| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I don't see how you can say that in light of the very first book of Moses - Genesis 1:26 - where the Lord says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:". The very name used for God, even, was Elohem, and was a PLURAL noun! Why didn't Moses use the singular form (Elohah or El) if God was a singular being? Plural, by the way in the usage, meant three or more.
MB: “The OT does not have any sort of personages of God - the Jews never conceived of their Messiah as their deity. It was God - Yahweh, Jehovah - but as a single entity with a single perception by men.”
**********************************************************************
On the contrary....
Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
3 “Let us break their chains,” they say,
“and throw off their fetters.”
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill.”
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, “You are my Son ;
today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
MB: “The OT does not have any sort of personages of God - the Jews never conceived of their Messiah as their deity. It was God - Yahweh, Jehovah - but as a single entity with a single perception by men.”
**********************************************************************
And this.....
26In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
35And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God. 36And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
39In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
Excommunication (1983 CIC 1331) is the most severe censure that the Catholic Church can impose on a member of the faithful. This controversial penalty is, however, fundamentally oriented to fostering the reform of the individual (1983 CIC 1312 § 1, n. 2).
The hope is that the individual will wake up and smell the coffee and repent. The Church does not teach that anyone outside the Church automatically goes to hell; it teaches that the Church is the only path that we are instructed by God to walk the Via of Jesus to Heaven. In other words, the instructions of Jesus are what are given to the Church and what we are intended to follow. A good friend of mine is Hindu and a good man. Is he going to hell because he emphatically will not be converted to Christianity? Not my call. I have attempted to convert him and he has refused. I try to live my life as an example of Christianity (mostly failing), and that is what I have to witness to Christ and bring His message to the world.
boatbums: “Paul, being a Pharisee”
NL: “Tell us how Paul could have been both a Pharisee AND a tax collector and persecutor of Christians? That was the turf of the Sadducee’s.”
Tell us how you got tax collector our of bb’s comment? Where’d you ever get the idea that Paul was a tax collector? In all the years I’ve been a Christian, I’ve never heard that one before.
As far as persecuting Christians, he doesn’t have to be a Sadducee to do that. It was the Pharisees who had a hand in Christ’s crucifixion so it would be completely reasonable to believe that they would persecute His followers as well.
Sorry, I just don’t agree with you (surprised?). Paul was a Jew, you forget, and Jews were monotheists. Paul states many, many times that Jesus was God, just as Jesus himself proclaimed, and Paul- being lead of the Holy Spirit when he was writing scripture - would have never implied a belief in multiple gods - however subordinate.
Trinitarians and others claim that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’, rendered ‘God’ (Strong’s #430) in the first clause of Genesis 1:26, denotes more than one God Person (typically thought of or explained as “3 in 1” or “2 in 1” as in “one” family). In support they point to the second clause of verse 26, “Let us make man in our image”, being plural. It is true that in both English and Hebrew this second clause contains the plural subject ‘us’ and that this governs the plural verb ‘make’- But these are not governed by ‘Elohim’ (God) of the first clause. What is not realized, or otherwise mentioned in this issue is that in the first clause, “And God said”, ‘Elohim’ governs the singular Hebrew verb ‘’amer’ (Strong’s # 559), which is rendered ‘said’ in English. So linguistically there is no basis for claiming that ‘Elohim’ denotes, represents, or contains more than one God Person (entity).
It is also claimed that the Hebrew ‘Elohim’ is a uniplural or collective noun and that such nouns (e.g. the English noun ‘crowd’) often govern singular verbs. This claim contradicts leading Hebrew grammars, which claim that throughout the OT and when referring to the true God, the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’ behaves as a singular noun, and governs only singular verbs, singular adjectives and singular pronouns. And only when ‘elohim’ refers to a number of pagan gods or humans (e.g. judges), that it behaves as a plural noun; and then governs plural verbs, plural adjectives and plural pronouns. So grammatically ‘Elohim’ is never a collective (uniplural) noun. That in reference to the true God, the noun ‘Elohim’ is singular, is well illustrated in Genesis 1:29, where this noun governs the singular pronoun ‘I’.
Here follows a selection of Hebrew grammars from which these claims may be further verified: Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English edition by A.E. Cowley, paragraph 124 (g); Weingreen’s Hebrew Grammar under ‘God’ in its English-Hebrew vocabulary; C.L Seow’s A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 1992 printing, the vocabulary on page 19; James D Martin’s Davidson’s Introductory Grammar, 27th edition, 1995 reprint, page 52.
So grammatically, too, there is no justification for claiming that in Genesis 1:26 ‘God’ (Elohim) denotes more than one God Person. Indeed throughout the OT ‘Elohim’ always denotes just one God Person. Let’s now examine the claim that in Genesis 1:26 ‘Elohim’ denotes more than one God Person from a biblical basis.
From the Hebrew for verse 27 it may be seen that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’ (God) again governs a singular Hebrew verb (’created’). But even more importantly, that ‘Elohim’ also governs the Hebrew singular pronouns ‘His’ (that is God’s) and ‘He’ (God). Note that verse 27 does not say that ‘they’ created Adam in ‘their’ image, but that ‘He’ created Adam in His image! So verse 27 declares that one God created Adam and that He did so in His image. Not two or more Gods but only one God created Adam.
Verse 27, through the two singular clauses, “So God created man in His own image” and “in the image of God created He him”, twice states that one God created Adam. From Genesis 41:32 it may be inferred that this repetition emphasizes certainty.
That only one God Person spoke in verse 26 and created Adam in verse 27, is further confirmed by verse 29. In verse 29 ‘God’ (Elohim) uses the first person singular personal pronoun “I”, in the phrase, “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every herb…’ “. Had two or more God Persons created Adam, they might have said: “We have given you every herb…”. Ignoring the necessities of language rules of grammar some still say that this “God” is a family of two and that as such only “one” of the two Gods actually did the hands on creating, but at the bequest of the other- of the two Gods. Therefore, it is reasoned, the use of a singular pronoun simply reflects the overall view that there is still only “one” God, but with two distinct entities within the one. The tragedy of this is the denial of the proper use of the language- and specifically here in Genesis, along with the assumption that everything else in scripture that does not lend itself to this premise must somehow bend and be forced into compliance with this premise. There is no grammatical basis that can be produced to support this premise, which nevertheless seems to flourish in the minds of the adherents to this tenet of which I was once one, too. Without scriptural basis, other than- that is the way it must be for this premise to exist, the very premise is left to be nothing more than conjecture. If the premise is true, then the “proof” must come from elsewhere, as nothing in Genesis can provide this “proof.” Equivocation may be the most culpable in the creation of this tenet, and yet be the least recognized as such.
from http://www.israelofgod.org/genesis1.htm
It appears to be a problem with the English translation rather than the intent.
Read Paul’s letters. Paul gives the titles of his flock. Paul is the bishop, and has Timothy as first his deacon, and then as his successor, the next bishop, for instance. Paul actually gives most of the structure for the NT Church.
The OT Son of God refers to men only, such as David, or angels. Not God Himself. Never does that occur.
Same difference. If the church is the only path that we are instructed by God to walk the Via of Jesus to Heaven, then by default, anyone not on that path is automatically condemned to hell.
The Roman Catholic church certainly does teach that any outside of it go to hell. It's claimed that for most of its history and I've posted links and quotes to it.
If it's possible that any outside the church can get to heaven without the church, then why is the church necessary and why the derision against Protestants who choose not to submit themselves to it?
That isn't what the issue was. The issue was who was subordinate to whom. If the church excommunicates someone and claims that it is the only path to God, they are in effect, playing God and determining who gets to heaven and who doesn't.
You're telling us on one hand that the Catholic is God chosen instrument for salvation and then on the other hand that people can get to heaven without it. Which is it?
“Paul actually gives most of the structure for the NT Church.”
Where?
You have a misunderstanding of sola scriptura. Peter doesn't mention the virgin birth in his epistles either, but he believed also that Jesus was the Messiah and, as Paul did, wrote to believers in Christ. The prophecies about the Messiah, over 300 BTW, did not need to be reiterated in every writing did they? I think it sufficient that Paul never disputed Jesus' fulfillment of that prophecy.
This is the NT departure from the OT, but not the point of deity right here. Remember Son of God, house of David, Lord, etc. points to a super man, a new David, a new warrior King removing the millstone of the Romans from the necks of the Jews, who recently had had 10,000 of their numbers killed for rebellion, over several years. Do you think that crucifixion was invented for Christ?
The OT and early NT did not conceive of their Messiah as God. Remember that the Apostles spent three years with Jesus and didn’t quite get it. They witnessed the Crucifixion and Resurrection and didn’t quite get it. They witnessed the Acent into Heaven and didn’t quite get it. It wasn’t until Pentecost and the Holy Spirit supplied them with Christian gonads (the large brass clanky ones supplied in Acts 2:) that they finally got it.
Paul got a download directly from God, remember? Where does Paul state that Jesus IS Yahweh or equivalent?
You're telling us on one hand that the Catholic is God chosen instrument for salvation and then on the other hand that people can get to heaven without it. Which is it?
Based upon Jesus and Paul's instructions to us, those who are not Christian are excommunicated. It is then up to them and God what happens after that. You wanna reject the Church? Have a nice day. But if you are not Christian, then you are not Christian and cannot be in Christian fellowship.
I’m not going to revisit this again. Suffice it to say that Paul largely gives the structure of the NT Church and the Catholic Church pretty much follows that structure to this day.
My understanding of sola scriptura is that if it is not stated or can be derived from scripture, it does not stand. Paul never stated anything about the virgin birth, so you cannot state that he believed in it. What Messiah did Paul believe in? Chapter and verse please? What is the definition of this Messiah? Was it God? Or was it a super David, a great warrior King of Men, a descendant of David, also a Son of God, who would liberate the Jews from the Romans? Chapter and verse please.
Well, I just read what the Bible says how Paul actually describes himself:
Acts 26:4-6
My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers
Philippians 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
I don't remember anything about Paul also being a tax collector (chapter and verse?) but he did admit to persecuting the Christians before his own conversion.
Awesome!!!
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.