Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
The confusion stems from the fact that the meaning of the key terms--"person" and "begotten" in particular--has changed over time, but the translations haven't kept up and the churches haven't done a good job of educating their people.
The fact is that the Diety of Messiah isn't that difficult to illustrate if one simply accepts that He is the embodiment of what Scripture calls God's Word, His Glory, His Face, His Right Arm, His Wisdom, His Light, His Torah--that which the rabbis call the Sh'khinah. He is generated rather than created or fashioned from God, who is the Father. Just as the Sun doesn't sit down with tools and fashion light, but rather generates light as part of its quintessential nature, so God generates (begets) His Light as a part of His nature.
That illustration, btw, was used by both Tertullian and Irenaeus (if anyone wants to challenge their credentials as Christians, go right on ahead), and by R. Eliezer in explaining the Sh'khinah, the Divine Presence.
Pretty much my only problem with Trinitarianism is its tendency to overemphasize "Tri-". HaShem Echad. Too many Christians are functional Tri-theists, utterly ignorant of their own creeds (even though they'll instantly question the salvation of someone who questions them) and incapable of answering even basic questions about Trinitarianism themselves.
I'm not shooting this at anyone being pinged here. I'm just lamenting the situation in general, especially since it personally impacted me a few years ago, including the loss of at least one FRiend. I still greatly appreciate the support I got from my fellow Neeners.
If I hadn't gotten that support, and if I hadn't delved into this matter through not only Scripture directly, but through both the Christian and the Jewish commentators, I too might have come to the conclusion that "Trinity" was a 4th Century heresy that needed to be expunged rather than being simply misunderstood by the vast majority of its adherants.
Shalom.
Nope. If anyone has issues with them it isn't me. I certainly believe God is invisible and that no one has seen him at any time. You don't.
You believe that Jesus is God and therefore God was seen.
Abraham ate dinner with the Lord prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Didn’t he?
Are you seriously trying to say because of the word Lord (referring to God) you are making a case that Jesus is God? Remember, God is one and there is one God. Saying that God has multiple personalities or beings is more like baal worship than worshipping El Shaddai, the father of Jesus Christ who had not yet been born when Abraham was alive.
Temptation: It says that God can’t be tempted with evil? Jesus wasn’t tempted because the temptor came to him. In fact, the point of the story was that He was NOT tempted
Speakinf Jesus: Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
Yes, Jesus WAS tempted even though you disagree. The Bible clearly says he was.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. If he was not enticed then there was no testing, no proving of anything!
Jesus is different than God. When the Bible says God it means God and when it says Jesus it means Jesus, the two are not interchangable.
It actually encouraged me to be separated from historical traditional Christianity. I have the heartfelt belief that the Church was infiltrated just as was Isreal's priesthood. The parallels between worshipping The Baalim and The Trinity are too uncanny to be coincidence.
And face it, if Baal worship wasn't a seduction then there would have been no deciept or trickery involved.
You have remarkably demonstrated straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!
You reject the obvious and dwell on the sublime.
Hey, my place isn't to convince you, it is just to present it to you. If I do that then when you reject it, and you will, I have done my part.
You haven't refuted any of the scriptures I have presented, you have only tried to play 'gotchya' with isolated verses sometimes taken terrible out of context.
This is something that a child can grasp easily; Jesus is God's son by miraculous conception. God is the father of Jesus. The son is not the father and the father is not the son. They are two, but one in purpose. Remember, they even had separate wills...Jesus prayed that not my will but thine be done? How can God say that to or about himself?
Oh...I don’t think the Trininty is 4th century at all.
I think it is one of many polytheistic seductions that have been around since Lucifer was kicked out of heaven.
Excellent post! Thanks.
I'm by no means a Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic scholar. I do have several reference materials for those languages, however.
The interlinear, for instance shows several discrepancies between the Stephen's text with it's translation and the KJV. Also having studied in Germany with Christians that do not use the KJV but the German translation of the same texts, it amuses them of the use of holy ghost instead of holy spirit. They just shake their heads at it due to the INCONSISTENT translation in the KJV.
Additionally, the KJV has punctuation which in many cases is totally subjective and even simply incorrect at times. Man's private interpretation since the ancient texts did not include punctuation. Or capitals.
see above one or two posts. I boo-booed.
For the record, the rabbis have always understood the Sh'khinah, the Divine Presence, and the Holy Spirit to be simultaneously of God and sent from God. They teach that the Torah is God's wisdom (thus, an attribute of the Holy One rather than a creation) which was with Him in the beginning and which He used to create the universe. The Talmud and other rabbinic sources frequently portray conversations between the Holy One and the Sh'khinah, or the Holy One and the Torah. And yet we still affirm, HaShem Echad.
Your "polytheism" charge betrays an ignorance of Christianity's Jewish roots. It also betrays a lack of understanding in Scripture. The Glory (Kevod) of God filled the Holy Place from the days of Moses to the days of Ezekiel. Does that mean that God was not on His throne in Heaven?
Shalom.
Maybe the same. Both are systematic approaches to fool people.
Let me ask you this: In all honesty, why doesn't the Christian Church today manifest even a minute portion of the power that it manifested in the first century?
Didn't Jesus say that those that believed on him would do the same AND GREATER works than he did?
Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Wow. If Jesus is God, then he just promised us that his believers would do works greater than God's!
Hey, I don't believe that but you must!
Why are you so reluctant to answer the simple question of what denomination you belong to?
Quite frankly it isn't relevant or of anyone else's business. Jesus did not create denominations. I belong to the Church Of the Body of Christ. I am a member of that body; one that some might find offensive but necessary. LOL.
I'm not in any disagreement there.
As I would understand it, God is spirit and God is holy. God is THE Holy Spirit and that which eminates from him is holy spirit. (and yes, I believe in unholy spirit)
The Glory (Kevod) of God filled the Holy Place from the days of Moses to the days of Ezekiel. Does that mean that God was not on His throne in Heaven?
No more than JEHOVAH-JIREH, JEHOVAH-NISSI, or JEHOVAH-SHALOM, etc. demonstrate a pluralistic JEHOVAH.
The old testament is clear...hear o isreal the lord thy God is one God.
No real problems so far. You acknowledge that though God is One, He has a Spirit and is the Spirit which nevertheless can go forth from Him to brood over the waters, inspire the prophets, and live in the Redeemed.
The old testament is clear...hear o isreal the lord thy God is one God.
Agreed, and I recite the Shema every morning and evening. Nevertheless, you have not answered my question: Does the indwelling of God's Glory in the Mikdash mean that He left His throne in Heaven? And if not, why could that same Glory not dwell in the Temple Not Built With Hands, Yeshua the Messiah while His Father also remained on His Throne in Heaven?
Shalom.
You should teach a class or maybe start your own Religion. But I have a feeling that your religion was started about 150 years ago by one Charles Russell.
You hold beliefs that I and nearly EVERY Christian in the past two thousand years has held to be heretical. Moreover, you have been resolute in your refusal to say where you learned these beliefs (I have never seen anything in any Christian concordance like Strong's that rejects the Holy Trinity). Additionally, you speak at length about the KJV, but then you turn around and fault it's translation. If you find a translation of the Bible where the word NAME in Matthew 28:19 is pluralized, please let me know.
Still, simply saying, "Look, I have a Strong's!" is non-starter. So do a ton of the people who believe in the Trinity. If one's going to try to overthrow a whole theology, one had better be prepared with actual arguments.
Shalom.
Well, you seem not to have caught the significance of Abe’s eating with the Lord.
Hint: we were talking about the invisible part.
If anyone is planning to start a new religion, especially one that denies two thousand years of Christian belief, I would suggest a "megachurch" and eventually a weekly TV show. The trick is to get as many members as possible and to give regular (at least monthly) sermons on tithing. Then speak of how God wants everyone to be very wealthy and use yourself as an example.
Know that you will probably burn in Hell for leading so many astray and you will be ridiculed endlessly for your bizarre beliefs; but if you do it right, your earthly rewards will at least be plentiful.
I don't think that was the issue. I was asked about my ability to understand the ancient languages and I offered a partial list of reference I use.
Howver, I believe there is a section in the back of each that compares translations and versions. In these sections it highlights some areas where the KJV has text that is totally unsupported by the Greek texts, words simply added by the KJV authors.
Moreover, you have been resolute in your refusal to say where you learned these beliefs
Where do I get my beliefs? I can read the Bible! Obviously you and your collegues have not done so with enough thoroughness for this conversations since I have corrected some obvious error. Even as a child I thought the trinity was hooey. There are too many obivous contradictions and suspensions of logic in that theory to be plausible and frankly I'm astonished that it fools as many people as it does.
Funny thing is that you cannot defend your theory and you fail to debunk the clear scriptures and scriptural concepts that I have listed for you.
You demand that I answer your questions about this verse or that verse yet you do answer my questions at all.
If you cannot explain how Jesus can be God when he clearly states that his followers will do greater works than he (Jesus) did, or how Jesus can be God if God is not a man and is invisible, or how Jesus can be God if God raised Jesus from the dead, or how Jesus can be God if Jesus sits at the right hand of God, then your whole theory goes up in smoke.
Sheol? Hades? Thanatos? Or the lake of fire?
Your statement clearly shows that you are judging my salvation and standing with God. Nothing in Romans 10:9,10 says that I have to confess Jesus as God, but as Lord, and there is a huge difference.
I wonder if you tell your kids to follow the crowds because what is popular is probably right?
Or do you tell your kids that if the world pats them on the back then so will God?
Believing that Jesus is the Son of God shouldn't seem so odd to you.
Your sarcasm is noted.
Do you really think that one must attend a seminary to understand the Bible?
If the concordances, interlinears, etc aren't for the lay person then what good are they?
I was under the impression that Martin Luther shattered the elitist notion that only the Chosen Few could read and interpret God's will for us....but maybe I was wrong?
Funny how you saw and defended the clarity of the verse in Leviticus as being solid, clear, and straight forward enough to possibly adjust your thinking but now you can't or won't.
Look at the many differences between Jesus and God.
Now if someone wants to claim that Jesus has divine blood because of his miraculous conception (you do agree with me on that, don't you?) and that his blood never mixed with humans descended from Adam then I can't argue with you. That pure, innocent blood is the only means by which our sins could be cleansed and forgiven.
As I said, when you find a translation where NAME is pluralized in Matthew 28:19, let me know. If you do, it will be a mistranslation because ALL of the known Greek manuscripts use the word onoma and it is singular.
Where do I get my beliefs? I can read the Bible! Obviously you and your collegues have not done so with enough thoroughness for this conversations since I have corrected some obvious error.
No, you have shown where your beliefs depart from two thousand years of Christian beliefs.
Unless you have started your own church and are preaching heresy I have done nothing of the sort.
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.