- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I brought this over from another thread because it speaks of the “Memra of YHWH” and “Memra” is an Aramaic term which is the language of the Peshitta…this topic.
In regards to the teaching that the Memra of YHWH is the manifested YHWH as distinct from the unapproachable YHWH, I have found valuable lists of scriptures from this site:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel….ghlight
This info contains lists pertaining to where the Aramaic word 'memra' was used in three targums (the Aramaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch, et al). The occurrences are divided into three groups per targum. These groups are classified as 'Inapplicable or Doubtful,' or 'Fair,' and finally and most importantly 'Undoubted.' This has to do with the likelihood that the term 'memra' applies to YHWH as the manifested YHWH. The classification of 'Undoubted' consists of those passages in which the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as revealing Himself. It is those instances that are in the 'undoubted' category that would be the pre-incarnated Son, the Word of God from John 1:1 and Revelations 19:3.
Quote 2. (Ad vol. i. p. 45, and note 3.) The distinction between the unapproachable God and God as manifest and manifesting Himself, which lies at the foundation of so much in the theology of Philo in regard to the ‘intermediary beings’ – ‘Potencies’ – and the Logos, occurs equally in Rabbinic theology,6320 though there it is probably derived from a different source. Indeed, we regard this as explaining the marked and striking avoidance of all anthropomorphisms in the Targumim. It also accounts for the designation of God by two classes of terms, of which in our view, the first expresses the idea of God as revealed, the other that of God as revealing Himself; or, to put it otherwise, which indicate, the one a state, the other an act on the part of God. The first of these classes of designations embraces two terms: yeqara, the excellent glory, and Shekhinah, or Shekhintha, the abiding Presence.6321 On the other hand, God, as in the act of revealing himself, is described by the term Memra, the ‘Logos,’ ‘the word.’ A distinction of ideas also obtains between the terms Yeqara and Shekhinah. The former indicates, as we think, the inward and upward, the latter the outward and downward, aspect of the revealed God. This distinction will appear by comparing the use of the two words in the Targumim, and even by the consideration of passages in which the two are placed side by side (as for ex., in the Targum Onkelos on Ex. xvii. 16; Numb. xiv. 14; in Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. xvi. 13, 14; in the Jerusalem Targum, Ex. xix. 18; and in the Targum Jonathan, Is. vi. 1, 3; Hagg. i. 8). Thus, also, the allusion in 2 Pet. i. 17, to ‘the voice from the excellent glory’ (τͺς μεγαλοπρεποͺς δͺξης) must have been the Yeqara.6322 The varied use of the terms Shekhinah and Yeqara, and then Memra, in the Targum of Is. vi., is very remarkable. In ver. 1 it is the Yeqara, and its train – the heavenward glory – which fills the Heavenly Temple. In ver. 3 we hear the Trishagion in connection with the dwelling of His Shekhintha, while the splendour (Ziv) of His Yeqara fills the earth – as it were, falls down to it. In ver. 5 the prophet dreads, because he had seen the Yeqara of the Shekhinah, while in ver. 6 the coal is taken from before the Shekhintha (which is) upon the throne of the Yeqara (a remarkable expression, which occurs often; so especially in ix. xvii. 16). Finally, in ver. 8, the prophet hears the voice of the Memra of Jehovah speaking the words of vv. 9, 10. It is intensely interesting to notice that in St. John xii. 40, these words are prophetically applied in connection with Christ. Thus St. John applies to the Logos what the Targum understands of the Memra of Jehovah. But, theologically, by far the most interesting and important point, with reference not only to the Logos of Philo, but to the term Logos as employed in the Fourth Gospel, is to ascertain the precise import of the equivalent expression Memra in the Targumim. As stated in the text of this book (vol. i. p. 47), the term Memra as applied to God, occurs 176 times in the Targum Onkelos, 99 times in the Jerusalem Targum, and 321 times in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. We subjoin the list of these passages, arranged in three classes. Those in Class I. mark where the term does not apply to this, or where it is at least doubtful; those in Class II. where the fair interpretation of a passage shows; and Class III. where it is undoubted and unquestionable, that the expression Memra refers to God as revealing Himself, that is the Logos.
Classified List of all the Passages in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Onkelos.
(The term occurs 176 times. Class III., which consists of those passages in which the term Memra bears undoubted application to the Divine Personality as revealing Himself, comprises 79 passages).6323
CLASS I. Inapplicable or Doubtful: Gen. xxvi. 5; Ex. ii. 25; v. 2; vi. 8; xv. 8, 10, 26; xvi. 8; xvii. 1; xxiii. 21, 22; xxv. 22; xxxii. 13; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 14, 18, 21, 27; Num. iii. 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20 (bis), 23 quat; x. 13; xiii. 3; xiv. 11, 22, 30, 35; xx. 12, 24; xxiii. 19; xxiv. 4;16; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2, 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26; iv. 30; viii. 3, 20; xiii. 5, 19 (in our Version 4, 18); xv. 5; xxvi. 15, 18; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 2, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 10, 20.
An examination of these passages would show that, for caution’s sake, we have sometimes put down as ‘inapplicable’ or ‘doubtful’ what, viewed in connection with other passages in which the word is used, appears scarcely doubtful. It would take too much space to explain why some passages are put in the next class, although the term Memra seems to be used in a manner parallel to that in Class I. Lastly, the reason why some passages appear in Class III., when others, somewhat similar are placed in Class II., must be sought in the context and connection of a verse. We must ask the reader to believe that each passage had been carefully studied by itself, and that our conclusions have been determined by careful consideration, and by the fair meaning to be put on the language of Onkelos.
CLASS II. Fair: Gen. vii. 16; xx. 3; xxxi. 3, 24; Ex. xix. 5; Lev. viii. 35; xxvi. 23; Numb. xi. 20; 23; xiv. 41; xxii. 9, 18, 20; xxiii. 3, 4, 16; xxvii. 21; xxxvi. 2; Deut. i. 32; iv 24, 33, 36; v. 24, 25, 26; ix 23 (bis) ; xxxi. 23; xxxiv. 5.
CLASS III. Undoubted: Gen iii. 8, 10; vi. 6 (bis), 7; viii. 21; ix. 12, 13, 15,16, 17; xv. 1, 6; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xxi. 20, 22, 23; xxii. 16; xxiv. 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxviii. 15, 20 21; xxxi. 49, 50; xxxv. 3; xxxix, 2, 3, 21, 23; x1viii. 21; xlix. 24, 25; Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15; x. 10; xiv. 31; xv. 2; xviii. 19; xix. 17; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxiii. 22, Lev. xx. 23; xxiv. 12; xxvi 9; 11, 30, 46; Numb. xiv. 9 (bis), 43; xvii. 19 (in our Version v. 4); xxi. 5; xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30; ii. 7; iii. 22; iv. 37; v. 5; ix. 3; xviii. 16, 19, xx. 1; xxiii. 15; xxxi. 6, 8; xxxii. 51; xxxiii. 3, 27.
Of most special interest is the rendering of Onkelos of Deut. xxxiii. 27, where instead of ‘underneath are the everlasting arms,’ Onkelos has it: ‘And by His Memra was the world made,’ exactly as in St. John i. 10. This divergence of Onkelos from the Hebrew text is utterly unaccountable, nor has any explanation of it, as far as
I know, been attempted. Winer, whose inaugural dissertation ‘De Onkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi chaldaica’ (Lips. 1820), most modern writers have simply followed (with some amplifications, chiefly from Luzatto’s ‘Philoxenus,’ {hebrew} makes no reference to this passage, nor do his successors, so far as I know. It is curious that, as our present Hebrew text has three words, so has the rendering of Onkelos, and that both end with the same word.In classifying the passages in which the word Memra occurs in the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, we have reversed the previous order, and Class I. represents the passages in which the term undoubtedly applies to the Personal manifestation of God; Class II., in which this is the fair interpretation; Class III., in which application is, to say the most, doubtful.
Classified List of Passages (according to the above scheme) in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Jerushalmi on the Pentateuch.
Class I. Of undoubted application to a Personal Manifestation of God: Gen. i. 27; iii. 9, 22; v. 24; vi. 3; viii. 16; xv. 1; xvi. 3; xix. 24; xxi. 33; xxii 8,14; xxviii. 10; xxx. 22 (bis); xxxi. 9; xxxv. 9 (quat.); xxxviii. 25; xl. 23; exod. iii. 14; vi. 3; xii. 42 (quat.); xiii. 18; xiv. 15, 24, 25; xv. 12, 25 (bis); xix. 5, 7, 8, 9 (bis); xx. 1, 24; xxv. 4; xxvii. 16; Deut. i. 1; iii. 2; iv. 34; xxvi. 3, 14, 17, 18; xxviii. 27, 68; xxxiii. 15, 39, 51; xxxiii. 2, 7; xxxiv. 9, 10, 11.
Class II. Where such application is fair: Gen. v. 24; xxi. 33; Ex. vi. 3; xv. 1; Lev. i. 1; Numb. xxiii. 15, 21; xxiv. 4, 16; Deut. xxxii. 1, 40.
Class III. Where such application is doubtful: Gen. vi. 6; xviii. 1, 17; xxii. 14 (bis); xxx. 22; xl. 23; xlix. 18; Ex. xiii. 19; xv. 2, 26; xvii. 19; xix. 3; Deut. i. 1; xxxii. 18; xxxiv. 4, 5.
Classified List of Passages in which the term ‘Memra’ occurs in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch.
Class I. Undoubted: Gen. ii. 8, 10, 24; iv. 26; v. 2; vii. 16; ix. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17; xi. 8; xii. 17; xv. 1; xvii. 2, 7, 10, 11; xviii. 5; xix. 24 (bis); xx. 6, 18: xxi. 22; 22, 23, 33; xxii. 1; xxiv, 3; xxvi. 3, 24, 28; xxvii. 28, 31; xxviii. 10, 15, 20; xxix. 12; xxxi. 3, 50; xxxv. 3, 9; xxxix. 2, 3, 21, 23; xli.1; xlvi. 4; xlviii. 9, 21; xlix. 25; 1. 20; Exod. i. 21; ii. 5; iii. 12; vii. 25; x. 10; xii. 23, 29; xiii. 8, 15, 17; xiv. 25, 31; xv. 25; xvii. 13, 15, 16 (bis); xviii. 19; xx. 7; xxvi. 28; xxix. 42, 43; xxx. 6, 36; xxxi. 13, 17; xxxii. 35; xxxiii. 9, 19; xxxiv. 5; xxxvi. 33; Lev. i. 1 (bis); vi. 2; viii. 35; ix. 23; xx. 23; xxiv. 12 (bis); xxvi. 11, 12, 30, 44, 46; Numb. iii. 16, 39, 51; iv. 37, 41, 45, 49; ix. 18 (bis), 19, 20, (bis), 23 (ter); x. 13, 35, 36; xiv. 9, 41, 43; xvi. 11, 26; xvii. 4; xxi. 5, 6, 8, 9, 34; xxii. 18, 19, 28; xxiii. 3, 4, 8 (bis), 16, 20, 21; xxiv. 13; xxvii. 16; xxxi. 8; xxxiii. 4; Deut. i. 10, 30, 43; ii. 7, 21; iii. 22; iv. 3, 7, (bis) 20, 24, 33, 36; v. 5 (bis), 11, 22, 23, 24 (bis), 25, 26; vi. 13, 21, 22; ix. 3;xi. 23; xii. 5, 11; xviii. 19; xx. 1; xxi. 20; xxiv. 18, 19; xxvi. 5, 14, 18; xxviii. 7,9, 11, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 35, 48, 49, 59, 61, 63, 68; xxix. 2, 4; xxx. 3, 4, 5, 7; xxxi. 5, 8, 23; xxxii. 6, 9, 12, 36; xxxiii. 29; xxxiv. 1, 5, 10, 11.
Class II. Fair: Gen. v. 24; xv. 6; xvi. 1, 13; xviii. 17; xxii. 16; xxix. 31; xxx. 22; xlvi. 4; Ex. ii. 23; iii. 8, 17, 19; iv. 12; vi. 8, xii. 27; xiii. 5, 17; xxxii. 13; xxxiii. 12, 22; Lev. xxvi. 44; Numb. xiv. 30; xx. 12, 21; xxii. 9, 20; xxiv. 4, 16, 23; Deut. viii. 3; xi. 12; xxix. 23; xxxi. 2, 7; xxxii. 18, 23, 26,38, 39, 43, 48, 50, 51; xxxiii. 3, 27; xxxiv. 6.
Class III. Doubtful: Gen. iv. 3, 6 (bis); viii. 1, 21; xxii. 18; xxvi. 5 (bis); Ex. iv. 15; v. 2; ix. 20, 21; x. 29; xiv. 7; xv. 2, 8; xix. 5; xxv. 22; Lev. xviii. 30; xxii. 9; xxvi. 40; Numb. vi. 27; ix. 8; xii. 6; xiv. 11, 22, 35;xv. 34; xx. 24; xxiii. 19; xxvii. 14; xxxiii. 2. 38; xxxvi. 5; Deut. i. 26, 32; iv. 30; v. 5; viii. 20; ix. 23; xi. 1; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 15; xxv. 18; xxvi. 17; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 15, 45, 62; xxx. 2, 8, 9, 10; xxxi. 12; xxxiii. 9.
(Ad vol. i. p. 53, note 4.) Only one illustration of Philo’s peculiar method of interpreting the Old Testament can here be given. It will at the same time show how he found confirmation for his philosophical speculations in the Old Testament, and further illustrate his system of moral theology in its most interesting, but also most difficult, point. The question is, how the soul was to pass from its state of sensuousness and sin to one of devotion to reason, which was religion and righteousness. It will be remarked that the change from the one state to the other is said to be accomplished in one of three ways: by study, by practice, or through a good natural disposition (μͺθησις, ͺσκησις, εͺφυͺα) exactly as Aristotle put it. But Philo found a symbol for each, and for a preparatory state in each, in Scripture. The three Patriarchs represented this threefold mode of reaching the supersensuous: Abraham, study; Jacob, practice; Isaac, a good disposition; while Enos, Enoch, and Noah, represented the respective preparatory stages. Enos (hope), the first real ancestor of our race, represented the mind awakening to the existence of a better life. Abraham (study) received command to leave ‘the land’ (sensuousness). But all study was threefold. It was, first, physical – Abram in the land of Ur, contemplating the starry sky, but not knowing God. Next to the physical was that ‘intermediate’ (μͺση) study, which embraced the ordinary ‘cycle of knowledge’ (ͺγκͺκλιος παιδεͺα). This was Abram after he left Haran, and that knowledge was symbolised by his union with Hagar, who tarried (intermediately) between Kadesh and Bered. But this stage also was insufficient, and the soul must reach the third and highest stage, that of Divine philosophy (truly, the love of wisdom, φιλοσοφͺα) where eternal truth was the subject of contemplation. Accordingly, Abram left Lot, he became Abraham, and he was truly united to Sarah, no longer Sarai. Onwards and ever upwards would the soul now rise to the knowledge of virtue. of heavenly realities, nay, of the nature of God Himself.
But there was yet another method than ‘study,’ by which the soul might rise – that of askesis, discipline, practice, of which Scripture speaks in Enoch and Jacob. Enoch – whom ‘God took, and he was not’ (Gen. v. 24) – meant the soul turning from the lower to the higher, so that it was no longer found in its former place of evil. From Enoch, as the preparatory stage, we advance to Jacob, first merely fleeing from sensuous entanglements (from Laban), then contending with the affections, ridding himself of five of the seventy-five souls with which he had entered Egypt (Deut. x.22, comp. with Gen. xlvi. 27), often nearly misled by the Sophists (Dinah and Hamor), often nearly failing and faint in the conflict (Jacob’s wrestling), but holpen by God, and finally victorious, when Jacob became Israel.
But the highest of all was the spiritual life which came neither from study nor discipline, but through a good disposition. Here we have, first of all, Noah, who symbolises only the commencement of virtue, since we read not of any special virtue in him. Rather is he rest – as the name implies – good, relatively to those around. It was otherwise with Isaac, who was perfect before his birth (and hence chosen), even as Rebekah meant constancy in virtue. In that state the soul enjoyed true rest (the Sabbath, Jerusalem) and joy, which Isaac’s name implied. But true virtue, which was also true wisdom, was Paradise, whence issued the one stream (goodness), which again divided into four branches (the four Stoic virtues): – Pison, ‘prudence’ (φρͺνησις); Gihon, ‘fortitude’ (ͺνδρͺα); Tig
ris, ‘desire’ (ͺπιθυμͺα), and Euphrates, ‘justice’ (δικαιοσͺνη). And yet, though these be the Stoic virtues, they all spring from Paradise, the Garden of God – and all that is good, and all help to it, comes to us ultimately from God Himself, and is in God.These lists should provide a good study and insight as to where the Rabbi's thought of YHWH as 'the Memra/Word/Logos of YHWH.' Without looking at them yet, I suspect that the reasonable conclusion is that those instances in the 'undoubted' category especially are references to the pre-incarnate Son…YHWH the Son as distinct from YHWH the Father, the only begotten God who explains the unseen YHWH…His Father.
John 1:18
No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.John 6:46
46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.I don't believe that the 'word of the Lord' is always the pre-incarnate Son, nor do I believe that the God the Father always spoke through the Son because of what Heb 1:1 says, but I do think it to be reasonable to consider that the 'Word of the Lord' in the 'undoubted' category would be the pre-incarnated Son.
Mike,
you say:Quote I believe in MANY mighty theos's, Kathi. And I will likely serve MANY mighty theos's as well. For Jesus will not rule alone, but along with many other powerful, spirit beings such as John and Paul and Peter, etc. In Biblical terms, they too will be mighty theos's that I serve. But this is what Paul says (the one you mention above as being a “mighty theos”):
Acts 14
8At Lystra a man was sitting who had no strength in his feet, lame from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well, 10said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he leaped up and began to walk. 11When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.” 12And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out 15and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM. 16“In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; 17and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” 18Even saying these things, with difficulty they restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them.So, there you have Paul's opinion of what you believe…that he will be a mighty god. He would tear his clothing at the suggestion. I suppose that you, Mike, think that you will be a god also?? When should we expect this? In Revelations do you find the saints being called 'gods?' Where would those scriptures be?
It seems that you have a very Greek understanding of there being many gods and lords and you are admitting that you are going to believe in many gods and serve them. As you can see that is Biblical because the custom is written of in the Bible but as you should also see, it is against what scriptures teach as the way it should be. As per you, there are many gods and lords, as per me and Paul and the disciples, there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten God; who created all things in heaven and on earth, the sea and all that is in them.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 02 2012,14:43) We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.
Three things:1. Will Paul still be in human nature when he receives the spiritual body he was anxiously awaiting in Phil 3:21?
2. Do you notice that “A GOD” made the heavens and the earth, not “TWO GODS”?
3. When in Rome………………. I speak of gods in Biblical terms because that is where my teaching of gods comes from.
I find it utterly hilarious that you would try to turn this “one literal god” thing back on me when I'M the one speaking scripturally, and YOU are the one insisting upon TWO Almighty Gods.
Kathi, there is but ONE Most High God. His name is Jehovah. He has a Son named Jesus who is not the Most High God, but the Son of the Most High God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 03 2012,07:04) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 02 2012,03:54) Whatever happened to the truth.
Good post t8, as usual. I truly wish you had more time available to post on this site.
Same.I have seasons of posting and then seasons when I am very busy.
Hopefully I can start posting again and will make an effort to do so.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 02 2012,04:54) You are dreaming LU. A father of a son is the source of the son.
The source obviously is the predecessor.Jesus is the image of God.
An image is a reflection or in the likeness of the original. To be any kind of image there first needs to be an original. Just like Eve was made in the glory of the man. She did not precede the man and nor was she always with the man at the first moment. She was made for the man.How could any of this be the other way around, where an image predates or precedes the source. Or how could the Father be of the son. Or how could there be no difference in that both the source and the one from that source are the same date or do not precede each other.
It seems like yourself as is with the Trinitarians, you go to ends of the earth to make a disciple and for what reward. To make someone else believe the same nonsense? What is the attraction with this reward? A soothed ego? Some reward that is. And I don't think you have had even had this very poor form of pleasure either.
Jesus is the first born of many sons.
Just as all the other sons do not exist as long as the the Father, nor does the prototype son.It amazes me how people get to be influenced by the spirit that denies the truth about Jesus being the son. It seems that people will use any excuse.
- He is God
- He was created a mere man and will always be a man
- He is YHWH
And to many who even say he is the son, it is what they add that is damning because it usually negates that he is the son. e.g., he is the son of God and the God that he is the son of. Well that is not the son of God then is it.
Whatever happened to the truth.
- He is the son of God and the messiah.
Jesus did not build his Church on the idea that he is YHWH, a created eternal man, God, or the Father.
“He is the son of God and the messiah” is the foundation of the Church which is the Body of Christ, yet it seems that people need to believe anything but that. Why?. Is not the God of this age out to destroy or weaken the Church. And why do people fall for his evil ways. Is it because like Eve they listen to the serpent and see some kind of glory in his words and are enticed. Is it because they are vain and become exploitable as a result. What is the reason from straying from the simplicity of Christ and arguing for confusing or divisive doctrines that were introduced by men who sought to make a name for themselves.
Ok, now to deal with another of t8's 'Hit and Run' posts. I call it 'Hit and Run' because that is typical with t8 although sometimes he does surprise me…he hits me with his so-called truths based on his own understanding and then typically forgets that he did that and never seems to see the 'other side of the story' and even if he does, he doesn't consider it because he has his mind made up. He claims to not be biased but his actions prove otherwise. Anyway, just in case he returns to find his own opinion 'wanting', I will address this and try to make it topical.t8 says:
Quote A father of a son is the source of the son. Yes, I agree in a sense but the ultimate source is Yahweh who is the God of gods and Lord of lords. If we are talking about the Father of the Lord of lords, I also agree that the Father is the source of His Son…the Lord of lords.
Quote The source obviously is the predecessor. Yes, I agree in the sense that within created things, the father/parent precedes the son in existing first and that father/parent hasn't always been a father/parent. It is only after conception that a created being is truly a father/parent. Once a created being has conceived an offspring, they are considered a parent even before the offspring is delivered/begotten/born.
In the sense of an “eternal” Father, who did not have to be begotten from someone and was always a Father…His Son could have ALWAYS been within Him and must have been within Him. For to even be an ETERNAL Father, He HAD to have an offspring eternally within Him otherwise at one point, He was not a Father and could not be considered an eternal “Father,” an eternal being, yes, but not an eternal Father.
So, for you, t8, to say that the Son did not exist eternally is saying that God the Father was not God “the Father” at one point in eternity.
Quote Jesus is the image of God.
An image is a reflection or in the likeness of the original. To be any kind of image there first needs to be an original. Just like Eve was made in the glory of the man. She did not precede the man and nor was she always with the man at the first moment. She was made for the man.How could any of this be the other way around, where an image predates or precedes the source. Or how could the Father be of the son. Or how could there be no difference in that both the source and the one from that source are the same date or do not precede each other.
You asked a good question and one that I can give you an answer to using an example from the simplier forms of nature…a cell which is God's design…hmmm.
http://www.ict4us.com/r.kuijt/en_mitosis.htm
This process begins with a first cell and ends up with another cell that is begotten from it, that is identical to the first cell (image) and has the same strengths of the first cell. The 'image' was forming within the first cell and at the right time, was brought forth/begotten from the first cell as the complete image of the first with the same characteristics and strengths and type. What was one within the other turned out to be two distinct from each other but of the same type.
The first begotten cell is like the Son. The first parent cell is like the Father. The begotten cell was in the Father in some manner as long as the parent cell existed. At the proper time, the offspring was begotten and became distinct in its presence.
In summary, the Son had a beginning in distinction but not in existence. His existence was eternal.
Now, please don't say that my example is faulty because the first cell did not always exist or because the second cell goes on to have its own cells to come from it. This is not an example to show eternal existence but to show how a son can be within a father in some manner as long as the father was a father. Jesus gave an example of the kingdom of God is like a grain of mustard seed. He wasn't comparing apples to apples or 'grains' to 'grains' either.
and then t8 goes on to say:
Quote It seems like yourself as is with the Trinitarians, you go to ends of the earth to make a disciple and for what reward. Matt 28:19
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded
you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”The reward…to glorify the Father and the Son, and their Holy Spirit who is to reside within those who believe.
Quote To make someone else believe the same nonsense? 1 Cor 1:23
But we preach The Messiah as crucified, a scandal to the Judeans and madness to the Aramaeans.Quote What is the attraction with this reward? A soothed ego? Some reward that is. And I don't think you have had even had this very poor form of pleasure either. 1 Cor 1:24
24But to those who are called, Jews and Aramaeans, The Messiah is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the madness of God is wiser than humans and the weakness of God is stronger than humans.26For you see also your calling my brethren, that not many among you are wise in the flesh, neither are many among you mighty, neither are many among you children of a great family line. 27For God has chosen the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and he has chosen the weak of the world to shame the mighty. 28And he has chosen those of low descent in the world and the rejects and those who are nothing, to nullify those who are, 29That no one will boast before him. 30But you also are from him in Yeshua The Messiah, he who has become for us the wisdom of God and the righteousness and the holiness and the redemption, 31According to what is written: “Whoever boasts, let him boast of THE LORD JEHOVAH.”
So, t8, you write as if you think yourself among the 'wise' the 'mighty' the 'someones'…but the truth is that the foolishness of the world shames the wise, the weak of the world to shame the mighty and those who are nothing to nullify those who are. For the purpose of not boasting in themselves but of the LORD JEHOVAH.
Quote Jesus is the first born of many sons. Yes, according to His humanity, not according to His divinity. According to His divinity, He is THE Only Begotten Son, the Firstborn and only born.
Quote Just as all the other sons do not exist as long as the the Father, nor does the prototype son. According to His humanity, He did not exist as long as the Father. According to His divinity He must have existed as long as the 'Father' because the name 'Father' requires the existence of at least one offspring/Son.
Quote It amazes me how people get to be influenced by the spirit that denies the truth about Jesus being the son. It seems that people will use any excuse. All Christians believe that Jesus is the Son. You are talking about Muslims, maybe?
Quote And to many who even say he is the son, it is what they add that is damning because it usually negates that he is the son. e.g., he is the son of God and the God that he is the son of. Well that is not the son of God then is it. I don't believe anyone says that He is the God that He is the Son of except maybe modalists, certainly not the trinitarians or myself. I really don't think that you understand trinitarianism though because of some of the statements that you make.
Quote Whatever happened to the truth. He is the son of God and the messiah.
Jesus did not build his Church on the idea that he is YHWH, a created eternal man, God, or the Father.
Well, He certainly isn't a created eternal man because one cannot be created and also eternal, He certainly did not teach that He was the Father, so you are two for four, I'll give you that.
Actually two for three would be more accurate since YHWH and God are the same thing.Quote “He is the son of God and the messiah” is the foundation of the Church which is the Body of Christ, yet it seems that people need to believe anything but that. Why?. Is not the God of this age out to destroy or weaken the Church. And why do people fall for his evil ways. Actually the God of this age has been the God of every age, t8. He is certainly not out to destroy or weaken the church but to strengthen, protect and defend, and resurrect the church to her glorified eternal state. His ways are certainly not evil.
Are you talking about satan here? That may be because you have not seen a clear translation of this passage:
2 Cor 4
1Because of this, it has not been tiresome to us in this ministry which we hold, as mercy has been upon us. 2But we reject shameful cover-ups and we do not walk in craftiness, neither do we deny the word of God, but we display our souls in the revelation of the truth to all the minds of the children of men before God. 3But if our gospel is covered up, it is covered up to those who are lost, 4Those whose intellects The God of this world has blinded, because they do not believe, lest the light of The Gospel of the glory of The Messiah, who is the image of God, should dawn upon them. 5For we have not been preaching ourselves, but The Messiah Yeshua, Our Lord; but we ourselves are your Servants for Yeshua's sake. 6For God', who spoke that light would shine out of the darkness, has dawned in our hearts that we would be enlightened with the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Yeshua The Messiah.God doesn't want us to come to Him through our own intellect but by faith in the light that dawns upon our hearts.
Satan is NOT the God of this age. The Creator God has always been God and has never taken a break, t8.
Quote Is it because like Eve they listen to the serpent and see some kind of glory in his words and are enticed. Is it because they are vain and become exploitable as a result. What is the reason from straying from the simplicity of Christ and arguing for confusing or divisive doctrines that were introduced by men who sought to make a name for themselves. Are you not the one arguing in favor of division from the Christian Unity. In light of the entire Christian world, you are the one that can't attend an organized Christian church that believes in the deity of Christ. You are the one that has divided himself from the organized church, or are you atte
nding an organized church now that is in unity with the Nicene Creed of the Son being begotten before the ages, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made?There, that took a lot of time. I'm giving my time trying to help you, t8, not to hurt you. Chances are that you probably won't even read this or respond as if you comprehended it.
That is not my job, though. You can't say that you haven't been told.1 Cor 1
20Where is the wise or where is the Scribe or where is the debater of this world? Behold, has not God shown the wisdom of this world to be insane? 21And because, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God by wisdom, God was willing that by the insanity of preaching he would give life to those who believe.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,17:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 02 2012,14:43) We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.
Three things:1. Will Paul still be in human nature when he receives the spiritual body he was anxiously awaiting in Phil 3:21?
2. Do you notice that “A GOD” made the heavens and the earth, not “TWO GODS”?
3. When in Rome………………. I speak of gods in Biblical terms because that is where my teaching of gods comes from.
I find it utterly hilarious that you would try to turn this “one literal god” thing back on me when I'M the one speaking scripturally, and YOU are the one insisting upon TWO Almighty Gods.
Kathi, there is but ONE Most High God. His name is Jehovah. He has a Son named Jesus who is not the Most High God, but the Son of the Most High God.
Mike,
Paul will not be a god when he has a spiritual body. He never taught, nor did Jesus teach that the saints will become gods.And, yes I noticed that a God made heaven and earth and it was made through Jesus our Lord, the only begotten God. God did not make anything in heaven or on earth apart from the only begotten God, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Also, you said that you will believe IN many gods and serve them. You said it just a few post above this.
You say that I insist on two Almighty Gods but I have tried and tried to clarify to you that the Father and the Son share in the one almighty nature and exist interdependently together with their spirit to act in unity. The Father creates and saves no one apart from the Son and Spirit. The Father isn't even a Father apart from the Son.
Just came across this:
Scholarship typically has believed that the New Testament was originally written in koine or common Greek because the oldest known New Testament manuscripts are all written in Greek. Yet, there are many scholars who are now refuting this idea (see Documents of the Primitive Church, Dr. Charles Torrey; The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Dr. Albert Schweitzer; Complete Jewish Bible, David Stern; Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96, Dr. George Howard).
One reason scholars question a Greek New Testament original is because of the New Testament’s grammar. Linguistic authorities admit that the New Testament has poor Greek grammar but excellent Hebrew grammar. This is even more the case for the four Evangels and the Book of Revelation. A growing number of scholars are convinced that the Evangels, along with Revelation, were all originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, a close dialect to Hebrew.
There are also other indications that most, if not all, of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Consider some key facts: the twelve apostles whom Yahshua appointed were common men. Some were fishermen, others tax collectors, but none were considered scholars.
It is documented from the well-known Hebrew historian Josephus that the Greek language was largely foreign to the Hebrew people in and around Galilee where Yahshua spent His life and ministered. This first-century priest said of himself, “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness” (Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter XI).
Josephus was one of the most educated Hebrews of his time, yet he was mostly unfamiliar with the Greek language. Now if a learned man like Josephus hardly knew the Greek language, how could the uneducated apostles know the Greek tongue, and even know it well enough to write fluently on many difficult subjects? These were not Greeks but Hebrews from rural Israel, therefore they spoke their native tongue, Hebrew or Aramaic. If they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic then they obviously wrote their New Testament books and letters in that language as well.
Why is this fact important?
The Hebrew and Aramaic languages have no “it” or neuter gender; therefore all nouns are either masculine or feminine. If the four evangels were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic that would explain why in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is referred to by the masculine “he” and “him” and not “it” (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). Paul, a Hebrew, also would have written in Hebrew to the Hebrew-speaking Jewish converts in far-flung places like Rome and Galatia and his letters would reflect the same use of the masculine pronoun.
from here: http://www.yrm.org/trinity-fact-fiction.htm
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 02 2012,17:15) Mike,
Paul will not be a god when he has a spiritual body. He never taught, nor did Jesus teach that the saints will become gods.
Will Paul be a powerful, spirit being? If “YES”, then Paul will be a god, according to Biblical terminology.God called those to whom the word of God came “gods”, Kathi. If one of them, say Deborah, is set up over me in the resurrection as my “superior officer”, then I will be serving the god Deborah.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 02 2012,17:15) And, yes I noticed that a God made heaven and earth and it was made through Jesus our Lord…….
That is correct, Kathi. A God named Jehovah made the heaven and earth THROUGH His Holy Servant Jesus Christ. He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. But only one of those two did the creating.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 02 2012,17:15) You say that I insist on two Almighty Gods but I have tried and tried to clarify to you that the Father and the Son share in the one almighty nature and exist interdependently together with their spirit to act in unity.
Yes Kathi, you have tried to “explain” your nonsensical, unscriptural doctrine many times. I recall some of the “explanations” that Trinitarians use to explain their nonsense too, like the water, steam, and ice thing.I have a suggestion for you and the Trinitarians: Don't start off believing in nonsensical doctrines, and you'll never have to come up with fancy explanations.
We have one God who created all things. No explanation necessary.
That one God brought forth a Son named Jesus into existence, who is the SECOND most powerful being in existence. No explanation necessary.
See how easy it is when you believe sensible things?
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 02 2012,16:58) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 02 2012 @ 04:54) Jesus is the first born of many sons. Yes, according to His humanity, not according to His divinity.
Wasn't Adam God's firstborn son according to humanity?Mike,
Biblical terminology never calls Paul or other saints in heaven gods.
Also, Adam was not God's firstborn son according to humanity. Adam was God's first created human not firstborn human.Mike,
Quote He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another. But only one of those two did the creating. One did not create anything in heaven or on earth apart from the other.
Our God the Father and our LORD Jesus Christ together created and gave life.1 Cor 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.To us, ours is one God The Father, for all things are from him and we are in him, and The One LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua The Messiah, for all things are by him, and we are also in his hand.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 05 2012,11:41) One did not create anything in heaven or on earth apart from the other.
Agreed. One created all things through the other. Just remember the first two words of the sentence, and you'll be in line with scripture………..”ONE CREATED”.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 05 2012,11:35) Mike,
Biblical terminology never calls Paul or other saints in heaven gods.
Biblical terminology calls powerful spirit beings “gods”, Kathi: “For indeed there are many gods and many lords, in heaven and on earth…..”Paul and the others who rule alongside their BROTHER Jesus will be SONS of God, and powerful spirit beings at that time, ie: “gods” in Biblical terminology.
Remember: SONS of God, and BROTHERS of Jesus.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 05 2012,11:35) Also, Adam was not God's firstborn son according to humanity. Adam was God's first created human not firstborn human.
Now you are just straining the gnat and swallowing the camel, Kathi.Okay, if not Adam, then Cain. At any rate, there were MANY human sons of God before Jesus was sent to earth. Therefore, Jesus is not God's firstborn according to humanity, but the firstborn of everything God created – just as Col 1:15 says.
Jesus is the first thing God ever brought forth into existence.
Mike,
Jesus is God's firstborn 'from the dead' according to humanity. According to His glorified humanity, He will be a brother to other men/women that are also resurrected to eternal life.
Jesus couldn't have been brought forth in a begotten manner unless He already existed beforehand. You can disagree if you want but you sure don't have tradition or verses on your side.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 05 2012,16:46) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 05 2012,11:41) One did not create anything in heaven or on earth apart from the other.
Agreed. One created all things through the other. Just remember the first two words of the sentence, and you'll be in line with scripture………..”ONE CREATED”.
Mike,
There is a complete sentence to know truth. Half truths won't cut it with me. I credit both the Father and the Son for creation and so does scripture and early church tradition. If you don't want to give the Son credit for creation, take it up with the Father. You are not getting anywhere with mePeace
Mike
Quote Biblical terminology calls powerful spirit beings “gods”, Kathi: “For indeed there are many gods and many lords, in heaven and on earth…..” You are free to believe in as many gods as you want. I will believe in the one God, the Father and the one LORD, Jesus Christ the only begotten God as both existing eternally. All else fails in comparison. THEY hear my prayers, THEY created all things in heaven and on earth, THEY saved me…THEY get worshiped together with their Spirit. You serve many gods but not the eternal Father. An eternal Father insists of the eternal existence of the Son. Sorry we can't come to agreement. We will have to agree to disagree.
Peace
Kathi,
You mentioned the traditions of men in two of your three posts. What did Jesus teach about the traditions of men?
And it is YOU who doesn't have a single scripture to explain that the Jews secretly worshiped “our TWO Almighty Gods”. Or that Jesus was eternally existent before his God begot him. Or that he is ever called “YHWH”.
You are right that we will likely never agree on the “Jesus is God Almighty #2” thing.
Kathi, in the resurrection, will you be a daughter of God Almighty, or a sister of God Almighty?
Mike,
Some traditions are based on truth and some aren't. Just because something is a traditionally held belief does not make it wrong, Mike. In fact a traditionally held belief based on truth should last from one generation after the other for eternity. I believe that the apostles, who were discipled by Jesus Himself and sent out by Him, gifted with the Holy Spirit, would have things straight as to whether they understood Jesus to be their God or not who is to be worshiped also with the Father. That is not just a little teaching but widespread among the early church documents as well as in the scriptures, Greek and Aramaic.Also, you ask about the resurrection. In the resurrection, I will be an adopted child of God the Father. God the Father never became human. The only begotten God did become man and according to his glorified humanity, I believe that I am considered a brethren…according to His divinity, He is my LORD. The Father and the Son will and now do receive my worship as my God and my LORD.
You have seemed to make your own tradition to serve several glorified humans as god. I haven't heard anyone anywhere say they are planning on quite possibly serving Deborah as a god in heaven. That definitely is a first!
Truly, I will stick with what the apostles taught about their Lord Jesus and scripture as they went out to the many nations. We have so much evidence of what they taught and we should expect to see confirmation after confirmation. They taught Jesus as creator and God by nature because He is the Son of God. I have tried to make you aware.
I really have no desire to go on and on with you about the gods you believe in and say you will be possibly serving in heaven besides the Father and Son. Jesus and the apostles certainly did not teach that!!
Peace
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 05 2012,19:46) …….according to his glorified humanity, I believe that I am considered a brethren…according to His divinity, He is my LORD.
1. Kathi, do you consider Jesus to be “God Almighty”? YES or NO?2. Do you think the elect will become brothers of Jesus? YES or NO?
3. If “YES”, does this mean that you think the elect will become brothers of God Almighty? YES or NO?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
