with a link to that article, just blew your 2-3 sentence out-of-context quote out of the water. You didn't prove your assertions. You have not produced any credible evidence of any of your claims about the Zohar.

I don't know what your getting at. The article you quoted from itself shows that the Zohar is not credible. I've posted the relavent quotes from the article that show this. You took a quote out of context from the article to support your view. That's just dishonest.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.