Trinity --- true or false?

martymonster · Jun 19, 2007

Jessica01 said:
He was a smart man - but were alot of other men.

And just because he was good at one thing does not make him necessrily brillant about other things.

he was plain wrong about the Trinity

And we can rest assured that youv'e delved deeply into the subject to be able to say that with absolute conviction, or are you just copying what you pastor told you?

StudentoftheWord · Jun 19, 2007

That is false. Arius most certainly argued that tradition was on his side.

Either way, appeal to tradition is not a strong argument. Expand more.

plmarquette · Jun 19, 2007

Hairy-tick's ... 1st or second century heresy ...

Modalism , Sabellianism , Monarchian's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a63.htm
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/td_jakes_and_on.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14856460

Willtor · Jun 19, 2007

Brennin said:
That is false. Arius most certainly argued that tradition was on his side.

If you're talking about Lucian of Antioch he was considered borderline heterodox in his own day - this prior to the Nicene council. If you're talking about someone else, I'd appreciate a citation.

Brennin · Jun 19, 2007

Willtor said:
If you're talking about Lucian of Antioch he was considered borderline heterodox in his own day - this prior to the Nicene council. If you're talking about someone else, I'd appreciate a citation.

Origen is another. There is also the Council of Antioch in 268 that deemed homoousios heretical.

Willtor · Jun 19, 2007

Brennin said:
Origen is another. There is also the Council of Antioch in 268 that deemed homoousios heretical.

I'll admit there is potential in Origen. But I'd still like to see a citation.

As for the Council of Antioch, as it happens, homoousion had reversed its meaning by the time of Nicea. Its condemnation was a condemnation of Sabellianism. Initially, it had been used to describe the same identity between Father and Son in all cases, whereas, by the time of Nicea, it was used to distinguish Personality. I can see where one might identify the Council of Antioch as an appeal to traditional teachings, but given the context...

just human · Jun 19, 2007

I don't mean to interrupt, but my take on what I see being discussed is that Jesus is the Word or answer to sin and death. God's wisdom is passed to us through Jesus. Jesus being the only person who could pass on YHWH's wisdom because he knows his Father and his Father's wishes.
My take on eternal is something going from a point in time on into time eternally, I don't see it as meaning always existing but unable to be destroyed where as everlasting has the possibility of going on forever but could be destroyed.
Jesus represents God's eternal Word inthat after Adam and Eve disobeyed, YHWH made a promise to repurchase mankind from sin and Jesus was used to this purpose. YHWH's Word does not go for without results and the result was Jesus coming to earth living a faultless life and freely giving it away to repurchase mankind from sin and death.

just my thoughts, just human

Willtor · Jun 20, 2007

just human said:
I don't mean to interrupt, but my take on what I see being discussed is that Jesus is the Word or answer to sin and death. God's wisdom is passed to us through Jesus. Jesus being the only person who could pass on YHWH's wisdom because he knows his Father and his Father's wishes.
My take on eternal is something going from a point in time on into time eternally, I don't see it as meaning always existing but unable to be destroyed where as everlasting has the possibility of going on forever but could be destroyed.
Jesus represents God's eternal Word inthat after Adam and Eve disobeyed, YHWH made a promise to repurchase mankind from sin and Jesus was used to this purpose. YHWH's Word does not go for without results and the result was Jesus coming to earth living a faultless life and freely giving it away to repurchase mankind from sin and death.

just my thoughts, just human

Yes indeed. That is one legitimate way to take "eternal." The dispute at the time the language was used, however, was whether the Son had been created. The term "eternal" in that context was used to denote that the Son had not been created and that the Father was always the Father. Arius' argument was that there was when the Father was and the Son was not.

The question, here, is whether there is a greater Word than Christ. Is Christ is the highest Word and wisdom of God? If he is and if he is not God, Himself, then was there when God was not wise?

plmarquette · Jun 20, 2007

We have a christian brother who ministers with us in the jail & he is a oneness pentecostal , & we have heard a steady diet of this type of " spin " for a year ...

To believe in his or what is being presented in 3 separate threads here , is to go against 50 years of faith , 10 years of study , and what is readily apparent in the bible , to those who wish to understand what is there , not those who desire to have the book document their theory which has been branded as heresy for 2003 years ...
To disregard the council of Trent , which spoke of modalism , the nature of Jesus as both God and Man , to refute the teachings of Jesus , the 12 , and the fathers, who were the students of the 12 is not good theology ..

just human · Jun 21, 2007

Yes, well everyone thought the world was flat and you could sail right off the edge of it but along comes Columbus saying he doesn't believe this is true and he sets out to explore and see that it isn't for sure.
Surprise! all those other people were wrong the world is round and you can't sail off of the edge.

Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right. A look at "the church" and those who led it shows how twisted things were back then.
There certainly would have been direct clarification by Jesus if he was a coequal with his Father in some way, but instead we have Jesus himself saying "the Father is Greater than I" and other similar statements about his Father being the supreme God. Jesus also stated there were things he did not know that only the Father knew.
Not believing the Trinity was branded heresy by the same sort that charged the poor to pray for thier dead loved ones to get them out of the new purgatory that they were claiming the dead ones went to along with other schemes to cheat people out of thier limited funds and belongings.
If a lie is told long enough and often enough people will believe it to be true. Why do you think that the religious leaders fought so hard to prevent the Bible from being translated into common tongues so everyone could read for themselves?
just my thoughts, just human

just human · Jun 21, 2007

Willtor said:
Yes indeed. That is one legitimate way to take "eternal." The dispute at the time the language was used, however, was whether the Son had been created. The term "eternal" in that context was used to denote that the Son had not been created and that the Father was always the Father. Arius' argument was that there was when the Father was and the Son was not.

The question, here, is whether there is a greater Word than Christ. Is Christ is the highest Word and wisdom of God? If he is and if he is not God, Himself, then was there when God was not wise?

Having wisdom or words issue forth from oneself does not make one any more or less than they were or are.
Jesus was the very best creation Jehovah his Father made!!
It was with Jesus already in mind that Jehovah made the prophecy about Jesus being bruised in the heel while Satan would be bruised in the head, and that there was going to be enmity between the seed of heaven and the seed of satan.

The question, here, is whether there is a greater Word than Christ. Is Christ is the highest Word and wisdom of God? If he is and if he is not God, Himself, then was there when God was not wise?

I don't see that the fact of Jesus being the Word or Answer to resolving inherited sin making Jehovah somehow less wise prior to Jesus creation.
Jehovah knows things which Jesus does not such as the time of the end. We have hints as to about when the end will be give or take a few thousand years :^) but noone knows when but Jehovah accourding to Jesus

Willtor · Jun 22, 2007

just human said:
Yes, well everyone thought the world was flat and you could sail right off the edge of it but along comes Columbus saying he doesn't believe this is true and he sets out to explore and see that it isn't for sure.
Surprise! all those other people were wrong the world is round and you can't sail off of the edge.

Not that I don't understand your comparison, but this is not quite right. Everybody in Columbus' day knew the world was round. Only, Columbus had fudged his math enough to make the Earth seem small enough for him to reach Asia from Europe, going West. Nobody wanted to fund him, not because they thought the Earth was flat, but because they knew how big the Earth was.

just human said:
Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right. A look at "the church" and those who led it shows how twisted things were back then.
There certainly would have been direct clarification by Jesus if he was a coequal with his Father in some way, but instead we have Jesus himself saying "the Father is Greater than I" and other similar statements about his Father being the supreme God. Jesus also stated there were things he did not know that only the Father knew.
Not believing the Trinity was branded heresy by the same sort that charged the poor to pray for thier dead loved ones to get them out of the new purgatory that they were claiming the dead ones went to along with other schemes to cheat people out of thier limited funds and belongings.
If a lie is told long enough and often enough people will believe it to be true. Why do you think that the religious leaders fought so hard to prevent the Bible from being translated into common tongues so everyone could read for themselves?
just my thoughts, just human

I don't think anybody has made an appeal to popularity, though if any of my arguments have come across that way I apologize.

Again, the Trinitarian interpretation of "the Father is greater than I" is that Christ is equal with the Father where he touches God and inferior to the Father where he touches humanity. That's the doctrine of the Incarnation.

I don't recall anybody fighting to keep the Scriptures from being translated. In fact, off the top of my head, Jerome's Vulgate was completed around 400. And it was never a question of people reading but only hearing. Up until the invention of the movable-type printing press most people were illiterate.

Willtor · Jun 22, 2007

just human said:
Having wisdom or words issue forth from oneself does not make one any more or less than they were or are.
Jesus was the very best creation Jehovah his Father made!!
It was with Jesus already in mind that Jehovah made the prophecy about Jesus being bruised in the heel while Satan would be bruised in the head, and that there was going to be enmity between the seed of heaven and the seed of satan.
I don't see that the fact of Jesus being the Word or Answer to resolving inherited sin making Jehovah somehow less wise prior to Jesus creation.
Jehovah knows things which Jesus does not such as the time of the end. We have hints as to about when the end will be give or take a few thousand years :^) but noone knows when but Jehovah accourding to Jesus

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that God isn't wise. I'm asking what you, as a non-Trinitarian, think about it. I'm asking whether there is a Word and wisdom that is greater than Christ? If there isn't, then wisdom itself is not an eternal thing and God is not eternally wise. If there is a greater Word and wisdom than Christ, 1. how should John have referenced it, and 2. how can it be said that anyone who has seen Christ has seen the Father?

With the doctrine of the Trinity, the Word is in God and is God. Thus, God has an eternal Word and wisdom, and that Word is Christ.

C.O.Ioves · Jun 23, 2007

I have never encountered an anti-Trinitarian anywhere who could accurately state what the Biblical Trinity is. To a person, without fail, they always describe some aberration, of three separate things, like the three frog-like spirits in revelation.

I often see references to so-called pagan Trinities. This anti-Trinitarian tale goes like this, the early church was made up of pagans who supposedly could not, or would not, abandon their pagan beliefs so they allegedly incorporated their pagan trinities, into Christianity.

There are several problems with these theories. The first is there is absolutely no evidence of any kind whatsoever. There is no evidence at all that any pagan practice, of any kind, was assimilated by Christianity.

The biggest argument against the so-called pagan trinity theory is, there never was such a thing. During Jesus earthly ministry and the first centuries after his death there existed no religion or society, which could have influenced Christianity, that had any kind of trinity deity. There is not now, and never has been, any religion or society that ever had a trinity deity, one deity which manifests as three.

Not only that, there has never existed any religion, or society, which had/has a triad of deities, that is three specific deities functioning together, in concert, which somehow influences or affects mankind.

Anti-Trinitarians loudly claim that the trinity was copied from; Roman, Greek, Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Median, etc., religions. And that sounds so plausible. But none of the usual suspects, ever had a trinity deity, or even a specifically identified triad.

Beside Biblical Christianity the only religion which has ever mentioned a Trinity was pre-Christian Judaism.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Trinity-In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as matronita, body, spirit, occur frequently (e.q., Tazria', ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, Die Kabbala, p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's La Kabbale, Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled Matteh Mosheh, which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala, p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T

The Trinity in the early church hundreds of years before the councils.

In his, ( Link to: Dialogue with Trypho), Justin wrote;

The Word is Not as an Inanimate Power

The Word is a Person.

The Word is Begotten of the Father's Substance.

He (Jesus) was God,

He (Jesus) was Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.

He (Jesus) was God, indivisible from the Father.

He (Jesus) was God, inseparable from the Father.

(Jesus) was Begotten from the Father but not by abscission [cutting off]

100 AD Ignatius of Antioch (225 years before Nicea), a follower of John. "There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour." (Letter to the Philadelphians 2).

The First Apology of Justin, (150 AD) (175 years before Nicea) "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, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh." Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts. We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein"

CHAP. II.--UNITY OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS.

The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Philippians

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord."(9) And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father?(10) And there is alSO one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father."(11) And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ."(12) And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know?"(13) And there is also one Paraclete.(14) For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit,"(15) since "we have been called in one hope of our calling."(16) And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit,"(15) with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit."(17) There are not then either three Fathers,(18) or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"(19) not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

A Plea For the Christians By Athenagoras the Athenian: Philosopher and Christian [177 AD] (148 years before Nicea)

while men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity; and who know that the life for which we look is far better than can be described in words, provided we arrive at it pure from all wrong-doing; who, moreover, carry our benevolence to such an extent, that we not only love our friends ("for if ye love them," He says, "that love you, and lend to them that lend to you, what reward will ye have? ",-shall we, I say, when such is our character, and when we live such a life as this, that we may escape condemnation at last, not be accounted pious?

http://www.piney.com/FatAthenPleaChr.html

180 AD (145 years before Nicea) Theophilus of Antioch
Chapter XV. - Of the Fourth Day. "

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom." And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. (180 AD, Theophilus of Antioch Chapter XV. - Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus 2:15)

190 AD (135 years before Nicea) Clement Of Alexandria

"I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father." (Stromata, Book V, ch. 14)

"When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning [1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-equal with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is indicative of an eternity without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is the Son, being one with the Father in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the word always existed is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the Word' [John 1:1]." (fragment in Eusebius History, Bk 6 Ch 14; Jurgens, p. 188)

'For both are one that is, God. For He has said, "In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God." (The Instructor, Book 1, ch 8)

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the Expiator, the Savior, the Soother, the Divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 10:110:1).

Gregory the Wonderworker (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]). (60 years before Nicea)

"There is one God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever"

200 AD Tertullian (125 years before Nicea)"[God speaks in the plural Let us make man in our image] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12)

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)

"As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)

http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

C.O.Ioves · Jun 23, 2007

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 when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

In the Targum: [Aramaic translations of the O.T., in Babylon, ca. 700 b.c.] (82 x (Total 107 x)

In the Targum the Memra [Aramaic for word.] 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," 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," 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 (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).

Mediatorship. (25x)

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming [size=+1]deity[/size], and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). 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 redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5) . "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

dannyboy588 · Jun 23, 2007

Logicalthinker said:
You know Isaac Newton. Law of Gravity, Motion, invented calculus. His calulations for orbiting objects are still used by NASA. Plus alchemy, theology, and physics. With out the tools he created: Einstein and Hawkins might just be figuring out calculus.

If you need more info the internet is abound with it on Isaac Newton.

God Bless
LT

I love that you call him the second smartest man in history, and then still point out that he believed in alcehmy. Achemy!

Alchemy in itself is dangerous ground in a christian sense, but more importantly it is now known to be complete and utter nonsense and pseudoscience.

StudentoftheWord · Jun 24, 2007

Hehe, Dannyboy, you are so observant! There is just something wrong claiming someone is the smartest person in the world and then attribute Alchemy as one of his (first of his) interests.

This is why I dislike it when someone claims to be an expert in something and then shows how much they don't know, I am dissappointed. I don't mind matter of fact speaking, I am just dissappointed if they are unwilling to repent of the errors they have when they are pointed out after stating it so matter of factly.

Maybe it is just me, but when someone claims to know something based on something, you would hope they did their research first.

plmarquette · Jun 25, 2007

just human said:
Yes, well everyone thought the world was flat and you could sail right off the edge of it but along comes Columbus saying he doesn't believe this is true and he sets out to explore and see that it isn't for sure.
Surprise! all those other people were wrong the world is round and you can't sail off of the edge.

Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right. A look at "the church" and those who led it shows how twisted things were back then.
There certainly would have been direct clarification by Jesus if he was a coequal with his Father in some way, but instead we have Jesus himself saying "the Father is Greater than I" and other similar statements about his Father being the supreme God. Jesus also stated there were things he did not know that only the Father knew.
Not believing the Trinity was branded heresy by the same sort that charged the poor to pray for thier dead loved ones to get them out of the new purgatory that they were claiming the dead ones went to along with other schemes to cheat people out of thier limited funds and belongings.
If a lie is told long enough and often enough people will believe it to be true. Why do you think that the religious leaders fought so hard to prevent the Bible from being translated into common tongues so everyone could read for themselves?
just my thoughts, just human

at what point do we go back to in our theology to find the truth ?

To the reformers , or the church fathers (disciples of the 12 ) ; to Paul the author of the new testament ; to matthew , mark , luke , and john the writers ?

Do we include the pseudipigrapha, apocrypha, and deuterocanoconicals ... even though they disagree with one another , are flawed , and considered spurious for the sake of those who believe in them ?

Do we believe in denominations who seem to have the correct spin who have only been around for 50 or 100 years and flush everything else prior to them ?

just human · Jun 25, 2007

It is quite simple.
What did Jesus say about his being God?
Never 1 single time did Jesus himself say he was god or equal to GOD!!!!!
How many times did he point to his Father as the ONLY true GOD?
Was it Jesus or someone else who said the Father is greater than I?
Was it Jesus or someone else who told use to pray to his Father?
Did Jesus ever say to pray to himself?
WWJD
The answer is clear, he would and does worship his Father,prays to his Father, Looks up to his Father.
just my thoughts, just human

martymonster · Jun 25, 2007

just human said:
It is quite simple.
What did Jesus say about his being God?
Never 1 single time did Jesus himself say he was god or equal to GOD!!!!!
How many times did he point to his Father as the ONLY true GOD?
Was it Jesus or someone else who said the Father is greater than I?
Was it Jesus or someone else who told use to pray to his Father?
Did Jesus ever say to pray to himself?
WWJD
The answer is clear, he would and does worship his Father,prays to his Father, Looks up to his Father.
just my thoughts, just human

And good, clear,precise, logical thoughts they are too just human!

Another point is that Jesus never once discussed His relationship with the "person of the holy spirit" but He did quite often talk about His relationship with the Father.

Why?

Because the Holy spirit is God's spirit not some third person in some fabled trinity!

Trinity --- true or false?

Veteran

Steward of the Word

Veteran

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Active Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

C.O.Ioves

Guest

C.O.Ioves

Guest

Member

Steward of the Word

Veteran

Active Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency