- Dec 20, 2009
- 30,172
- 8,504
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
God's in the middle . i thought he was infinite
and i imagine that circle has no beginning or end .
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How neatly you fit the Creator of the universe into a 2 dimensional drawing.
Sort of like Johnny Quest or Fred Flintstone. Where is that infinite part?
...and what does exist outside your head?
well if everything is inside of your head and the head is a part of everything. then we all go back to the idea of " the whole in every part".
so you see, with a little analysis,
trinity concept is not that nonsense.
its very elegant.
Except, it isn't a trinity anymore, is it.. it is now a panentheistic concept.
Well . pan-theistic in that all gods look to him?
i recall a story about this singularity that shows up in three forms in the space time continuum throughout the measured multiverse, the singularity is the only constant . but why three?
I apparently don't understand Canadian... can you translate this into Illinoisian?
Pan=all
Theos = God
Regarding the singularity speak . I read a book called "The Physics of Christianity" by Frank J Tippler . interesting stuff .
Panentheism... it is a little different from Pantheism.
I am not in a position to read nonsense... I'm busy reading Marcus Borg.
The Physics of Christianity | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
KCDAD, I'm not sure how your conversation with Michael has any relevance, but would you like to discuss the Trinity with me? I think I'm better prepared!
Well . pan-theistic in that all gods look to him?
beyond singularity, all physics laws breakdown. for all intent and purposes, this supposedly source of spacetime itself is for us unmeasurable, invisible, undetectable, non-interfering and therefore unknown and directly unknowable.i recall a story about this singularity that shows up in three forms in the space time continuum throughout the measured multiverse, the singularity is the only constant . but why three?
According to trinitarian theology the Scriptures says, "God was with God, and God was God." "God gave God authority" or "God killed God." etc This makes no sense whatsoever. It is completely unintelligible.
According to trinitarian theology the Scriptures says, "God was with God, and God was God." "God gave God authority" or "God killed God." etc This makes no sense whatsoever. It is completely unintelligible.
excellent post and points.According to trinitarian theology the Scriptures says, "God was with God, and God was God." "God gave God authority" or "God killed God." etc This makes no sense whatsoever. It is completely unintelligible.
well, here is how i see it. the Father, who is Spirit and invisible is God Almighty. the Son has always been a part of and One with the Father, and He became incarnate in history, as a Man. thus Jesus is fully God and fully Man, through the hypostatic union.
He is not God the Father, and is under, from, and sent by the Father. but for us men and women He is the image, person, and totality of God in flesh, as per Colossians 1:19-20 and John 14:6-9.
the Holy Spirit is also fully God, and inseperable from God's nature or person, and through His Spirit the Father has communed with, inspired, and guided His prophets, and later believers in His Christ.
the three are substantially One, yet distinct, with the Father as the eternal begettor of the Son, and the One from whom the Spirit proceeds. seems that the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed of 325 agree with this.
What is unintelligible is your deliberate mangling of the text. John definitely said the Logos was God but he does make some kind of distinction.
John was a simple Jewish fisherman, not a Greek philosopher, therefore his understanding of God and the Word, would be Jewish, not Greek.
Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.” מאמר/memra which in Aramaic means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.
In this citation, which is only representative not comprehensive, there are at least eighty examples where the name יהוה/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” מאמר/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new.
Remember this is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars showing the faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews. Some interesting quotes from the below article, all from the Targums, before the Christian era, note the parallels with the N.T..
“The Word brings Israel nigh unto God and [The Word] sits on [God’s] throne receiving the prayers of Israel.” cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.More complete citation.
“His Word has laid the foundation of the earth.” cf. John 1:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.
“So, in the future, shall The Word be the comforter.” cf. John 14:26, N.T. ca. 70 AD.
“In The Word redemption will be found.” cf. Luke 21:28, N.T. ca. 70 AD.
“My Word shall be unto you for a redeeming deity.” cf. Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD.
Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.
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," [The 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 [The Word]," 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, [My Word] " instead of "My hand " (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " 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 [My Word] 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 (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 [His Word] 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, [The Word] 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).
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).
The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).
JewishEncyclopedia.com - MEMRA
Well that would be trinitarian theology and not unitarian theology. When Jesus said, "I and Father are one", he means one in purpose.
Jesus also said in prayer to the Father,
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.Are we going to be consistent throughout the text and say that Jesus was asking the Heavenly Father that we believers might become God?
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:21-23 KJV)
All I did was replace "Logos" and "Jesus Christ" whom you believe to be the Almighty with the word "God". Nothing deceitful here. It's very straight up. Mangling? Nice try.
As I said the 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 concept is not meant to be understood. It's confusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?