Jesus and the Trinity

Balthasar · Nov 25, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

While "firstborn" can refer to the son who is literally the first son of a father,

Yes! We know from the "hoti" clause in vs. 16 that it should be understood in this fashion and with refrence to the original creation.

in Judaism it is also a title/honor which can be conferred. Who was God's firstborn Christ, Israel, Ephraim, or David?
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:

Deu 21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn:

Psa 89:27 Also I will make him [David] [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim [is] my firstborn.

However in all of the above examples 'firstborn" is partitive.If you think "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not partitive, it would be alone in scripture. In every other case, firstborn + a group means that the firstborn is part of that group. If you want to make Colossians 1:15 an exception, the burden is on you.

"All creation" is the group the Logos belongs to according to Colossians 1:15. He is created, brought into being by God, but does not belong to a further class.

P.S. I'm starting to learn Hebrew, just started last month! Long way to go yet. Would you wish me luck?

best wishes,

Balthasar · Nov 25, 2005

Hi 2Ducklow,

2ducklow said:
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Jesus didn't always have the same amount of wisdom, stature and favour with god that he had at the end of his life. Jesus was tempted in all points like us and as he passed those testss of temptation he grew in favour with god which enabled god to Give his ownself as glory to Jesus. When exactly Jesus received the glory of God's own self I don't know for sure. I would say probably it was a gradual thing.

Luke 2:52 is very compelling in negating the idea that Jesus is God.

On another note, Trinitarians like John 10:30, "I and the Father are one" . They think it "proves" Jesus God. But they forget John 17:11 which puts it in perspective : "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

best wishes,

gort · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
I coudn't have said it better. This is how Peter treats Jesus, even after his resurrection:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles... This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge... but God raised him up from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep it's hold on him... Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave,.. God has raised this Jesus to life.. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit..."(Acts. 2:22-38)

Now from the above, any rational and fair minded person must note that Jesus is not God.

best wishes,

How does a rational fair minded person not notice from Scripture.....

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

and yet was....

Heb 2:7 You have made him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of Your hands.

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for all.

???

<><

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
But they forget John 17:11 which puts it in perspective : "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

I have already responeed to our out-of-context quoting of this verse, therefore this post is a deliberate falsehood.

Jesus prayed that "they may be one," and it did NOT happen in Jesus' lifetime. Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him, and the rest of the disciples ran and hid. And it did not happen in the rest of the N.T.

Remember Paul getting in Peter's face? Remember all those letters to the churches correcting false doctrine, and practices? Here are some specific examples of the disciples and the church NOT being one as Jesus and the father are one.

2 Tim 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

2 Tim 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Matt 26:8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?

Mark 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

Mark 14:5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

John 18:17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

John 18:25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

Matthew 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Balthasar · Nov 25, 2005

Hi daneel,

How does a rational fair minded person not notice from Scripture.....

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Right off the back (even without resorting to the Greek) in John 1:1 you will note that the "Word" cannot be God because it was "with God". Something that is with something cannot also be that something. For instance it's senseless to say you are with yourself. So the "Word" spoken of here is not God(Elohim), but god(Elohim) like Moses, in Ex. 7:1.

Furthermore in the Greek in John 1:1 the "Word" when called God is designated Theos where else God in 1:1 is rendered Ho Theos. If you read your NT in Greek you will realize than many entities are referred to as Theos, even Satan himself. So John 1:1 calling Jesus Theos does not prove him God.

Origen the Church Father, who was an expert in the Greek put it best, and I will quote him in a moment. Origen was the most prolific of all early Christian writers. He was a friend of Hippolytus and is distinguished for the first complete Bible commentary. In A.D. 253, at age 70, he was captured, tortured and one week later died for his faith. He was not a trinitarian.
Expounding on the nuances of the Greek language in John 1:1, Origen wrote: (notice , 1700 years before the Jw's , he says the same thing they do)

We next notice Johns usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply The God but rather god . . . The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.

Commentary on Johns Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

And that's another reason why Jesus cannot be God , because the heavens and earth were created through Jesus(John 1:3), not by him as Gen. 1:1 says. For example, Irenaeus in his wirtings says God used Christ as a woodcutter used an axe in the creation act.

and yet was....

Heb 2:7 You have made him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of Your hands.

This is another good verse proving Jesus cannot be God since he was crowned with glory and honour and set over the works of Yhwh. The true God on the other hand has never been without glory, or honour and to say that He is or can be set over the works of His own hands is nonsensical.

etc.

Here's one of my favourites showing from Jesus's own lips why he could not have been God:

The Father is greater than I (John 14:28 RSV).

End of story.

The catholic Church had to come up with a whole doctrine , the hypostatic union (paragraphs of self-contradictory impossible conjecture) to explain away this simple declaration!

But it still speaks loud and clear to those who are willing to listen.

best wishes

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
Hi Odsolo,
Yes! We know from the "hoti" clause in vs. 16 that it should be understood in this fashion and with refrence to the original creation.

However in all of the above examples 'firstborn" is partitive. If you think "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not partitive, it would be alone in scripture. In every other case, firstborn a group means that the firstborn is part of that group. If you want to make Colossians 1:15 an exception, the burden is on you.

P.S. I'm starting to learn Hebrew, just started last month! Long way to go yet. Would you wish me luck?

By all means, good luck, I pray that learning the original languages will open your eyes, to God's truth. I first learned to speak Greek about the time of Sputnik I and studied both Biblical languages, at post grad level, more than 2 decades ago.

My book shelf and computers are loaded with recognized language resources. BAGD, BDB, TWOT, TDNT, Louw-Nida, Robertson, Thayer, Vincent, Keil-Delitszch, etc.

You have already admitted lack of knowledge in Hebrew, and you have given no indication that you are any more knowlegeable in Greek.

So the burden of proof is entrely on you. You have to establish what a partitive is. What a "hoti" clause is. That the term "first born" in Greek and Hebrew is inherently partitive. And NWT and KIT are not acceptable resources. Neither is "some guy's website," online.

H1060 [size=+1]בּכור[/size] bekor
BDB Definition:
1) firstborn, firstling
1a) of men and women
1b) of animals
1c) noun of relation (figuratively)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strongs Number: from H1069
Same Word by TWOT Number: 244a

bekora. Birthright, primogenture. Appears only in feminine singular and always with this special meaning. Involves especially the legal claims of the firstborn to a double portion of the inheritance and to such other rights as might be his by virtue of his position as first born.

Theological Wordbook of the O.T. - In Israel, as in much of the rest of the ancient near east, the firstborn son, Reuben, enjoyed a position of honor and favor. He is called "the first of the (procreative) strength" of the father (Gen_49:3). So noteworthy were departures from this rule, that they became, in C. H. Gordon's words, "worthy of saga." As such these departures constitute a literary theme in the Bible (Gen_25:23; etc.) and elsewhere (cf. Ug. Text 128: 111:16). The Lord's choice of Abel over Cain, of Jacob over Esau, of Joseph and Judah over Reuben of Ephraim over Manasseh, of Moses over Aaron, of David over his brothers, of Solomon over Adonijah, show that he is the Lord of sacred history and that he transcends cultural norms.

Many of the occurrences of bekor simply delineated a particular son as the firstborn, indicating the importance attached to this position (esp. in 1Chr, but frequently elsewhere). Among other rights, the firstborn was entitled to a double portion of the inheritance (Deu_21:17), to the father's blessing (Gen 27; cf also Gen_48:17-19), and to preferential treatment (Gen_43:33). If there were two sons, the firstborn would receive two-thirds of the inheritance, if three, two-fourths, etc. The firstborn could sell this inheritance (as in Nuzi law-cf Gen_25:31-34). This concept is transferred to the prophetic gift in the case of Elisha to show his superiority over the other prophets (2Ki_2:3ff). Israel is called the Lord's firstborn (Exo_4:22; cc Jer_31:9) to show that though it was the youngest of the nations, it occupied the position of leadership and privilege over them.

Balthasar · Nov 25, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

I have already responeed to our out-of-context quoting of this verse, therefore this post is a deliberate falsehood.

Jesus prayed that "they may be one," and it did NOT happen in Jesus' lifetime. Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him, and the rest of the disciples ran and hid. And it did not happen in the rest of the N.T.

Remember Paul getting in Peter's face? Remember all those letters to the churches correcting false doctrine, and practices? Here are some specific examples of the disciples and the church NOT being one as Jesus and the father are one.

etc.

Irrelevant to the intent, context and structure of John 17:11.

On another note, even after 2000 years Christ's Church is still not "one" . I'm certain one day God will answer Christ's prayer and the Church will indeed be "one" as Jesus is one with the Father. Hope it's soon.

John 17:11 mutes any trinitarian suggestion that Jesus is God because he is "one" with the Father.

best wishes,

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
Hi Odsolo,
etc.

Irrelevant to the intent, context and structure of John 17:11.

On another note, even after 2000 years Christ's Church is still not "one" . I'm certain one day God will answer Christ's prayer and the Church will indeed be "one" as Jesus is one with the Father. Hope it's soon.

John 17:11 mutes any trinitarian suggestion that Jesus is God because he is "one" with the Father.
best wishes,

"Nonny, nonny, boo boo." is not a response and repeating an assertion does not prove it.

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
. . .The catholic Church had to come up with a whole doctrine , the hypostatic union (paragraphs of self-contradictory impossible conjecture) to explain away this simple declaration!. . .

Wrong again with you same old, same old, cut 'n' paste argument from Brooklyn. All the church did was apply Heb 1:3.

Heb 1:3 [size=+1]ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις[/size]
====================================
Vincent Word Studies - The express image of his person [size=+1]χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου[/size] Rend the very image (or impress) of his substance The primary sense of [size=+1]υποστασις[/size] substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so assurance itself. In a philosophical sense, substantial nature; the real nature of anything which underlies and supports its outward form and properties. In N.T., 2 Corinthians 9:4, 11, 17, Hebrews 3:14; 11:1, signifying in every instance ground of confidence or confidence In LXX, it represents fifteen different words, and, in some cases, it is hard to understand its meaning notably 1 Samuel 13:21 In Ruth 1:12, Psalm 37:8, Ezekiel 19:5, it means ground of hope. in Judges 6:4, Wisd. xvi. 21, sustenance in Psalm 38:5; 136:15, the substance or material of the human frame: in 1 Samuel 13:23; Ezekiel 26:11, an outpost or garrison: in Deuteronomy 11:6; Job 22:20, possessions. The theological sense, person, is later than the apostolic age. Here, substantial nature, essence. [size=+1]χαρακτηρ[/size] from [size=+1]χαρασσειν[/size] to engrave or inscribe, originally a graving-tool; also the die on which a device is cut. It seems to have lost that meaning, and always signifies the impression made by the die or graver. Hence, mark, stamp, as the image on a coin (so often) which indicates its nature and value, or the device impressed by a signet. N.T.o.
LXX, Leviticus 13:28; 2 Macc. iv. 10; 4 Macc. xv. 4. The kindred [size=+1]Χαραγμα[/size] mark, Acts 17:29; Revelation 13:16, 17. Here the essential being of God is conceived as setting its distinctive stamp upon Christ, coming into definite and characteristic expression in his person, so that the Son bears the exact impress of the divine nature and character.
====================================
Robertson - Heb 1:3 - The very image of his substance

([size=+1]χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως[/size]).
[size=+1]χαρακτηρ[/size] is an old word from xarassw, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It first was the agent (note ending = [size=+1]τηρ[/size]) or tool that did the marking, then the mark or impress made, the exact reproduction, a meaning clearly expressed by [size=+1]χαραγμα[/size] (Acts 17:29; Revelation 13:16). Menander had already used (Moffatt) [size=+1]χαρακτηρ[/size] in the sense of our "character." The word occurs in the inscriptions for "person" as well as for "exact reproduction" of a person. The word [size=+1]υποστασεως[/size] for the being or essence of God "is a philosophical rather than a religious term" (Moffatt). Etymologically it is the sediment or foundation under a building (for instance). In 11:1 [size=+1]υποστασις[/size] is like the "title-deed" idea found in the papyri. Athanasius rightly used Hebrews 1:1-4 in his controversy with Arius. Paul in Philippians 2:5-11 pictures the real and eternal deity of Christ free from the philosophical language here employed.
====================================

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

[size=+1]υποστασις[/size] hupostasis, [size=+1]εως έ[/size], ( [huphistêmi, huphistamai] ):

A. as an act, standing under, supporting, hê kephalê tou mêrou kai ho auchên tou arthrou . . hupo suchnôi merei tou ischiou tên hu. pepoiêtai Hp.Art.55 ; [tous prosthious podas] echousin . . ou monon henech' hupostaseôs tou barous Arist.PA 659a24 ; enepagên eis ilun buthou, kai ouk estin hu. LXX Ps.68(69).3 .
2. resistance, tou kumatos Arist.Mete.368b12 (unless = settling down); so perh. in Hp.Off.3, Ael.Fr.59.
3. lying in ambush, S.Fr.719.
B. as a thing,
I. in liquids, that which settles at the bottom, sediment, Hp.Steril.242, Arist.HA551b29, Mete.382b14, Thphr.HP 9.8.3; esp. of sediment in the urine, Hp.Coac.146,389, Aph.4.69, al., Gal.6.252, al.; but the urine itself is called hê hu. hê eis tên kustin, Arist. Mete.358a8; hê tês hugras trophês hu. Id.PA647b28 ; ek tôn nephrôn hê gignomenê hu. ib.671b20; also of the dry excrement, hê tês xêras trophês hu. ib.647b28, cf. 677a15, Mete.358b9.
b. an accumulation of pus, abscess, Hp.Art.40.
2. nephous hupostaseis cloud-cumuli, D.S.1.38.
3. a kind of jelly or thick soup, in pl., Men.462.10 (cf. Poll.6.60), Orib.4.8.1.
4. metaph. of time, duration, hê stigmiaia tôn kairôn hu. Gal.19.187 ; mnêsthêti tis mou hê hu. remember how short my time is, LXX Ps.88(89).48; hê hu. mou hôsei outhen enôpion sou mine age is as nothing before thee, ib.38(39).6; eph' hoson autou (sc. Hektoros) hê hu. tôn chronôn hupêrchen as long as his store of years lasted, Vett.Val.347.14.
5. coming into existence, origin, hê hu. mou en tois katôtatô tês gês LXX Ps.138(139).15 ; peri tou genous . . tôn Ioudaiôn . . hoti . . tên prôtên hu. eschen idian J.Ap.1.1 ; akmê oude echei geneseôs hu. kath' heautên has no power of originating by itself, Hermog. Id.1.10.
II. foundation or substructure of a temple, etc., LXX Na.2.7, D.S.1.66, 13.82; hupostaseis epalxeôn lower part of a crenellated wall, Ph.Bel.84.9; hu. xulou is f.l. for hupotasis x. in Hp. Mochl.25.
2. metaph. of a narrative, speech, or poem, ground-work, subject-matter, argument, Plb.4.2.1, D.S.1.3, etc.
3. plan, purpose, Id.16.32; kata tên idian hu. Id.1.28 , 15.70; pros tên idian hu. Id.1.3 ; hoi Aiguptioi . . idiai tini hu. kechrêmenoi eisi (sc. in their calendar) Gem.8.16, cf. 25; kata tên Kaisaros hu. BMus.Inscr.892.21 (Halic., i B. C./i A. D.).
4. confidence, courage, resolution, steadiness, of soldiers, Plb.4.50.10,6.55.2; hope, esti moi hu. tou genêthênai me andri LXX Ru.1.12 ; apôleto hê hu. autês ib.Ez.19.5, cf. Ep.Hebr.3.14; hê hu. tês kauchêseôs 2 Ep.Cor.11.17 , cf. 9.4; estin de pistis elpizomenôn hupostasis confidence in things hoped for, Ep.Hebr.11.1 (unless substance be the right sense here).
5. undertaking, promise, hoi hupogegrammenoi geôrgoi epedôkan hêmin hupostasin PEleph.15.3 (iii B. C.), cf. PTheb.Bank1.8 (ii B. C.), PTeb.61(b).194 (ii B. C.).
6. Astrol., ta toutou (sc. klêrou tuchês) tetragôna hupostasis (fort. -staseis) [legetai] Serapio in Cat.Cod.Astr.8(4).227.
III. substantial nature, substance, dusschista, tôi kollôdê tên hu. echein woods hard to cleave, because of their resinous substance, Thphr.CP5.16.4; hê tou geôdous hu. ib.6.7.4.
2. substance, actual existence, reality (hoi neôteroi tôn philosophôn anti tês ousias têi lexei tês hu. echrêsanto Socr. HE3.7 ), opp. semblance, phantasian men echein ploutou, hu. de mê Artem.3.14 ; tôn en aeri phantasmatôn ta men esti kat' emphasin, ta de kath' hupostasin (substantial, actual), Arist.Mu.395a30, cf. Placit.3.6, D.L.7.135, 9.91; so hupostaseis are the substances of which the reflections ( [hai katoptrikai emphaseis] ) appear in the mirror, Placit.4.14.2; hu. echein have substantial existence, Demetr.Lac.Herc.1055.14, S.E. P.2.94, 176, M.Ant.9.42; idiai chrêsamenon hupostasei (hupotasei cod.), pros idian hu. phuteuthenta, a separate existence, Sor.1.96, cf. 33; hupostasin mê echein Id.2.57 ; hupostaseis te kai metabolai M.Ant.9.1 , cf. 10.5; [hê parasitikê] diapherei kai tês rhêtorikês kai tês philosophias . . kata tên hu. (in respect of reality): hê men gar huphestêken, hai de ou Luc. Par.27 ; kat' idian hu. kai ousian S.E.M.9.338 .
3. real nature, essence, charaktêr tês hu. Ep.Hebr.1.3 .
IV. as a Rhet. figure, the full expression or expansion of an idea, Hermog.Id.1.11, Aristid. Rh.1p.479S., Syrian. in Hermog.1.60 R.
V. = hupostêma 111, camp, LXX 1 Ki.13.23, 14.4.
VI. wealth, substance, property, ib.De.11.6, Je.10.17, POxy.1274.15 (iii A. D.), BGU1020.16 (vi A. D.), etc.
2. pl., title deeds, documents recording ownership of property, POxy.237 viii 26 (ii A. D.).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform

Balthasar · Nov 25, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

I first learned to speak Greek about the time of Sputnik I and studied both Biblical languages, at post grad level, more than 2 decades ago.

I don't mean to offend, but I don't believe you.

So the burden of proof is entrely on you. You have to establish what a partitive is. What a "hoti" clause is. That the term "first born" in Greek and Hebrew is inherently partitive.

I don't think you follow what I said ! Col. 1:15 locates Christ within the sub-set of things created. This cannot be denied.

bekora. Birthright, primogenture. Appears only in feminine singular and always with this special meaning. Involves especially the legal claims of the firstborn to a double portion of the inheritance and to such other rights as might be his by virtue of his position as first born.

You're "parroting"( to use your own word) Strong's and missing the gist of the argument. Would you please revisit my that relevant post?

Thanks,

P.S. I've got some Greek, but not "at post graduate level". Not yet anyway.

best wishes,

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
. . .Right off the back (even without resorting to the Greek) in John 1:1 you will note that the "Word" cannot be God because it was "with God". Something that is with something cannot also be that something. For instance it's senseless to say you are with yourself. So the "Word" spoken of here is not God(Elohim), but god(Elohim) like Moses, in Ex. 7:1.

Furthermore in the Greek in John 1:1 the "Word" when called God is designated Theos where else God in 1:1 is rendered Ho Theos. If you read your NT in Greek you will realize than many entities are referred to as Theos, even Satan himself. So John 1:1 calling Jesus Theos does not prove him God.

For more than 700 years when Aramaic speaking Jews read their scriptures "The Word" was literally God, and God was literally "The Word."

Jewish Encyclopedia-Memra

The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]/YHWH]] when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

In the Targum: [Aramaic translations of the O.T. during the Babylonian captivity, ca. 700 BC]

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra, (i.e. Word)" instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.).

Not "God," but "the Memra,"[/b] is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God" is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra [vice: Himself] (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/v...id=399&letter=M

Balthasar · Nov 25, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

Wrong again with you same old, same old, cut 'n' paste argument from Brooklyn. All the church did was apply Heb 1:3.

Ironic that you accuse me of the "same old, same old, cut and paste argument" when you're the one who has a propensity for it.

In anycase , one would have to be extraordinarily immaginative to see the hypostatic union in Heb 1:3. All that verse is saying is that Christ is the "radiance" (image) of God's glory. Now, an "image" is not the same as the actual person. If your son is your splitting image , is he you? The answer is obvious, isn't it?

Even your "cut and paste" agrees with me:

Rend the very image (or impress) of his substance

best wishes,

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
Hi Odsolo,

I don't mean to offend, but I don't believe you.

I don't think you follow what I said ! Col. 1:15 locates Christ within the sub-set of things created. This cannot be denied

That is your assertion you have to prove that to be true not just keep repeating the same assertion.

You're "parroting"( to use your own word) Strong's and missing the gist of the argument. Would you please revisit my that relevant post?

I read your post the first time no need to reread it. The burden of proof is entirely on you. Prove your assertions.

Wrong in more than one way. What you quoted is not from Strong's, it is from TWOT. And "parroting" is when you copy paste virtually your entire argument, with or without cited resources, and present it as your own. I cited a recognized Hebrew language source, which I actually own, to support my own argument.

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthasar said:
. . .Even your "cut and paste" agrees with me:

Rend the very image (or impress) of his substance

Postnatal ovine scatology. If I want to listen to a parrot I wil go to a pet store. Now your argument is reduced to repeating what I post. Pathetic.

Nine words from my post, I would say that is grossly out-of-context. Open your eyes, there is a lot more there.

Odsolo · Nov 25, 2005

Balthazar said:
Origen the Church Father, who was an expert in the Greek put it best, and I will quote him in a moment. Origen was the most prolific of all early Christian writers. He was a friend of Hippolytus and is distinguished for the first complete Bible commentary. In A.D. 253, at age 70, he was captured, tortured and one week later died for his faith. He was not a trinitarian.
Expounding on the nuances of the Greek language in John 1:1, Origen wrote: (notice , 1700 years before the Jw's , he says the same thing they do). . .

Catholic Encyclopedia- Origen
The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Disciple of John the apostle.

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,53 but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Bk V, [Disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John.

3. Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator. And therefore David said beforehand, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin; " pointing out thus that remission of sins which follows upon His advent, by which "He has destroyed the handwriting" of our debt, and "fastened it to the cross; " so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577

Balthasar · Nov 26, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

Odsolo said:
"Nonny, nonny, boo boo." is not a response and repeating an assertion does not prove it.

You're projecting again.

John 17:11 clearly says God and Jesus are one same way the church is one, to which you have no reply but the above!

best wishes,

Balthasar · Nov 26, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

That is your assertion you have to prove that to be true not just keep repeating the same assertion.

Odsolo, I don't have to prove that Jesus is within the sub-set of creation because he's clearly referred to as God's firstborn and creation in the Greek! Are you following the discussion or not ?

Ref:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+1:15&t=nas&sr=1http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+1:15&t=nas&sr=1

1:15 http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+1:15&t=nas&sr=1 He is the image of the invisible God , the firstborn of all creation . ov estin [font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva](5748 ) eikwn tou qeou tou aoratou,prwtotokov pashv ktisewv,[/font]

http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+1:15&t=nas&sr=1http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+1:15&t=nas&sr=1http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+1:15&t=nas&sr=1

I read your post the first time no need to reread it. The burden of proof is entirely on you. Prove your assertions.

No! Read Col. 1:15 as shown above.

Wrong in more than one way. What you quoted is not from Strong's, it is from TWOT.

Fine, whatever Odsolo.

And "parroting" is when you copy paste virtually your entire argument, with or without cited resources, and present it as your own.

You keep on making these wild accusations , but in reality you're the one keeps cutting and pasting whole volumes from TWOT, etc.

I cited a recognized Hebrew language source, which I actually own, to support my own argument

So you're citing a source you "own". How objective is that?

best wishes,

Odsolo · Nov 26, 2005

Balthasar said:
Hi Odsolo,
You're projecting again.

John 17:21 clearly says God and Jesus are one same way the church is one, to which you have no reply but the above!

best wishes,

John 17:11 "clearly" says no such thing. Jesus did NOT say the church "is" or "will be" one. I have answered this three times. Ignoring what I say does NOT change the truth. It was prayer, not a statement of fact, and did NOT happen in Jesus' lifetime. Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied, him and the other disciples ran and hid.

I posted several specific incidents of the disciples and the church NOT being one. IGNORED. The truth hurts.

Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

The word translated "may be one" is in the subjunctive mood.

Strong's G5792 Mood-Subjunctive

The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and
potentiality. The action described may or may not occur,
depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the
third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as
well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses,
such as those beginning with "hina."

Balthasar · Nov 26, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

John 17:11 "clearly" says no such thing. Jesus did NOT say the church "is" or "will be" one. I have answered this three times. Ignoring what I say does NOT change the truth.

Could you please tell me once more, in one sentence?

It was prayer, not a statement of fact, and did NOT happen in Jesus' lifetime. Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied, him and the other disciples ran and hid.

It doesn't matter whether the Church did or didn't become "one" during Jesus's lifetime Odsolo. Jesus clearly wishes(prays that) the disciples be "one" just as he is "one" with the Father.

I posted several specific incidents of the disciples and the church NOT being one. IGNORED. The truth hurts.

OK, I think you're saying Jesus said the disciples (not the Church) are to be "one " same way he's "one" with the Father? Fair enough?

Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].
The word translated "may be one" is in the subjunctive mood.
Strong's G5792 Mood-Subjunctive

The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and
potentiality. The action described may or may not occur,
depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the
third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as
well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses,
such as those beginning with "hina."

First of all, "those whom thou hast given me" harkens more than just the disciples in my opinion, and in the opinion of most academics. But let's accept this refers only to the disciples. The argument is still the same . Ofcourse the clause may be one is in the subjunctive mood because this "oneness" Christ was praying for his own hadn't happened yet. That's the whole point of praying, Odsolo. It doesn't change anything as far as the argument goes.

If it was impossible for the apostles to be "one" as Jesus is "one" with the Father, Jesus would not have made such a request in prayer. Obviously the apostles can be "one" same way the Father is "one" with Christ, even if it was yet a future event.

Do you understand Odsolo?

Balthasar · Nov 26, 2005

Hi Odsolo,

Odsolo said:
Postnatal ovine scatology. If I want to listen to a parrot I wil go to a pet store. Now your argument is reduced to repeating what I post. Pathetic.

Nine words from my post, I would say that is grossly out-of-context. Open your eyes, there is a lot more there.

Unfortunately for you, these nine words are the gist of it:

Rend the very image (or impress) of his substance

Jesus and the Trinity

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

gort

pedantric

Odsolo

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Odsolo

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Balthasar

Guest

Similar threads