Posted on 11/09/2006 8:44:45 AM PST by policyforever867
The Holy Trinity
I'm happy for ya.
Don't get me wrong I still believe your faith in this area to be in error but I'm still happy for ya. :-)
it matters because we're both discussing the trinity. duh.
I don't believe it to be correct. That doesn't mean there might not be some outside chance that it is. Be that as it may, I just wanted to be sure you knew exactly what I meant when I told you that I'm happy for ya. Beings I'm one of your favorite freepers and all. :-)
Ok. Not even going to comment on this. lol.
Now, YHVH is a name, but the KJ translators gave it a title (LORD). Same thing with EL and her variants, which they translated into God. You have to go Hebrew.
Exodus 15
1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto YHVH, and spake, saying, I will sing unto YHVH, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.
2 YaH is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation (Yeshua): he is my EL, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's ELoHiM, and I will exalt him.
3 YHVH is a man of war: the YHVH is his name.
***
YHVH is masculine.
Numbers 23
19 EL is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
There you go, EL (God) is not a man, even the comma is in the perfect place (for English). But the Hebrew is emphatic, No Not Nay man EL.
YHVH is masculine, EL is feminine!
See (the Hebrew) for yourself!
The Holy Spirit: God's Power at Work
Living a Great Miracle: Being Led by God's Spirit
Why is the Holy Spirit called "He" and "Him"?
Grammar Confuses the Nature of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit: Not a Personal Being
There you go, EL (God) is not a man, even the comma is
in the perfect place (for English). But the Hebrew is emphatic, No Not Nay man EL.
YHVH is masculine, EL is feminine! See (the Hebrew) for yourself!
But the Tanach translate it differently, the word
b'shem Y'shua
"El" is masculine singular.
Like you, I believed in this for many years until I got to thinking about it. It seems hard for me to believe that Jesus and God are the same entity since Jesus refers to "His Father" a whole lot and Jesus prays to someone a couple times. If you add this to the first time the word God appears in scripture, the Greek shows it as "Elohim" which is a plural word. Literally translated, Genesis 1:1 should read "In the beginning, Gods created the heavens and the earth".
In all practicality, it would be pretty hard for Jesus to sit at the right hand of Himself.
Chris.
Exactly. The church is to teach the Truth, which is contained in the Word of God.
Well, 'exactly' right back at'cha! But don't reduce the meaning of the "Word of God" just to what's between the covers of the Bible. That would be un-Biblical, because the Bible itself instructs us, as St. Paul says, to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16).
This "hearing" means, precisely, oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. So it is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to only His written word.
God teaches us also by Natural Law--- created by His Word --- and the Church is the guide and interpreter of all this truth, whether from the Book of Nature or the Book of Scripture.
In Scripture, we have everything we need to be "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17).
Please notice that the decisive word everything here is your word, and does not form part of the Scriptures. Yet it whether the written Scripture has "everything," is precisely the question which is under dispute.
You can't prove it by inserting the decisive word "everything" in there, yourself! And while Scripture itself says that all inspired writing "is useful," it does not say that the inspired writing is the sole rule of faith. In fact, Scripture itself indicates a need for more than Scripture alone: I'm referring to what was handed down orally by the Apostles.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.
Please read the two verses immediately before 2 Timothy 3:16-17 :"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Notice that in v. 15, Paul is referring to the scriptures which Timothy was taught as a little boy. (Some translations say "infant," some say "babe.")
Most of the the various letters, papers and books of the Christ-inspired NT authors were not even written at the time of Timothy's childhood, let alone scrutinized by the Church,sorted out from other writings which were of dubious authenticity like the non-canonical "Gospels,", and assembled into the canon of "The New Testament." So St. Paul is referring to the writings of the Old Testament; and I'm sure you'd agree that he is NOT saying that only the Old, and not the New Testament, is necessary for one to be "complete, thoroughly equipped."
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned because he knows from whom he has learned it, Paul himself: that is, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. When the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that Paul is teaching the importance of BOTH the written and the oral (unwritten) parts of apostolic tradition.
Paul says that much Christian teaching was handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). In another Epistle, he instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). It is un-Biblical to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. It certainly doesn't say that in the Bible.
The oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. It is this which will "abide forever." It would not be totally replaced by a written record like the Bible (reinforced, yes, but not replaced), and would continue to have its own authority.
This must be obvious when you recall that, of the Twelve who were sent by Christ to plant His Church, only five--- Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Jude --- wrote Gospels or Epistles which were eventually recognized by the Church as being part of the canon of Sacred Scripture. Seven others --- the "lesser" James, Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, Simon, Thomas, and Judas' successor, Matthias -- were sent out equipped with nothing in terms of a written New Testament, and with only their own oral, apostolic testimony as the basis of their mission.
These men carried out Christ's Great Commission to preach, teach, and baptize all nations , at least at first without written Gospels or Epistles. Or do you think that these men journeyed to places like Ethiopia, Edessa, Assyria, Cappadocia, Bithynia, Byzantium, Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia --- all sites of apostolically-founded churches --- and said, "Um... er... well, I'm not equipped to say anything, because I have little or nothing in writing"?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.
While the word "everything" is not in the text, it fits with the meaning of the passage. Verse 17 tells us what comes from using Scripture "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (v. 16). It is so "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (v.17).
So, who is the "man of God"?
-A8
The "man of God" refers to one who has obeyed the Gospel of Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.