What "the Word WAS God" means.

[Kain]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
That is quite interesting but misleading. Torah means instruction. Torah is never called "the Word", even in this quote from Jewish Encyclopedia. In the New Testament Torah is always called "The Law" not the word! What then is "The Word" in Jewish thought?

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:
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, 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, (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.).

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

There is much more at the above link. This is what John knew as a Jew concerning "The Word"when he wrote the gospel.

Interesting, but not damaging to my case.
"the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself"

the 'word' can be translated as being 'godlike' or 'toward God' instead of assuming that the word is God Himself, without violating what John would have known.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Jesus does not challenge the concept of "one God". He would only do that if He was a second god. But Jesus identified with the "one God". "Why do you say 'show us the Father'? Do you not believe I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? He who has seen Me, has SEEN THE FATHER!" Jn14:9-11

Jesus said: (John 5:21-32 NIV)
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Please explain how anyone could hold this passage to be as from one God.

 

Originally posted by Ben johnson
We are quite limited in understanding. What is the solution to the "UNIFIED FIELD"? (I suspect Einstein was far closer than he admitted.) What is gravity? Inertia? I would LOVE to answer those. Why is the "speed-of-light" an absolute? Why is it not (and WHEN is it not absolute)?

My solution is simple. You only need a unified field theory to prove this idiotic Big Bang theory. I do not believe in Big Bang and do not care about the unified field theory. - You know Einstein?!? then you know his explanation of gravity. The speed of light is not absolute. You should know that c is a variant in relation to the size of the universe; if you understand Einstein.

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Take a trivial equation: T¹ = Tº × (1 - V²/C²)[sup]½[/sup] ---and now, define time for a photon! According to this, its time relative to us is ZERO. Yet it exists from moment to moment. Does the concept have any meaning? So to argue, "God gave us intellect to understand all things"---maybe. But not at the moment. When the Unified Field is published, when we possess "zero-point-energy", when we understand 11-dimensional-space, when we understand all. (There is a book out that purports to prove God's existence---but it requires proficiency in 3 fields, including quantum physics and advanced mathematics...)

 Oh my. We have a live one here. Do you want to impress us with mathematics? Than give the equation for your trinity. I even allow you to use tensors LOL
As for your riddle, I suggest reading the Picture Book of Quantum Mechanics. In it you will find that time does not exist. If time would exist we would live in a deterministic universe. Since we do not your riddle is nil.
How could you prove God? In the past we used imaginary stories to explains and define him, now we use math? Bring it on my good fellow, I love to see it.

Originally posted by Ben johnson
BTW, there are Human Beings that manifest multiple personalities---yet each personality is separate and distinct. Why is it so difficult to imagine ONE GOD, with three distinct personalities? The Apostles understood it so---why else would Peter call the "HOLY SPIRIT", God, in Acts 5:3 & 5?

People with Multiple personality are classified as mad, at least where I live.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Kain
Interesting, but not damaging to my case.
"the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself"

the 'word' can be translated as being 'godlike' or 'toward God' instead of assuming that the word is God Himself, without violating what John would have known.

The specific word used by John cannot be translated as Godlike. There is another form of Theos for that. Not assuming anything just reading what John said. "The Word was God." Which is exactly how Memra is used in the Targumim. And Oh BTW very damaging to your case. You didn't know what you were talking about and still don't. Memra not Torah.

 

[Kain]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
The specific word used by John cannot be translated as Godlike. There is another form of Theos for that. Not assuming anything just reading what John said. "The Word was God." Which is exactly how Memra is used in the Targumim. And Oh BTW very damaging to your case. You didn't know what you were talking about and still don't. Memra not Torah.

Your selective quoting was damaging to your previous argument and it's damaging again in your current one.

Read on in the article and you will see that God created through His Memra. This does no make God and Memra separate persons.

Draw the parallels. About the Torah, it is written that God created by consulting the Torah, about the Memra, it is written that God created through the Memra.

From the Targum:
The word is a manifestation of God's divinepower.
The word is sent as a messenger in place of God Himself.

It is clear from this theology that the 'word of God' represents God, but is not God Himself. John said the same thing using other words. He confirmed the role of the Father as the only true God in other verses.


You have no case.

 

[Future Man]

Jesus said: (John 5:21-32 NIV)
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

This is like asking "How can Eve be WITH Adam and yet they be ONE flesh?"

>

I would certainly say that Jesus more than "represents the Law" as He is THE message, and not just the "messenger". He is the fulfillment. He IS THE 'Word'. I can expound on that later as I have in the "John1 thread".

It's easy to see that the 'Word' in vs1 is not speaking of a mere "principle" as vs12 states that this 'word' has a name on which to believe i.e. 'Jesus'. Vs10 states that Jesus was the agent of the creation.

"He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not."

This would naturally be an in context reference to vs1-3.

Jesus is clearly identified as the "Word OF Life" (see Jn1:4) in 1Jn1:1-2.

God bless--FM

 

[Future Man]

It is clear from this theology that the 'word of God' represents God, but is not God Himself. John said the same thing using other words. He confirmed the role of the Father as the only true God in other verses.

Not that one again...

 

[Future Man]

From the Targum:
The word is a manifestation of God's divinepower.
The word is sent as a messenger in place of God Himself.

It is clear from this theology that the 'word of God' represents God, but is not God Himself. John said the same thing using other words. He confirmed the role of the Father as the only true God in other verses.

This is rather erroneous. This assumes that a reference to the Torah in the above context, must apply to Jesus in the context of Jn1. The Law is a representation of God, naturally. And what do the scriptures speak of? Christ. He IS the fulfillment "Word". But what of Christ?

Luk 24:44 And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all that is written concerning ME in the law of Moses and prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.

So who do the scriptures testify of? Christ. This harmonizes perfectly with what you stated.

And Old Shepherd is correct. If the word "divine" were to be intended, John would have used the Gk word "theios" instead of "theos".


And being that wer'e all of a sudden on the topic of Jewish literature:

>

The Talmud takes Isaiah lvi, 7, and commenting on the phrase "house of my prayer," it asks, "What does God pray?" The response:

Berachot 7a: "Rabbi Zutra bar Tobi says in the name of Rav: 'May it be My will that My mercy may suppress My anger, and that My mercy may prevail over My attributes of justice and of recompense, that I may deal with My children in the attribute of mercy and, stopping well short of the line of strict justice, acting for their well-being.'"

>

Seems like "God praying to Himself" is of no concern from a Jewish perpective. How does that fit my view?


God bless--FM

Jude4

 

[Million Pieces]

Originally posted by edpobre
When Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I AM,"  was Jesus saying to them that "I AM" WAS his NAME?

If your answer is YES,, was the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14, the SAME "I AM" in John 8:58?

If your answer is YES,, then the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 is NO LONGER God because the Exo. 3:14 "I AM" has TURNED Himself into a MAN. And there would have been NO God in heaven. But we know, this is NOT what the Bible tells us!

On the other hand, if the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 is NOT the same as the "I AM" in John 8:58, then there would have been  TWO "I AMs"  in the Old Testament, one of which TURNED Himself into a MAN. But we also know that this is NOT what the Bible teaches.

Either way, Jesus is NOT God! As Jesus has SAID, he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the FATHER is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Ed

 

So who lied?  Did God the Father lie, when He said He was I AM?  Did Jesus lie when He claimed the Name I AM?  It was most certainly not God the Father, He can not lie.  It couldn't have been Jesus, as that would have been sin in Him, and disqualified Him from atoning for our sins on the cross (pain-stick, or whatever you want to call it).

So who lied?  Who lied, ed?

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Jn207
So who lied?  Did God the Father lie, when He said He was I AM?  Did Jesus lie when He claimed the Name I AM?  It was most certainly not God the Father, He can not lie.  It couldn't have been Jesus, as that would have been sin in Him, and disqualified Him from atoning for our sins on the cross (pain-stick, or whatever you want to call it).

So who lied?  Who lied, ed?

Nobody lied Jn207.God said "I AM" is his name (Ex. 3:14). Jesus said "I AM" in response to the Jews question on how Abraham SAW "his day" when he was not yet 50 years old.

Apparently, the Jews thought that Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus "birthday"  when he said "my day." But Jesus had "judgment day" or his second coming in mind when he said "my day."

Jesus was telling them that Abraham rejoiced to see his second coming when the promises of God to him and his descendants will be fulfilled.  Jesus was telling them that before Abraham was born, he was already "foreordained" to judge the world in righteousness and bring God's people to the promised land, the Holy City in heaven.

Ed 

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by edpobre
"My dear friends,

do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere.
Ed

Originally posted by edpobre
Like Jesus, Bro. Felix Manalo TAUGHT that he was SENT by God and BACKED UP his belief by prophecies recorded in the Bible like what Jesus did. Bro. Felix Manalo TAUGHT doctrines from God like what Jesus did.
Ed

Originally posted by edpobre
because it is in the Philippines where this TRUE "Church of Christ" RE-EMERGED.
As anyone can SEE, these doctrinal statements are NOT mandated by the INC Administration but are MANDATED by God THROUGH the INC Administration.
Ed

Originally posted by edpobre
Like Jesus, Bro. Felix Manalo TAUGHT that he was SENT by God and BACKED UP his belief by prophecies recorded in the Bible like what Jesus did. Bro. Felix Manalo TAUGHT doctrines from God like what Jesus did.
Ed

Originally posted by edpobre
because it is in the Philippines where this TRUE "Church of Christ" RE-EMERGED.
As anyone can SEE, these doctrinal statements are NOT mandated by the INC Administration but are MANDATED by God THROUGH the INC Administration.
Ed

Originally posted by edpobre
The IGLESIA NI CRISTO is the TRUE church of Christ in these last days.
Thus, ONLY members of the IGLESIA NI CRISTO WILL be saved!



That's TRUE! The work of Christ on the cross is NOT sufficient in of itself for salvation
One must ENTER the FOLD or FLOCK in order to be SAVED. That fold or flock is the IGLESIA NI CRISTO, the TRUE church of Christ in these last days.

The IGLESIA NI CRISTO is the TRUE church of Christ in these last days. It has been GIVEN to them to KNOW The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven THROUGH a MESSENGER commissioned by God THROUGH Bible PROPHECIES.
Ed 
 

Alpha and Omega


The Trinity: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit


Is the Creedal Doctrine of Trinity Biblical


A brief declaration and vindication of the Trinity


The following links provide information regarding Iglesia ni Cristo, it's founder, their doctrine, who they state Jesus is?, what Salvation is according to their man-made doctrinal beliefs, the control they adminster to it's members, their deceptive practices, and the claims of the founder, Felix Manalo and his belief that he is spoken of in scripture as a messenger of God/The 5th angel.

There is a considerable amount of data that has been gathered on Iglesia ni Cristo, much of it from their own publications and former members.

I believe it is well worth the time reading over the information regarding Iglesia ni Cristo, indeed.

Examine Iglesia ni Cristi

http://members.tripod.com/insiders_inc/

http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/i00.html

http://www.letusreason.org/igleidir.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~janchung/table_of_contents.html

http://members.tripod.com/~janchung/false_messenger.html

http://members.tripod.com/xcrusaders/angeleast.html

http://www.adeptsys.com/chrysalis/Pages/info/iglesia.html

http://www.nossumus.net/iglesyanikristo/lesson11.html

http://www.examineiglesianicristo.com/honesty4.html

http://thebereans.net/qa-realname.shtml

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Kain
Your selective quoting was damaging to your previous argument and it's damaging again in your current one.

A deliberately false juvenile accusation, about two steps below the adolescent schoolyard taunt, “Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo.”

awf d[ $[rb hn[t-alw

Link to any previous post where you alleged, asserted, stated, implied, proved, etc. etc., any so-called “selective quoting”, whatsoever, by me. While you desperately search for nonexistent proof, I will link to your actual post. I always precisely cite my sources, and link to sources, whenever possible, just to rebut false accusations that I “quote selectively” or “out-of-context.”

In response to my posting the complete first paragraph from, and link to, the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE), “Trinity -in the Zohar” article, you posted one out-of-context sentence from a different article, “The Zohar”, which does not specifically address the JE Trinity article I posted, but purportedly shows that the Zohar misquotes scripture and contains other errors.

Originally posted by Kain
Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud; contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities; mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans (ii. 32a); uses the expression "esnoga" (iii. 232b), which is a Portuguese corruption of "synagogue," and explains it in a cabalistic manner as a compound of the Hebrew words and ; gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were introduced long after the Talmudic period (i. 24b, ii. 116a, iii. 65a)."

Link to this post.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/23536-13.html

I responded with a detailed rebuttal from the same JE article. Note, unlike your response, the very argument you presented was “refuted”, in the same JE article, quoting several Talmud scholars. You blatantly, “selectively,” quoted only a portion of the article and deliberately omitted what contradicted your argument.

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 authoritieswere 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/v...id=142&letter=Z

Read on in the article and you will see that God created through His Memra. This does no[t] make God and Memra separate persons.

I have read on in the “Memra” article, in fact, I am posting it, below. Please show where “God created through His Memra.” What the article actually shows, with more than one hundred (100) scripture references, is that Memra, was substituted for the divine name, יהוה/YHWH, in the Targums. In pre-Christian, Jewish thought, the “memra” was God, which is exactly what John, who was a Jew, wrote. “The Word was God!”

And Oh BTW, you might want to research what the early church, i.e. Jewish Christians, meant by the term “person.” It was not exclusively “a human being.”

Draw the parallels. About the Torah, it is written that God created by consulting the Torah, about the Memra, it is written that God created through the Memra.

What parallels, where is it written? You have offered no evidence of any parallels. The article actually says, “Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth"(Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13);, not “through” anything!

Isa 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

From the Targum:
The word is a manifestation of God's divinepower.
The word is sent as a messenger in place of God Himself.

Once again, one “selectively quoted” out-of-context, sentence, which ignores, and is contradicted by, the rest of the article.

It is clear from this theology that the 'word of God' represents God, but is not God Himself. John said the same thing using other words. He confirmed the role of the Father as the only true God in other verses.

Patently false, it is clear from this Theology, the “memra”/“Word of God”, in the Targums, is God, Himself. Which, “other verses?” I assume you are referring to one verse, John 17:3. While John quotes Jesus addressing the Father, in the second person, “You, the only true God..” In the same verse Jesus refers to “Jesus Christ”, in the third person. Does that prove that the Jesus speaking is not the Jesus Christ sent by the Father? Can you give a consistent, non-contradictory, hermeneutic of this verse?

Also in 1 John 5:20, the same writer, John refers to Jesus as the true God. I have presented scriptural proof of this several times. See links.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-19.html

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-21.html

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-22.html

You have no case.

I have no case? Let’s review. You posted a quote from, and link to, the JE, “Torah” article, vainly trying to pass off the Torah as ”The Word.” When I presented irrefutable evidence proving you did not know what you were talking about, you simply ignored your blatant falsehood and, quoted one sentence, out-of-context, from the “memra” article, I had posted, as if that single sentence was the entire article. It is you who has no case.

Previously posted By OS

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" [יהוה/YHWH]] when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

—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. (Note, this statement contradicts the opening sentence, highlighted above, is not supported by the article, below, and is very obviously merely anti-Christian, anti-Trinity polemics. OS)

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.).”

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

 

[OldShepherd]

Now, the rest of the story. Note that in virtually every occurrence “memra” is substituted for the divine name יהוה (YHWH). “Memra” is not “the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself.” But, the “Memra” is literally יהוה (YHWH), Himself, as in this first reference!

Jewish Encyclopedia, Memra
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 [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).

Mediatorship.
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 deity, 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/v...id=399&letter=M

So who is “selective quoting”, invalidating their own argument, over and over and over again? I suggest you take a remedial reading and writing class and learn how to accurately research, quote, and cite sources.

 

[Kain]

Out of previous drivel many of which is just a repeat of previously refuted statements, I have only one comment to add.

(Note, this statement contradicts the opening sentence, highlighted above, is not supported by the article, below, and is very obviously merely anti-Christian, anti-Trinity polemics. OS)

With this statement, you have nullified Christianity, since many ideas in Christianity are contradicted in Judaism, and therefore, very obviously merely anti-Judaic, anti-monotheistic polemics. Good job.

Selective quoting Shepherd. If it doesn't agree with what you believe, just disregard it. Seems to work for you.

 

[Ben johnson]

Jesus said: (John 5:21-32 NIV)
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Please explain how anyone could hold this passage to be as from one God.

Huh??? Jesus claimed equality with God---the verse you cited seems to support this. Does it not lean more towards Jesus' divinity?

You only need a unified field theory to prove this idiotic Big Bang theory.

No, silly---the "Unified Field" relates electric, magnetic, gravitational fields, with space and time. With this theory mankind would have interdimensional transition (hence the highly rumored "Project Invisibility", said to have been conducted on the USS Eldrige), likely teleportation and time travel. Which is why I believe that Einstein essentially solved it, looked at it for a few days, chuckled hard to himself, and destroyed every trace of it! (Wouldn't YOU?)

I do not believe in Big Bang and do not care about the unified field theory.

The Universe had a beginning. We all agree on that. It matters not whether you call it "Big Bang", or "Creative Event", or "Giant Hiccup"---the beginning is what it is...

Oh my. We have a live one here. Do you want to impress us with mathematics?[

Nawww, if I wanted to do that, I would throw out some partial differential equations...

Than give the equation for your trinity.

That's easy. Are you sitting down? OK, now brace yourself:

1 + 1 + 1 = 3 = 1

...you will find that time does not exist.

Actually, (though I have not done the math), time is presented as a "physical dimension" from the correct reference frame. Supposedly at velocities in excess of "C", time regresses (relative to our reference)...

How could you prove God? In the past we used imaginary stories to explains and define him, now we use math? Bring it on my good fellow, I love to see it.

Alas I have not read the book---and I certainly would not posess the proficiencies at advanced mathematics and quantum physics (and the other field which escapes my memory at the moment) to understand it.

People with Multiple personality are classified as mad, at least where I live.

Back to "relativity"---mad is based on your reference system. The Human mind as created is designed to function as a single personality---thus this is the reference, and multiple becomes the deviation. Yet the existence of the personalities exposes the possibility. One who is "multiple", is undeniably one Human Being, but also undeniably SEVERAL PEOPLE---and ONE personality does not know everything that the OTHER knows.

In the "Trinity", we are told that there is "one God"---but He seems to exist in three persons (this then defining the "reference", the "norm", for God). Jesus is presented as existing BEFORE birth (Jn8:58)---in fact, with no beginning at all (Heb7:3). MANY verses speak of Jesus accepting worship and forgiving sins (which the Jews KNEW that ONLY God could do), or equating Jesus WITH God, or calling Jesus the Savior (though only God is the Savior), or any number of other labels. Yet Jesus doesn't know everything the Father does (Matt24:36)---so we have Jesus Who is absolutely God, but exists as a separate personality. We-finite don't necessarily hafta understand it; by choosing as OUR reference, Scripture, we are constrained to discuss the theology and pure doctrine of what the Bible SAYS...

PS: It seems to me we're spending much effort "defining this-or-that Scripture"---which is fine; but we also have another approach, to ask those who were THERE. The Bible is not a complete recording of every single word spoken by Jesus & the Apostles. If we were to ask the JEWS of the TIME, THEY CERTAINLY knew every word He said.

And they UNDERSTOOD HIM TO BE CALLING HIMSELF GOD!!!

Jn5:18, Jn10:33

If we have the record of THOSE WHO WERE THERE, then why are we even discussing whether or not He called Himself God? THEY SAY HE DID!

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Kain
Out of previous drivel many of which is just a repeat of previously refuted statements, I have only one comment to add.

Maybe some day you will have some maturity and wisdom.

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by Ben johnson

Jesus said: (John 5:21-32 NIV)
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Please explain how anyone could hold this passage to be as from one God.[/quote]

Huh??? Jesus claimed equality with God---the verse you cited seems to support this. Does it not lean more towards Jesus' divinity?[/quote]

You did NOT understand the question Ben. The question is, does this passage indicate ONE God or TWO Gods?

Than give the equation for your trinity.

Are you sitting down? OK, now brace yourself:

1 + 1 + 1 = 3 = 1

I wonder if Einstein would agree to this "out of space" equation!

In the "Trinity", we are told that there is "one God"---but He seems to exist in three persons (this then defining the "reference", the "norm", for God).

Who told you that "there is ONE God --- but He seems to exist in THREE "persons?" Whoever told you this does NOT have the SPIRIT that comes from God because this is NOT a doctrine that comes from God.

Jesus SAID that HIS doctrine COMES from God (John 7:16). Jesus TAUGHT: he is a MAN (John 8:49) and the FATHER alone is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Thus, Jesus' doctrine says: he is a MAN and God is only ONE in the ONE "person" of the FATHER.

Therefore, the Trinity is NOT a doctrine that comes from God!

Jesus is presented as existing BEFORE birth (Jn8:58)---in fact, with no beginning at all (Heb7:3).

The Bible does NOT present Jesus as existing BEFORE birth. That's ONLY your TWISTED interpretation of John 8:56-58 on account of your TWISTED interpetation of the King James Version of Heb, 7:3.

I have shown you the Today's English Version of Heb. 7:3 where it PLAINLY describes Melchizedek - NOT Jesus - as the priest who has no record of birth or death but the KJV renders it as "no beginning" because the translators were BIASED toward the Trinity. 

But I see now that like most Trinitarians, you simply REFUSE to ,look at another version if it goes against your PRE-CONCEIVED idea that Jesus is God.

MANY verses speak of Jesus accepting worship and forgiving sins (which the Jews KNEW that ONLY God could do), or equating Jesus WITH God, or calling Jesus the Savior (though only God is the Savior), or any number of other labels.

Phil. 2:9-11 tells us that God GAVE Jesus a NAME that at his name, every knee should bow. God COMMANDS people to worship Jesus.  God GAVE Jesus authority ON earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10; Acts 5:31). God EXALTED Jesus to ne SAVIOR (Acts 5:31). All these indicate PLAINLY that Jesus is NOT equal to God and is NOT God.

Yet Jesus doesn't know everything the Father does (Matt24:36)---so we have Jesus Who is absolutely God, but exists as a separate personality.

You really are FORCING a square peg into a round hole Ben. How can Jesus, a SEPARATE personality, be ABSOLUTE God when he does NOT know EVERYTHING the Father knows?

If Jesus were God, he would be a LESSER God, and there would be TWO Gods. This is aNOT what the Bible teaches.

The Bible teaches that there is ONLY one Alimighty (all-knowing) God and that is NOT Jesus because Jesus is a MAN.

 We-finite don't necessarily hafta understand it; by choosing as OUR reference, Scripture, we are constrained to discuss the theology and pure doctrine of what the Bible SAYS...

This is STANDARD rationalization of Trinitarians who are content in WALLOWING in the DARK. The Bible is LIGHT - Jesus is a MAN and the Father alone is the ONLY true God. Trinitarians come up with MUDDLED ideas then say"we-finite don't necessarily understand it."

PS: It seems to me we're spending much effort "defining this-or-that Scripture"---which is fine; but we also have another approach, to ask those who were THERE. The Bible is not a complete recording of every single word spoken by Jesus & the Apostles. If we were to ask the JEWS of the TIME, THEY CERTAINLY knew every word He said.

And they UNDERSTOOD HIM TO BE CALLING HIMSELF GOD!!! Jn5:18, Jn10:33

If we have the record of THOSE WHO WERE THERE, then why are we even discussing whether or not He called Himself God? THEY SAY HE DID!

And your UNDERSTANDING is SIMILAR to the Jews who killed Jesus!!

Tell me Ben, what did Jesus DO or SAY that MADE the Jews THINK that he was making himself equal to God or made himself God?

You present yourself as a mathematician (brainy huh!). This should be a breeze so please no evasive answers.

Ed

 

[Ben johnson]

I wonder if Einstein would agree to this "out of space" equation!

Einstein absolutely believed in God---I don't think, because of his Jewish background, that he believed Jesus as Messiah, but I dunno fer sure. But I can't imagine Albert having any problem with the concept...

Think of water: in a glass, you have water, ice, and vapor---three distinct and different forms, yet all is water. This is a good analogy of the Trinity in one sense, but poor in the sense that ice-can-become-water-can-become-steam, but the Son cannot become the Spirit cannot become the Father etc...

Jesus SAID that HIS doctrine COMES from God (John 7:16). Jesus TAUGHT: he is a MAN (John 8:49) and the FATHER alone is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Thus, Jesus' doctrine says: he is a MAN and God is only ONE in the ONE "person" of the FATHER.

I'm not sure why you keep posting this argument, as if it proves your position---it does not. Jesus WAS a man, He was FULLY Human; but that does not remove His also being fully God. And that John17:3 says "the Father is the only true God, and they may KNOW God and the Son You sent", does not contradict the premise that the Son can exist as part of the ONE TRUE GOD and still be sent by the Father. No contradiction, your verses do not contradict the "Trinity" thing.

I have shown you the Today's English Version of Heb. 7:3

I am not really concerned with any given translation---I can go to the Greek and find out what it really says. But you must carefully filter verses to fit in with your belief system---I mean this respectfully, but, wouldn't it just be easier (and more honest) to simply read what it says?

Just for you, please go to BLUELETTERBIBLE and see the Greek for yourself: click here. Click on each bracketted number and see if you find, "no record of birth-or-death", or if it says "no BEGINNING/ORIGIN nor END/TERMINATION-OF-LIFE"?

Do you understand how we see your argument? Hebrews says, "...where JESUS entered as a fore-runner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. For THIS Melchizedek..."
---but you say THIS is really THAT OTHER, not JESUS".
It says, "without father/mother/beginning/end"---but YOU say "it's only the RECORD of His beginning..."
It says, "...but made like the Son of God..."---but you say "it's ANOTHER Melchizedek not JESUS"---as if there is ANOTHER ANYWHERE who is "like THE Son of God"...

SPEAKING of Greek and "Hebrews", did you ever comment on 1:8?
But unto the Son [He, GOD, saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Noooowwww, to ME, that shore sounds like GOD-THE-FATHER callin' Jesus, GOD...

And you accept that "only GOD can be worshipped" and "there is only ONE SAVIOR", but then you turn and say, "WELLLL, God gave Jesus both of those priveledges". So you bulldoggedly cling to JESUS-WASN'T-GOD, you cannot deny the verses that clearly assert "only GOD can be worshipped, only GOD is the Savior", but then you present reasons why Jesus-the-MAN now has those priviledges previously only held by the FATHER!

Do you understand why we don't see credibility in your arguments, Ed?

And your UNDERSTANDING is SIMILAR to the Jews who killed Jesus!!

Ahhh, now I see; you believe that if Jesus had only told them the TRUTH, He wouldn't have been crucified! Do you realize the full impact of that concept?

JESUS DIED FOR A LIE!!!

Tell me Ben, what did Jesus DO or SAY that MADE the Jews THINK that he was making himself equal to God or made himself God?

You tell me---you have access to a Bible and to the Greek...

 

[fieldsofwind]

I find it strange that edpobre has yet to address this post... been here for over a month I think... in various threads... each about this topic.

Posted by ed: I know what is in the Bible fow. But that is not my question. I said you are NOT being RATIONAL because you said that this "thing" who is at the the side of the Father is "one and the SAME thing as the Father." BTW, what is this you cal "thing" fow?

you are the one that refered to 'thing'

Posted by ed: "Then show me the verse which says that the Father BECAME the SON."

The Bible says: (John 14:5-10) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."

The Bible says: (John 1:1-5, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Bible says: (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

The Bible says: (Phil 2:5-10) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in APPEARANCE as a man, he HUMBLED HIMSELF and BECAME obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Reminder: God will not give His glory to another... He is the LORD and Him alone), that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Bible says this was necessary: (Hebrews 9:14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

The Bible says: (Hebrews 9:16-17) In the cse of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living.

Did God not make the covenant???

The Bible says: (Rev 19:16) On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (Remeber God says that I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)


well ed.... Christ says that HE is the Alapha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last..... as does the Father. I ask you ed... are they not claiming the saim thing??? if two things come in first in a race... are they not of equal speed??? simple

ed's reply: If that's how you think, do you admit then that you believe there are two "Gods" whom you pass off as "things?"

No ed... that's not how I think.. They both say it ed... God says that there are no others... therefore they are one... they are both the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... ther FIRST AND THE LAST!!!

Why did God create the earth ed??? It was because He desired a love relationship with a creation... Love ed... "Through Him all things were made that have been made" (John 1)... God is Love (1st John 4:8)... and through His love, He came to us. (also John 1) There are not two separate 'things' as you say ed... there is one Living God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He is undescribable... and says that He IS.

When God made Himself a man... it was His love.... Jesus Christ... and He subjected himself to endure mans punishment, and subservience. This was His sacrifice, that He became our sins... God the Father can not be in the presence of sin, much less become it. Therefore, out of His uncomprehendible love... He made Himself nothing. He came to us and His name is Jesus Christ-Emmanuel-God with us: Yes... God can do that, even becoming something on earth, while at the same time being God the Father in Heaven. Yes... God can do any number of "evens" that one could fathom asking.

Christ, who being in very nature God, who made Himself nothing, became subject to God the Father... and at the end when all things were finished, was taken again into glory and given the title KING OF KINGS AND LORD OR LORDS... ALL CAPS ED. This is the title reserved for the LORD HIMSELF... WHO WILL NOT GIVE HIS GLORY TO ANOTHER... IT IS THE TITLE OF MY LORD CHRIST WHO IS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE HAVING DEFEATED DEATH... AND THE KEYS OF DEATH AND HADES RESIDE IN HIS HANDS! And after it is all over... Christ will subject Himself to the Father thus the Father becomes all in all. Christ is God... who made>HIMSELF<a man... and who was then again glorified by Him from whom He came

I believe

 

[fieldsofwind]

Posted by edpobre: "I wonder if Einstein would agree to this "out of space" equation!"

I wonder if you have read 1 cor. chapter 1. God says that he delights in the fact that man finds Himself as foolishness.

 

[fieldsofwind]

Posted by edpobre: "You really are FORCING a square peg into a round hole Ben. How can Jesus, a SEPARATE personality, be ABSOLUTE God when he does NOT know EVERYTHING the Father knows?"


Got something for you here ed... look this up.

Revelation chapter 19:12

take care

FOW