Jump to content


Pierac's Content

There have been 44 items by Pierac (Search limited from 30-March 23)



Sort by                Order  

#445294 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 17 March 2013 - 05:11 PM in Theology

Paul,

This will be my last post to you, unless you start writing more coherently.

I asked you to provide examples of where Christadelphians disagree when departing from the vague concerning satan. I wanted you to provide specific examples because I wanted to actually see what was keeping you from accepting their views, as laid out on this forum by Fortigurn and others. If you couldn't actually provide examples to prove your claim, why did you make it in the first place? Is it too much to expect you to prove your claim, when the claim was obviously made by you in an attempt to steer me clear of the Christadelphian view on satan? FYI, their views on satan didn't originate with them anyway.

If you can't prove your claim by providing specific examples, then withdraw the claim, admit you were trying to poison the well, and we can go from there. As for the rest, until you start dealing honestly with me, I have no desire to untangle the mess you've made of my simple statements and requests.



Your the one who asked to start this thread... Not me!!! Let's be very clear on this!

Your understanding of my lack of coherent response... is due to your lack of commitment to whom/what you believe Satan to be...!!!

Your just looking to respond... so you can look up what your elders believe and then try to apply their works as your own.... thus puffing your self-up... :newspaper:

I'm sorry your elders have not encountered the likes of me... so you can't copy and paste and try to look good as a reply post... I don't seek and agenda... so I don't fit your format...and lack the orthodox coherent response you desperately seek!

So post what God has given you to see... And I will post what God... has given me as a reply

Man up!
:book:
Paul



#445282 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 15 March 2013 - 10:42 PM in Theology

I've asked this three times now:


Could you give some examples of how Christadelphians don't agree when departing from the vague concerning satan? Thanks.



Do you plan on answering, or was this what I've suspected all along.....an empty assertion, posited solely to bias the reader?


No no... I never said... I could offer examples of how Christadelphians don't agree... as I have been banned from those forums along ago with my fellow Christadelphians! Our post have long ago been deleted by the traditions of men! (Years ago!) Even Fortigurn and I have posted against Trinitarians in the past...only to see our post deleted and selfs banned. I recognized Fortigurn name... My on-line forum research on Satan has found the same fate...

Yet you claim... "how scripture and history are the way to find Satan!" your words not mine!

So post it... I like reading the truths God gives to men... even when He is putting obscurity in their heart!


Your not getting it are you? :shades:



#445269 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 15 March 2013 - 12:43 PM in Theology





I'm sorry... since I do not belong to any religious group or Church, I do not actually require of my self to be concrete... and many times vague just has to suit me for the moment if not much longer! So I feel your frustration with my post.

Even the other Paul had to deal with this limit placed upon us by God.... 1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, However, I believe he knew so much more than us... and the truth he shared has been lost to both time and men's traditions.

So share your particular Christadelphian view... like many religions I find not all agree when you leave the vague. I have studied Christadelphian views on Satan in the past and have been stuck in the middle of their own views on forum in which they failed to agree beyond the vague themselves.




Paul,

I've read through this last response of yours several times now, and all I can do is scratch my head.

Why did you bother responding to me at all about satan, if you can't be concrete or specific on who or what you believe satan to be? You could've saved a lot of bandwidth by just saying "satan is a bad guy," rather than offering a canned response that focuses on the meaning of "evil" and "God," rather than on the meaning of SATAN. In other words, being as vague as you are, there is nothing to learn.

Using the apostle Paul as proof for being vague is just silly. Had a neophyte asked HIM who satan was, I'm sure he would've had a specific scriptural answer. We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.

As for Christadelphians disagreeing on the identity of satan when leaving the vague, please cite some examples. I'm not yet a Christadelphian, but as a Protestant, I have seen similar accusations leveled against historicists when discussing that Apocalyptic scheme of interpretation with futurists.


Well... because you asked... :shades:

We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.


Then... show me how scripture and history are the way to find it... Perhaps you can be more... concrete or specific ? :please:


God Speed Bro...
:book:
Paul


Yes, I asked. But all you replied with is "satan is the opposite of God." What if I had asked you who the antichrist is/was/will be? What would your reply have been? "He's the opposite of Christ?" When I asked about your view on satan, I had assumed you had his/its identity all figured out and settled in your head, and had made good use of your knowledge when engaging "orthodox" Christianity's view of satan.

I am not in a position to "teach" anybody concerning satan's identity, but right now I am in full agreement with the position laid out in fortigurn's reply to Anthony Buzzard (found in the satan and demons category).

When I refer to scripture and history, I mean scripture's use of the Hebrew and Greek for satan show something different than reading it as a proper name, and history bares out when and where the belief in a supernatural god of evil and demons originated.

Could you give some examples of how Christadelphians don't agree when departing from the vague concerning satan? Thanks.


Your babbling,

I have no idea nor even care about that you are...
in full agreement with the position laid out in fortigurn's reply to Anthony Buzzard

What does Anthony Buzzard have to do with your question to me? Really... His writings are so dry... it takes me hours to read his stuff... what a bore!

I know you Unbound68.... You ask... no 'beg' God almost daily to show you the truth... (Just like me) But ... You will not find it in the hollywood style crap being preached on todays forums

You have much to learn... You see what God wants you to see... not a damn thing more!!! :shades: ...

Correct translation of Ecc 3:11...
He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."

We see what God wants us to see... Thus no need to get upset about the others who can't see what you do... We don't have the ability to remove the obscurity in our own hearts!

None of us do! So seek and let the others preach... :book:
Paul



#445227 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 12 March 2013 - 10:05 PM in Theology



I'm sorry... since I do not belong to any religious group or Church, I do not actually require of my self to be concrete... and many times vague just has to suit me for the moment if not much longer! So I feel your frustration with my post.

Even the other Paul had to deal with this limit placed upon us by God.... 1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, However, I believe he knew so much more than us... and the truth he shared has been lost to both time and men's traditions.

So share your particular Christadelphian view... like many religions I find not all agree when you leave the vague. I have studied Christadelphian views on Satan in the past and have been stuck in the middle of their own views on forum in which they failed to agree beyond the vague themselves.




Paul,

I've read through this last response of yours several times now, and all I can do is scratch my head.

Why did you bother responding to me at all about satan, if you can't be concrete or specific on who or what you believe satan to be? You could've saved a lot of bandwidth by just saying "satan is a bad guy," rather than offering a canned response that focuses on the meaning of "evil" and "God," rather than on the meaning of SATAN. In other words, being as vague as you are, there is nothing to learn.

Using the apostle Paul as proof for being vague is just silly. Had a neophyte asked HIM who satan was, I'm sure he would've had a specific scriptural answer. We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.

As for Christadelphians disagreeing on the identity of satan when leaving the vague, please cite some examples. I'm not yet a Christadelphian, but as a Protestant, I have seen similar accusations leveled against historicists when discussing that Apocalyptic scheme of interpretation with futurists.


Well... because you asked... :shades:

We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.


Then... show me how scripture and history are the way to find it... Perhaps you can be more... concrete or specific ? :please:


God Speed Bro...
:book:
Paul



#445205 No satan, but Jesus is God?

Posted by Pierac on 09 March 2013 - 09:49 PM in Theology

What your looking for is Agency

The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through “Hebrew eyes;” however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge.

H. N. Snaith in his book, “The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament,” writes “Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato.” (p161) “Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been both a widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith.” (p187.). Snaith also makes this remark that if his “thesis” is correct:… “then neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a denomination of Christian theology by Greek thought… We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their differences from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated Christian thought.” (p188.).

With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition. According to some scholars a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding The Principle of Agency.”

A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the “law”) of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion. Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.

Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, “who” is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that “’God’ called to him from the midst of the bush and ‘said’, ‘Moses, Moses!’” (v4).

Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, “’I am’ the ‘God’ of your father, ‘the God’ of Abraham, ‘the God’ of Isaac, and ‘the God’ of Jacob.’ Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at ‘God’.” Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that “’the angel of the LORD’ appeared” to Moses from the midst of the brush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel. This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament’s commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.

Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was “an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush” (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, “there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).

Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, “I am God.” The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.

Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, “behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and roused him, saying, ‘Get up quickly.’ And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, ‘Gird yourself and put on your sandals… and follow me’” (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which “opened for them by itself,” Peter “did not know what was being ‘done by the “angel”’ was real, but thought he was seeing a vision”(v.9).
Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door… Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? “He described to them how ‘the LORD’ had led him out of prison” (v.17).

So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.

There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, “’The angel’ of God ‘said’ to me in a dream…’I am the God’ of Bethel.” Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: “I am the God of Bethel.” Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.

In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with “a man” until dawn, but he says he had “seen God face to face” (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.

Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, “As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with “the angel” and overcame him. So the one who is called both “a man” and “God” in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.

There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him “God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in “My hand”, and it shall be turned to blood” (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, “Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt… that they may become blood” (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron’s hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are “God” (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!

Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for “God”(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or “a god” or “gods” or even “angels” or human “judges.” This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6

The KJV reads… “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;”
The NIV reads… “then his master must take him before the judges.”
But
The NASB reads… “then his master shall bring him to God
So too the RSV… “then his master shall bring him to God

Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called “God,” elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.

Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. “The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat”. As ‘the angel of the LORD appeared to him,’ he greeted Gideon with the words, “The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior.” We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, “Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?” Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: “And the LORD looked at him and said, ‘Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?” At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. “But the LORD said to him, ‘Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.’” Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him.” Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as “the angel of the LORD vanished from his site,” he exclaimed, “I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face.” (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.”

There is one very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3).

Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, “the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."

Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion’s servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).

However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents “some Jewish elders.” These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)

So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.

Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.

The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (v 1-2). So, the Son of God “did not speak” in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in “portions,” whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared “in these last days” that we have heard God speak “in his Son.” This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:

Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,


Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).

In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.

Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).

[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb. 11:3 for the same usage.]

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (ρημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Jesus had every right to claim to be God because 'my name is in him!' was doing His works.

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Hope this helps in your understanding...
Peace,
Paul



#445054 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 17 February 2013 - 10:29 PM in Theology

Worship

If we may let our Lord and King have the final word.
Jesus plainly states, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Who does Jesus declare are the "true worshipers"? He insists, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father…" If we would be amongst the true worshipers we must be with Jesus worshiping this Father. Evidently, those who worship "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God," Are not said by Jesus to be the true worshippers. Those who worship the Father as the "only true God" are. The worshipper of the One God, the Father, as Jesus’ own affirmation that he is the true worshipper.

This is the biblical pattern throughout. The so-called Lord's prayer, the model prayer, teaches us to "pray in this way: our Father who art in heaven…"(Matt. 6:9). This pattern of prayer and worship prescribed by our Lord Jesus is followed and sanctioned by every example given in Scripture. See the following:

“Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom.15:5-6).

" For this reason I bow my knees before the Father," (Eph 3:14)

" giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, " (Eph 5:20)

" We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, " ( Col 1:3 )

"giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light." (Col 1:12)

"And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus,giving thanks to God the Father "through" him." (Col 3:17)

This list is by no means exhaustive. But it is sufficient to show that we are, with our Lord Jesus,to worship and pray to the Father. This is the usual pattern of prayer and worship in the New Testament. They prayed to the one God through the name or authority of Jesus Christ. They evidently were not aware that the Holy Spirit was God (a third person), for wherein all the pages of the Bible to the Saints pray to the Holy Spirit? And where in all the pages of Scripture do the worshipers of God sing to the Holy Spirit as is the general custom within Christendom today? What about those passages where the Lord Jesus is worship? Or where the Lord Jesus is pray to? Surely this is proof positive that Jesus is God because only God is to be worshiped? (The words of Jesus are often used to substantiate this belief: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4:10), as though Jesus meant: "I am the Lord your God, worship only me." But this meaning is totally incongruous and has no parallel in the New Testament record.) Then,of course, there is God the Father's own directive to the Angels concerning Jesus the son of God: "and let all the Angels of God worship him" (Heb. 1:6). The fact that Jesus is worship by Thomas as he falls at his feet and honors him with the confession, "My Lord and my God!" Too many presents the final proof that Jesus is God (John 20:28).

To all of this there is a very simple solution. Once again it comes back to a failure to understand biblical culture; a failure to read the Bible through Hebrew eyes. In the Old Testament in main Hebrew word for worship is shachah. It occurs about 170 times but the surprising thing is that only about half of this number relate to the worship of God as God. This fact is hidden in our English translations. The translators prefer to say "bow down to" or "revere" when shachah refers to homage paid to noble persons, whether Angels or men, but say "worship" when God is the object. This is a false distinction the original texts does not support. Here are just a view examples:

Lot "worshiped" the two strangers who looked like normal travelers as they entered Sodom (Gen. 19:1).

Abraham "worshipped" the Gentile leaders of the land where he lived (Gen. 23:7).

Jacob "worshipped" his older brother Esau (Gen. 33:3).

Joseph's brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 43:26).

Ruth "worshipped" Boaz (Ruth 2:10).

David "worshipped" Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41).

David "worshipped" King Saul (1 Sam. 24:8).

Mephibosheth fell on his face and "worshipped" David (2 Sam. 9:6).

Abigail "worshipped" David the outlaw (1 Sam 25:23, 41).

The whole congregation "worshipped" the King (1 Chron. 9:20).

These are just a few instances of the many that could be cited to show the reluctance of the translators to consistently translate shachah as "worship" when worship of important persons was obviously a common feature of Hebrew culture. In Scripture worship is offered to God and to men. There is no special word and the Old Testament for "worship" reserved exclusively for God. But there is a reluctance to translate this one-word consistently. If you looked up your English translations of the above verses you will find that you do not use the "w" word. They prefer to say "bowed down" or "revered" or "pay homage to" instead of "worshiped." This inconsistency of translation has created the false impression that only God can be worshiped.

So then, how do we explain this in light of the clear command that we are to worship God the Father alone as both the first commandment and Jesus himself command? Is this a contradiction after all? No way. The answer is that whenever men "worshiped" other men it was a relative worship. In most of the examples above it is clear that the ones worshiped were God's representatives. Once again we are back to the principle of Jewish agency. The Israelites had no difficulty in offering this proportional or relative worship to the ones who came in Gods Name, with God's message. It is obvious that the first commandment "You must not bow yourself down [shachah] to them nor serve them" is not a prohibition against a relative worship of those worthy of it. If this was the case then obviously all these Old Testament godly men and women sinned greatly. God even promises a coming day when He will make our enemies "to come and worship at your feet, and to know that I have loved you" (Rev. 3:9). Such worship of the Saints at God's degree is clearly a relative and proportional worship. It is perfectly legitimate to give honor to whom honor is due. This is why many Jews felt no impropriety in "worshiping" Jesus in the Gospels because they recognized him as a prophet of God, or the Messiah sent from God. But it is preposterous to think these good people believe Jesus was Jehovah God just because they worshiped him. When they saw and heard the mighty works of Jesus they glorified God through him (Matt. 9:8; 11:27; 28:18; Luke 7:16; 9:11; 10:22). This fits the whole will of the New Testament teaching that it is God the Father who is to receive glory through His son Jesus (Eph. 1:3, 6, 12; 1 Pet. 1:3; Heb. 13:15, etc.). Christ’s exaltation is the means to a higher end. For through him all worship is ultimately directed to God and Father.

To worship him (Jesus) as Lord Messiah is thus a divinely pleasing but subordinate or relative worship. It is instructive to read that in the coming Kingdom the Lord Jesus will orchestrate the worship of his brethren in the ultimate praise of his Father. He will "proclaim" the Name of God to his "brothers" and he will "in the mist of the congregation singing your praise" (Heb. 2:12). There, in that glorious Kingdom, Jesus Christ will continue to be a joyful worshiper of God his Father. Thus, the one God and Father he is alone worshiped absolutely. All other divinely
appointed worship is homage to persons who are not God himself. Jesus is among those worthy of such worship for he is worshiped as the one Messiah, God's supreme son and agent.

Jesus knew the prophecy: "Worship the Lord with reverence, and… do homage to the Son" (Ps.2: 11-12). Jesus knew God his Father had decreed "Let all the Angels of God worship him"(Psalms 97:7). Jesus knew that the angelic messengers of Jehovah had in the past received relative worship from God-pleasing men and women. Jesus knew that of the one true God could be addressed as though they were God. And Jesus knew he was the Son and ultimately agent of God, so how much greater his destiny! As the "only begotten Son" whom the father had "sealed" and commissioned he knew that whoever honored him honored the Father also. This was his Father's decree (Psalms 2:11-12; 97:7).


Psalms 2:11-12 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take
refuge in him.

Psalms 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!

2Co 4:4 …the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Now back to Thomas’ worship of the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God"

This is why Jesus did not rebuke Thomas when he fell at his feet and worshiped the risen Lord. Not because Jesus knew himself to be Jehovah God and this fact had finally dawned on Thomas. Rather, it was homage offered to Jesus as God's ordained Messiah. Jesus can be worshiped as the Lord Messiah. In fact, this is clearly what the writer John means by reporting this incident, for the very next two verses say that these things "have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). To say that Thomas was worshiping Jesus as Almighty God is to directly contradict John's own stated purpose for writing his whole Gospel. When Thomas fell at Jesus’ feet and worshiped him, Thomas was at last recognizing that the resurrected Jesus was the long promised Lord Messiah. Thomas’ language it was steeped in Old Testament concepts.

Remember when David stepped out of the cave and call to King Saul, "My Lord and my King" (1 Sam. 24:9)? In the same way King Messiah is to be worshiped and adored by his bride: "Then the King will desire your beauty; because he is your Lord, bow down to him" (Ps.45:11). Thomas’ language is in the same Hebrew tradition. He means the same thing. Thomas is addressing the rightful king of Israel, the now risen and victorious Lord. We just have to think like first century Jews steeped in their Old Testament prophets! "A Savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord" (Luke 2:11). The wise men believe the infant Jesus was the King of Israel they brought their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to worship him: "Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We saw his star in the East and have come to worship him… They bowed down and worshiped him" (Matt. 2:2, 11). "God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). Worship is offered to Jesus because he is the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of Israel. We have already seen that in Jewish understanding, the word "God" can refer to one who represents the Almighty God (Exodus 7:1, etc.). The King of Israel could be called "god" because he represented God to the people.

Thomas knew the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah was to be called "god" for he was to represent Jehovah perfectly. Thomas’ worship was that of a Jew deeply grounded in the Old Testament faith that God is one Jehovah and that the Messiah is also called “god” in a relative and royal rather than an absolute sense. Psalm 45:7 says of the Messiah, "You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows."

Evidently this anointed one has a God above him: Jehovah is his God. Come to think of it, isn't this what Jesus himself said just a few verses before he received Thomas’ worship? "Stop clinging to me: for I have not yet ascended to the father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’" (John 20:17).

Exalted in heaven right now Jesus still calls the Lord God Almighty "my God" and "my Father" (Rev. 3:2, 5, 12). The Lord God is still called "his God and Father" (Rev. 1:6). In the Revelation there is always "our God" and "His Christ" (Rev. 12:10; 20:6) or "the Lord God, the Almighty, and the lamb" (Rev. 6:16; 21:22; 21:1, 3). Yes, in good Hebrew understanding, Thomas’ worship preserves this Biblical distinction:

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king= Lord and god

Jesus’ creed is that his Father is "the only true God" and that he himself is the Messiah whom that one God has commissioned. He defines this knowledge as "eternal life." In all matters because on that great and unique day in the age to come, "Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11). The worship we give to our glorious Lord Jesus Christ is worship that is ultimately given to his God and our God, to his Father and our Father.


:book:
Paul



#445037 Different translations of 1 Clement

Posted by Pierac on 13 February 2013 - 05:42 PM in Theology

Interesting... I never saw this!

The Early Church Fathers:
Ante-Nicene Fathers
Volume 1
The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
Contents

Introductory Notice

I. St. Clement

This volume, containing the equivalent to three volumes of the Edinburgh series of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, will be found a library somewhat complete in itself. The Apostolic Fathers and those associated with them in the third generation, are here placed together in a handbook, which, with the inestimable Scriptures, supplies a succinct autobiography of the Spouse of Christ for the first two centuries. No Christian scholar has ever before possessed, in faithful versions of such compact form, a supplement so essential to the right understanding of the New Testament itself. It is a volume indispensable to all scholars, and to every library, private or public, in this country.

Edinburgh, 1867

Translators

Rev. M. Dods, M.A.
The Discourse to the Greeks
Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection
The Martyrdom of Justin

Rev. G. Reith, M.A.
Justin on the Sole Government of God

Rev. A. Roberts, D.D.
Other Fragments from the Lost Writings of Justin
Irenaeus Against Heresies, Books I & II

Rev. W. H. Rambaut
Irenaeus Against Heresies, Books III & IV

The end of St. Clement from the The Early Church Fathers:
Ante-Nicene Fathers
Volume 1


ūndēsexāgintā
quīnquāgintā novem

59


Chap. LIX.The Corinthians Are Exhorted Speedily to Send Back Word That Peace Has Been Restored. The Benediction. Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus: that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting.146 Amen.147

notes...

147 [Note St. Clement’s frequent doxologies.] [N.B. — The language of Clement concerning the Western progress of St. Paul (cap. v) is our earliest postscript to his Scripture biography. It is sufficient to refer the reader to the great works of Conybeare and Howson, and of Mr. Lewin, on the Life and Epistles of St. Paul. See more especially the valuable note of Lewin (vol. ii p. 294) which takes notice of the opinion of some learned men, that the great Apostle of the Gentiles preached the Gospel in Britain. The whole subject of St. Paul’s relations with British Christians is treated by Williams, in his Antiquities of the Cymry, with learning and in an attractive manner. But the reader will find more ready to his hand, perhaps, the interesting note of Mr. Lewin, on Claudia and Pudens (2Ti_4:21), in his Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 392. See also Paley’s Horae Paulinae, p. 40. London, 1820.]

Maybe you can seek out some contacts and names here and add to your studies?

Paul



#445034 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 12 February 2013 - 01:53 PM in Theology

Let's pick another verse Trinitarians try to use to support their view...and spank it down!!!

Psalms 110:1

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It’s importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.
Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh” (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.
He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.” Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states…
“The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).”

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. [i]adoni[/i]]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.” from Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord” of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,” kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus.

Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

Paul



#445033 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 12 February 2013 - 01:17 PM in Theology

I can not even begin to say how many times the Hebrew word Elohim has been used against me in the Trinitarian debate.... Yes, I'm aware of your understanding and agreement... but this post is tight and on spot with such limited space!!!

Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron. Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: “Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.

The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.

The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification: Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.

Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.

:book:/>
Paul



#445022 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 11 February 2013 - 10:56 PM in Theology

Given that we are all mostly anti-trinitarians here... I thought I would share some of... my best post from the different forums that I have posted... to spank the traditions of men! Feel free to use the data as your own!

Hebrew understanding of the Spirit.


One of the biggest problem for those holding that Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead is the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is the foundation of our Bibles, the first 75% of the book. And an incontrovertible fact is that the Hebrew Bible does not support the idea that the Spirit of God is a distinct member of the Godhead at all. Even committed Trinitarians like George Ladd admit in his book, A Theology of the New Testament “The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of the Lord) in the Old Testament is not a separate, distinct entity; it is God's power-the personal activity in God's will achieving a moral and religious objective. God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life. The Spirit of God is the active principle that proceeds from God and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7). It is also the source of religious concerns, raising up charismatic leaders, whether judges, prophets, or kings. The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of God) is a term for the historic creative action of the one God which, though it defies logical analysis, is always God's action.

Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making adds, “The continuity of thought between Hebraic and Christian understanding of the Spirit is generally recognized…There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism "spirit” (ruach) denoted power - the awful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)… in particular, "Spirit of God" denotes effective divine power… In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.”

It makes a big difference to our Western minds at least - right at the start of the Bible, whether we translate "this Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). The first possibility conveys to our modern minds the impression that the Spirit is an individual in “his” own right. Many Trinitarians read it that way. The second possibility suggest that God's energetic and creative presence was active.

Psalms 139 expresses this Hebrew parallelism beautifully: "where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?" (v.7). Thus, the Spirit of God is a synonym for God's personal presence with us. N.H. Snaith in his book The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament explains, “The ruach-adonai [Spirit of the Lord] is the manifestation in human experience of the life-giving, energy-creating power of God. And, The Spirit of the Lord is the medium through which God exerts his controlling power."

A brief look at a few more Old Testament verses will show this Hebrew parallelism, where the Spirit of God (Heb. ruach) can mean the breath, life, Spirit, presence, and most particularly - a word of Yahweh: (Job 26:4) (Job 27:3-4) (Job 32-8) (2Sam.23:2) (Prov.1:23) and, Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

It is vital not to rush over this. Many other Old Testament examples could be cited to show that spirit and breath are interchangeable. The fact that the ‘spirit’ and ‘breath’ are translations of the same Hebrew and Greek words points to the root meaning of spirit as God's creative power, the energy behind his utterance.

Another world-renowned known Anglican, J.I. Packer in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit (also a committed believer in the Trinity) acknowledges that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's “distinct personhood is not expressed by the Old Testament writers.” So then, by what reason then do these learned commentators come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead? They admit that they stepped outside the boundaries of the Old Testament. They would have us believe that it is a doctrine newly revealed only in the New Testament. The New Testament does not alter the Hebrew concept of “spirit” as we will now see. The distinguished Bible scholar N. H. Snaith states that: “The New Testament pneuma (spirit) is used in all the ways in which the Hebrew ruach ( breath, wind, spirit) is used. It is used of the wind (John 3:8), of human breath, both ordinarily (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and of the breath which means life (Rev. 11:11). It is used of the vital principle in man (Luke 8:55, etc.), as opposed to ‘flesh.’”

Luke writes concerning the Ministry of John the Baptist that: "It is he who will go as a forerunner before him and the Spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for Lord" (Luke 1:17). The Virgin Mary is told that "[the] Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadowed you" (Luke 1:35). And concerning the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit the risen Jesus predicts that the disciples are to wait in Jerusalem where they "shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). In these three Lukan passages we observe the interplay of the concepts of "power" and "spirit" precisely as found in the Old Testament.

This Hebrew concept is further seen in the famous passage where the apostle Paul burst out in praise to God. He does this by quoting from Elijah 40:13: “Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and unfathomable His ways! [Now his Old Testament quotation] For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor?” (Rom.11:33-34)

But when we compare his source in Isaiah we note that Paul has changed it slightly. Isaiah actually wrote, "Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed him?"

What we see here is a typical Hebrew understanding: To have the mind of the Lord is to be directed by the Spirit. There are many New Testament examples of this interplay between “mind” and “spirit.” In Philippians 2, Paul wants the Christian to be "of the same mind," which is to be "united in spirit, intent on one purpose"(v.2). On a personal level, how may I know that I am filled with the Holy Spirit? The answer is when I have the mind of God, the attitude that He has, the values that his word and espouses and above all the truth which it teaches!
Another passage of interest in this vein is 1 Corinthians 2:10-12.

1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who [Greek neuter “which”] is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

Here "the spirit of the man which is in him" is paralleled with "the Spirit of God" which is from God. It is quite clear that a person's spirit is not a separate person from himself, but is rather
his/her own mind and inner thoughts. Just so, "the Spirit of God" refers to God's inner and personal centre, His mind and word, even His self-consciousness.

Spirit = Power = Mind = Presence = Breath = Wind = Word

It is quite evident that in the apostle's mind to be filled with the spirit is precisely the same thing as letting the word (teaching, message) of Christ direct our lives. This is simply to say that in John chapters 14 to 16, "the Spirit" that will come to help the apostles will be the post-resurrection revelation of Christ's message directed by the risen Christ to the world through the apostles.

The acid test as to whether I have "Jesus in my heart" is whether I have his words informing and empowering my life. If his Gospel-word is the motivating principle in my life, then I have the Spirit of God dwelling in me. Indeed, I have the Father and the Son. Hence Paul’s vigorous warning that if anyone fails to demonstrate the presence of the words of Christ in his life, he is devoid of understanding (1 Tim 6:3).

I am firmly convinced that the Scriptures are harmonious concerning the Spirit of God as being a power and word and mind of God in action. The Trinitarian assertion that the Holy Spirit is God himself is surely impossible to maintain when we note that nowhere in the Scripture is the Holy Spirit prayed to or worshiped.

At the end of the last book of the Bible when the redeemed saints are in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ in glory it is not a strange omission that the third member of the Godhead has no seat of authority on the final throne?

When reading in Exodus awhile back, I came upon the phrase "the finger of God." I was aware that the same phrase was used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. I decided to do a phrase study using e-Sword. The following information is from my latest research.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.


Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven…
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.


Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.

Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.


Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.


Paul



#445021 Different translations of 1 Clement

Posted by Pierac on 11 February 2013 - 09:59 PM in Theology

I get the feeling I might be missing something obvious, but various translations of 1 Clement seem to be very different at times. Can anyone tell me what's going on?

I'm mostly interested at the moment with 1 Clement 63:2, which is in Lightfoot's and Hoole's translations, but doesn't seem to be in the Roberts-Donaldson translation or William Wake's. The Roberts-Donaldson translation and William Wake's seems to miss out all of 1 Clement 58:1-63:4.

Lightfoot: http://www.earlychri...-lightfoot.html
Hoole: http://www.earlychri...ment-hoole.html
Roberts-Donaldson: http://www.earlychri...nt-roberts.html
William Wake: http://en.wikisource...ake_translation)


I'm having a problem with the links... can you explain... the "very different" at times? What about 1 Clement causes you concern? :unsure:

I'm asking because I have some data on Clement that might be resourceful for you...?

Paul



#444989 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 07 February 2013 - 10:41 PM in Theology



Paul,

Can you stop with the irrelevant questions and just answer me plainly so I don't have to guess what you mean?

Please state for me who or what you think satan is. That should require no more than 5-10 words.


My friend... I already have... Satan is the antithesis of God... Created for this very purpose... by God!

Satan is always where He is needed!



:book:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>
Paul

You're still being too vague for my liking. Is he or it a literal being? And is he or it the same thing in each of the places in scripture where he or it is mentioned?

My understanding of satan, at this point, is the same as that of the Christadelphians. As a matter of fact, I think the word should be translated, not transferred. I don't believe it's to be used as a proper name.


I'm sorry... since I do not belong to any religious group or Church, I do not actually require of my self to be concrete... and many times vague just has to suit me for the moment if not much longer! So I feel your frustration with my post.

Even the other Paul had to deal with this limit placed upon us by God.... 1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, However, I believe he knew so much more than us... and the truth he shared has been lost to both time and men's traditions.

So share your particular Christadelphian view... like many religions I find not all agree when you leave the vague. I have studied Christadelphian views on Satan in the past and have been stuck in the middle of their own views on forum in which they failed to agree beyond the vague themselves.

Unbound68... I'm a seeker of the truth... I have no desire to convert you to some traditions of men.... as I no longer seek them...So share what you belive and I will tell you what I see or if any contradiction red flags pop up... It's not like you have to agree or accept my point of view. Hell... We might even agree... :shy:

:book:
Paul



#444988 The Brass Serpent

Posted by Pierac on 07 February 2013 - 10:01 PM in Theology

Net Bible... Num 21:9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it on a pole, so that if a snake had bitten someone, when he looked at the bronze snake he lived. 18

Net Bible Commentary... Num 21:9 -

18 sn The image of the snake was to be a symbol of the curse that the Israelites were experiencing; by lifting the snake up on a pole Moses was indicating that the curse would be drawn away from the people — if they looked to it, which was a sign of faith. This symbol was later stored in the temple, until it became an object of worship and had to be removed SEE...(2Ki_18:4). Jesus, of course, alluded to it and used it as an illustration of his own mission. He would become the curse, and be lifted up, so that people who looked by faith to him would live (Joh_3:14). For further material, see D. J. Wiseman, "Flying Serpents," TynBul 23 (1972): 108-10; and K. R. Joines, "The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult," JBL 87 (1968): 245-56.



Paul



#444960 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 05 February 2013 - 10:25 PM in Theology

Paul,

Can you stop with the irrelevant questions and just answer me plainly so I don't have to guess what you mean?

Please state for me who or what you think satan is. That should require no more than 5-10 words.


My friend... I already have... Satan is the antithesis of God... Created for this very purpose... by God!

Satan is always where He is needed!

Perhaps I could provide more data by responding to your understanding? So... now to you... "Please state for me who or what you think satan is?"

Irrelevant questions? I'm surprised at your response? Explain what Rom 8:20 is teaching and how it is irrelevant to our discussion? What does "not willingly" mean to you?

:book:/>
Paul



#444954 Tongues of men and of angels

Posted by Pierac on 05 February 2013 - 01:01 PM in Theology

In 1Corinthians chapter 14, it is crystal clear and interesting how people fail to understand that Paul was speaking in the context of a synagogue service in operation. Some of the offices that were in the synagogue like the maethurgeman are mentioned, but not like in the charismatic churches today. It is a great deal different today than it was back then; maybe some revision needs to be made. Why not at least go by the standard that is here in the Scripture. But no one really does.

See.... http://www.jewishenc...0742-meturgeman

1 Corinthians 14:23 says, “If therefore the whole church [ekklesia, the body of the people] be come together into one place,” to the place of assembly. (The word “synagogue” simply means a place of assembly. You could say “come to synagogue” but we would not use the term today). If they “… come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that you are mad?” Tongues simply mean languages. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:1, that there are languages of men, and angels. The most common languages of men were Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic. Paul says here to the Greeks coming together if everyone speaks in different languages, the unbelievers would say you are mad because of the confusion going on. There would be no order in the assembly. Why do you not speak all in one language so that what you say can be profitable to people? Some people today say this means ecstatic worship coming in under the inspiration of the Spirit. Yet... I am inspired by the Spirit quite often, but I do not find myself speaking so that I do not know what I am talking about? Paul goes on to say that “the spirits of the prophets” were “subject to the prophets” (1 Corinthians 14:32). Many Charismatic people today after speaking in tongues... say they do not know what they said, how long they said it, or why they said it, but they said something. Yea... They probably did.

“But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believes not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. How is it then, brethren? when you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” 1 Corinthians 14:24–26

Paul is talking to the whole ekklesia here: “therefore the whole church [ekklesia] be come together” (verse 23). He is talking about layman, everyone coming together. He does not distinguish laymen from ministers, does he? In most churches that I have been in contact with, only the ministers have a right to bring a doctrine, to bring a song, to speak a language or to have a revelation. Paul did not teach that. He said when the whole ekklesia comes together, let it be done decently. By that he means let it “be done unto edifying” and in order.

Verse 27, “If any man speak in an unknown tongue …” (It could be Greek or a reading of Hebrew). “… let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.” That is exactly what we have in every synagogue. You had a maethurgeman there who would listen to one language being said, and he would repeat back in the language of the people so they could understand it, and hear the message all for the edifying of the ekklesia. There is no use speaking to Greeks in Hebrew when they do not understand Hebrew. So when you read from the Old Testament, in Hebrew, you better have someone who can interpret.

They had an interpreter because the one who gave the reading from the Bible could not be the same one to interpret. There had to be another man over listening so that he could, in the same tone of voice, repeat what the other man said. If he did not say it exactly, this man would be right there to watch and to correct him. And the other man would watch the first. It was checks and balances because they did not have the Scripture like today when you can check whether or not I am quoting scripture correctly. He says, let them be “by course.”

Verse 28, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church [ekklesia]; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” A man can read Hebrew or give any message in Hebrew, but do it to himself, because the others cannot understand. If they cannot understand, then it is not helping, it is not “edifying.”

Verse 29, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other [others, plural in Greek] judge.” The practice was to let all types of people speak. Paul says two or three prophets. By prophets he does not mean people, who foretell events. A prophet was one who “forth-told” that is tells forth things, like a preacher. This is one of the classical meanings of “prophet.”

“If any thing be revealed to another that sits by, let the first hold his peace. For you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” Corinthians 14:30–31
Everyone could “prophesy,” one by one, in the congregation, but not all at once. The whole problem in Judaism was for everyone to speak at once. If you have ever been to a synagogue service after the reading of the Law and the Prophets (where everyone is very, very careful), it gets pretty festive at times.

“And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches [ekklesias] of the saints.” Corinthians 14:32–33

All the ekklesias of the saints are to be in the fashion of order. That is how our Lord spoke in the synagogues, and that is how Paul and the others spoke. That is how the Gospel was shared...


Spritual meat taken from bones of ELM...
Paul



#444953 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 05 February 2013 - 11:22 AM in Theology

Well....finally....after all of that excessive verbiage, you get around to answering my question. I agree that gen 3:1 proves God created the serpent. But where does the Old Testament say God created a creature called satan?


That excessive verbiage... was and is not to support any traditions of men but to destroy them... Are you one who sits and soaks up Sunday morning monologs, and then own that crap you hear week after week, but never the actual truth that contradicts?

Now again.... seek the scriptures reguarding evil in the O.T. in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin... only then will you see the corruption to the English translations of the past 60yrs....

So you admit "God created the serpent" ?

Now a question to you... what is the serpent?

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

Who or what did this??? The serpent or GOD?


Gen 3:17 Then to Adam He said... Gen 3:19 ... For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Who did Adam (Man) listen to Unbound?

Gen 3:17 Then to Adam He (God) said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife"

Is Satan the voice of Man's wife...? I think not!


Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly,

Your not seeing the not willingly in all this! Your too focused on supporting your view and not seeing what is...

Your focusing on an angle, an attempt to catch an edge or misquote inorder... to teach that which you have been taught by men. Your looking through the glasses of the traditions of men... with out even knowing your wearing them!


Paul



#444924 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 31 January 2013 - 09:02 PM in Theology

The chief and proper Hebrew word for ‘holiness’ is qodesh. This is the most intimately divine word of all. It has to do, as we shall see, with the very nature of deity; no word more so, nor indeed any other as much.

The word qodesh had a long and involved history, all the more difficult to detail because already in its earliest known stage it has come to be used exclusively in a religious context. Actually the etymological origin of the word it uncertain. So the ultimate decision must always depend upon a thorough examination of the actual use of the word itself at all stages of its development.

Something of the primary significance of the word qodesh may be gleaned from a comparison of the three Hebrew words which have to do with those things and affairs in which God and man are involved together, that borderland where the human and the supra-human may be said to overlap. These three words are qodesh (holiness), cherem (ban, devoted things, destruction), and chol (profaneness, common). The original root goes back even farther than the noun, and doubtless the beginning of the notion goes back still farther yet. Presumably the noun qodesh was derived in the first place from a Semitic root which contained the three consonants q-d-sh.

The Etymological origin of ‘Qodesh’ and its earliest meaning:

There are two possibilities, though the choice between them has largely depended, so far as we are able to judge, upon a prioriconsiderations as to the development of religion in general. One possibility is to find in the explanation of the Babylonian quddushu, which the syllabaries says is equivalent to ellu (bright, clear). This explanation is found in Gesenius, and is followed by Zimmern, Dillmann, Cheyne, K. Kohler, and others. The other possibility is the explanation offered by von Baudissin, when he said that ‘a comparison with ch-d-sh makes it natural to conjecture that q-d-sh means from the first "to be separated"’…

von Baudissin suggestion is that the root originally meant ‘separation’, and as much as it is clear that it deals with the things that belong to the gods as distinct from men. In a statement, however, that the root q-d-sh signifies ‘separation from, withdrawal’ needs considerable qualification, especially when it is maintained that this is supported by Old Testament usage. It is true that the root stands for the difference between God and man, but it refers positively, and not negatively, to that ‘Wholly Other’ of whom Rudolf Otto writes. (The Idea of Holy from the ninth German edition of Das Heilige, first published in 1917),pp. 6.

It refers positively to what is God's and not negatively to what is not man's. God is separate and distinct because he is God. He is not separated from this, that, or the other because of any of his attributes or qualities or the like. A person or a thing may be separate, or may come to be separated, because he or it has come to belong to God. When we used the word ‘separated’ as the rendering of any form of the root q-d-sh, we should think of ‘separated to’ rather than of ‘separated from.’

The verb in its causative form hiqdish means ‘make separate’ rather than ‘be separate’, but this is a derived form of the verb. We therefore insists, as of prime importance, at the root is positive rather than negative, that the emphasis is on the destination of the object and not on its initial character-all of which goes back to the fact that, in respect to the root q-d-sh, we must think of God first and a man and things second, and not vice versa. This is not denying that the Hebrew hiqdish can never mean ‘to separate, withdrawal from common (i.e. human) use’, but it is to say that such meanings belong to the periphery of the word and not to its central core.

The word qodesh originally had no moral content in our developed sense of the word ‘moral’, but it did involve pre-ethical restrictions.

The God of the Hebrews was essentially active in the world which He had made. We regarded it to be of the utmost importance that this fact should be recognized throughout the whole of the Old Testament theology. He was no static God in the sense of the philosophers. He was never thought of by the Hebrews as apart from the world, away in splendid isolation. Any such idea among the Hebrews with the development of very much later times, and belongs to the period when the Jews had been influenced by the speculations of the Greeks.

On the contrary, Jehovah is always active, always dynamically here, in this world. The Hebrew does not say Jehovah is, or that Jehovah exists, but that he does. Properly speaking, the Hebrew word hayah is not mean ‘to be’, so much as ‘to come to be’. Hebrew has no real verb of ‘being’, but one of ‘becoming’. The verb is active and not static. This attitude is most strongly marked in the Hebrew idea of God. Jehovah is known by what He does in the world. The whole of the religion is therefore concerned with the relationship of God and man. It is not, however, the relationship which is Holiness, but the God who is known only in the relationship.

The positive content of the word qodesh is clear. It is therefore not enough to say that the word stands for a relation, nor even to say that it stands for the separation between God and man. It comes to stand for the positive activity of that Personal Other, whom the Hebrews recognized as Jehovah.


Qodesh never meant anything else among the Hebrews. It meant precisely that which at any period was recognized to be the inner Nature of Deity. What is without parallel, is the new content which the eighth century prophets gave to the word. This they did because they had a conception of Deity which was without parallel.

There are two other observations which must be made prior to a proper examination of the teaching of the eighth century prophet in respect of Holiness and Righteousness.

Firstly, when we say they gave a new content to the idea of holiness by their association of it with the idea of righteousness, we do definitely mean that it was a new content. We go so far as to say that it was a distinctive content. Particularly, we mean that it was distinctive in origin, in emphasis, and, finally, in content, from those moral ideas which we have received from the Greeks. We say this because of the common tendency to equate the moral teachings of the Hebrew prophets with the ethical speculations of the Greeks. This we hold to be definitely an error, and to show a complete misunderstanding of the function and message of these prophets. It should be also pointed out that, even if the ethical teachings were identical, Amos proceeded Socrates by some three centuries or so, and Aristotle by rather more than four.

Secondly, it should be argued that the prophets were aware of the true nature of deity against primitive and immature notions, or as against the erroneous idea of the heathen, and we agree, through tentatively.

The actual word qodesh (holiness), qadosh (holy), etc., are rare in the eighth century prophets apart from Isaiah of Jerusalem. Amos and Hosea use the root only in its earlier sense of that which belongs to God alone is God’s, while Micah does not use the word at all. In the two cases of Amo's are ‘my holy Name’ ii, 7, and ‘hath sworn by His Holiness’, iv, 2. The one case in Hosea is xi. 9: ‘for I am God and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee’.

All four prophets combined into a solid unanimity in repeatedly reiterating the fact that Jehovah by His very Nature demands right conduct from His worshipers and will be content with nothing less…

The fact that the prophets based their conception of righteousness upon their knowledge of God, and not upon an ethical code is further to be seen in their attitude to sin. How, then, did the eighth century prophets think of sin? The word ‘sin’ can be used either in an ethical sense of transgression a moral code, or as a religious term in a sense of rebellion against God, and so being alien to Him. From this latter point of view, sin is ‘theofugal’; it leads away from God. The eighth century prophets thought of sin in this way. Primarily, it was rebellion against God. If the prophets had been in the first place teachers of ethics, they would have spoken against sin as a transgression against a code. A man need not be religious in order to speak in this way. On the other hand, no man can talk about sin as being rebellion against God unless he is religious. Such a man realizes that religion is primarily a matter of relationship with God, and secondarily is a matter of ethics.

When the eighth century prophets realize that Righteousness is of the very Nature of Jehovah, Holiness came to include Righteousness as the main element of its content… While Holiness stands for the difference between God and man, yet it never involved an ‘away-ness’ from man

God truly is a different category from man. He is different, separate, but He is assuredly always near. Righteousness is the visible effect of this nearness of God in the affairs of this world. It is because Righteousness involves Salvation because of its connection, it is a travesty to think of anyone without the other. If first-Isaiah brought the word Holiness into the vocabulary of ethics, then second-Isaiah brought it right into the vocabulary of Salvation. Taken from The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament By N.H. Snaith (May be out of print... but gold if you can find it!)

You need to ponder these Hebraic concepts and unbound God... Can any creation of God put or place limits on God's Love... Read John... For GOD is love... It does not read... God has an attribute of love, It's part of His Holiness!

Now... back to your question.... Who or what is Satan... Let's let GOD tell us.... Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

The other Paul tells you no less than six times in scripture.... ALL things are of GOD! So do you believe him?


Paul



#444923 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 31 January 2013 - 08:37 PM in Theology

Thanks for the response, but can you briefly tell me who or what you believe satan to be?



Satan is the antithesis of God... Created for this very purpose... by God!


You need to seek who or what you believe GOD to be... inorder to understand my response!

Unbound.. do you bound GOD in any way?





Let me pull some research and get back in a few...

Paul



#444917 Satan Talk

Posted by Pierac on 29 January 2013 - 10:07 PM in Theology

Pierac,

I've browsed some of your posts at this forum. Good stuff. Forgive the off-topic question, but what are your views on "satan?" Do you have equally demolishing single posts to rebutt modern Christianity's arguments in favor of a supernatural devil? Feel free to start a new topic if you wish. I'm really a neophyte with respect to Unitarianism as well as belief in a non-supernatural agent of evil called satan...always eager to learn more though!


I can share my understanding... Let me put it this way.... I do not believe in the orthodox understanding of Satan as being a fallen angel! That is scriptural B.S.

However, I also do not believe in the Christadelphians view of Satan either... To understand "Satan" in scripture... you must first seek out "evil" in scripture... the Hebrew "Ra" H7451
רעה רע... Only then can you approach this topic in a non-bias manner... leaving behind traditions of men taught by institutions. You must also see how the LXX treats this word...

Seek how evil came to be then you will begin to understand God's relation to "Satan." Only then can you understand why Satan exist!

Well maybe... that's how it worked for me anyway? :drinks:


Paul



#444916 Masoretic text… vs… the Septuagint

Posted by Pierac on 29 January 2013 - 09:01 PM in Apologetics

Did Job’s Children Really Die?

In the book of Job, his children are killed in chapter 1 vs. 18-19, yet later in the book, it appears his children are still alive in Job 19:17 (KJV) “My breath is strange to my wife, though I intreated for the children's sake of mine own body. 18 Yea, young children despised me; I arose, and they spake against me.”

Many modern English translations falsely try to re-translate this into “the brothers or my mother” but that is not in the Hebrew Text. It is simply changed to make sense for modern readers. (See Strong’s Definitions).

The LXX makes it clearer because it specifies that the children were actually his concubine’s sons and not his children from his wife. LXX: 17 “And I besought my wife, and earnestly intreated the sons of my concubines. 18 But they rejected me for ever; whenever I rise up, they speak against me. 19 They that saw me abhorred me: the very persons whom I had loved, rose up against me.”



Paul



#444915 Masoretic text… vs… the Septuagint

Posted by Pierac on 29 January 2013 - 08:52 PM in Apologetics

HOW TALL WAS GOLIATH?

The Masoretic 1 Samuel 17:4 says Goliath was 6 cubits and a span, or roughly 9 feet 9 inches.

However, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls say 4 cubits and a span, or about 6 feet, 9 inches.

Interestingly, Flavius Josephus (who once was a Jewish Pharisee and a scholar on Jewish History) agrees with the Septuagint as well when he writes “4 cubits and a span”.


Paul



#444794 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 14 January 2013 - 09:48 PM in Theology

Thank you for the offer Paul, but at the moment I think people are currently engaged with other issues right now so you may not receive any replies in this thread for a while.

Most of us here are confident that we know how to address the usual Trinitarian proof texts. If anyone has a problem, I'm sure they'll raise it.

I like your explanation of I Corinthians 10:1-3.

:)/>/>


My apologies if I came across as only a giver of data or created proof texts... I assure you... I seek it also! Evangelion we are in a age where nothing is new... I seek to share data as much as I seek to receive it! That explanation of I Corinthians 10:1-3 is probably from 12 different sources put together in a single post! I got it from my friend in Canada.... I cut out the fat but I know he did not create it... just like you and I... we collect and build from the works of others... that's why were here on forums... To seek data and pick the spiritual meat off of spiritual bones... The problem is when we do not agree on what's meat! So I read the data... and take what the spirit tells me to take just like you!

Evangelion... my Masoretic text… vs… the Septuagint thread was a gift to you... I found the data long ago with no source or author to even give credit too... Whom ever wrote it did not want to be known!

You appeared to like the subject... so I shared the data I found... :drinks:

No one knows what God is doing... Were all seekers...


Ecc 3:11 He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."

Read the verse in Hebrew Evangelion and you will find the word "obscurity" most fitting!!!

:book:
Paul



#444786 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 12 January 2013 - 11:57 PM in Theology

So some one pick a Trinity verse or topic that you presently struggle with...

I'm here to keep you on tract and fight the false trinitarian doctrine you face everyday.... Of course... True trinitarians are encouraged to ask questions too... I can easily show you to the truth in any given trinitarian support verses you choose to use!


:book:

Paul



#444785 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 12 January 2013 - 11:46 PM in Theology

Since I was brought here due to my Trinitarian studies... I guess it would be appropriate to share! Being a Non-Trinitarian on mostly Trinitarian sites... I assure you I have faced opposition that you would not believe!!! ... :blush:

I have perfected the art of anti-Trinitarian post... meaning cramming in the most damaging evidence into any single post against me. Let me be more clear.... If it takes you more than 1 posting to make your point on any given verse... you have already lost the debate due to the simple minded followers of men... A single fact filled post in context on any verse is a slap in the face to the traditions of men!

I'm here to help... If you have a verse Trinitarian's use against you that your having difficulty with... I'm willing to share my studies and experience... :coffee:

Allow me to offer and example...


1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.


So in a single post explain this Trinitarian usage of scripture that Trinitarians' claim Jesus was alive and active as God in the O.T.!!!

My point is... I'm willing to share my studies... If you have a question on any given verse.... I believe I can help!

Try explaining 1Co 10:1 in a single post... It's not easy! Yet I have done it! Infact, maybe you have done it too... if so what did you say in reply... I can only offer more data to help you!

Ask and ye shall recieve... but hurry... I'm almost done with posting on forums.. you may indeed be the last discussion forum I post in... as I grow old and weary in my years.

ASK and ye shall recieve...
Paul



What? no bites?

Can anyone explain...
1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Yea, this was a tough one for me for a long time as I was focused on "the rock was Christ" It's OK to get stumped! We all build on the shoulders of others... as there is nothing new under the Sun! My answer came from a very good friend in Canada... He opened my eyes to the meaning and silly notion that 1Co 10:1 could even be considered a trinitarian support verse!

As I have pointed out... Believers in the personal preexistence of Christ often appeal to the words of the apostle Paul in I Cor 10:4 where he says of the Israelites in the wilderness, that they all drank "the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and that rock was Christ." It is argued from this that Christ Himself personally accompanied the people of Israel as they journeyed through the wilderness to the promised land. The verse is often tied in with several Old Testament texts which describe Yahweh as a Rock (Deut 32:4; Ps 18:2,31).

Since Yahweh is the rock, and Christ is also the rock who accompanied Israel, Christ must therefore be Yahweh, it is believed. This interpretation, common though it is, suffers from a number of serious defects. The first of these concerns the meaning of the term "Christ". Too often we use it simply as a proper name for Jesus as if it were His surname. "Christos" is the Greek form of the Hebrew word "Messiah", meaning "the anointed one". It was a title given to the Kings of Israel. David was a "messiah" and was a type, or forerunner, of the one who would deliver the people of Israel and establish the Kingdom of God. the coming of the Messiah is a common theme of OT prophecy. He was to be the "seed of Abraham" Gen 3:15; Gal 3:8,16, "the seed of Judah" Gen49:10; I Chron. 5:2, and the "seed of David" II Sam &:12~14; Isa 11:1,10;Rom.1:3;II Tim2:8. "Seed" in all these scriptures means "descendant" This points to the fact that the Messiah was prophesied to arise from the human race.

Nothing in the OT suggests that the promised seed was already in existence in another form. For Paul to have taught that the Messiah was personally present with Israel would have been a staggering contradiction of the words of the prophets. The second major objection to this theory is the fact that God used angels to minister to Israel.

The NT declares in three places that the law was given by angels, Acts7:38,53, Gal 3:9 & Heb2:2. In each of these passages the angelic giving of the Law forms an important part of the debate.Study each in its context with care and you will see that the common theme is the superiority of the Gospel to the Law. The Law was given only by angels but the Gospel was brought by the Son of God and is therefore vastly superior to it. Christ could not have had any part, therefore, either in giving the Law to Israel, or in ministering to the Israelites in the wilderness. Since the Messiah could not have been present personally in the wilderness, Paul's statement must mean that the Rock represented or typified Christ in some way. It is not uncommon for Scripture to use the verb "to be" in a representational sense. Jesus said "I am the Door" Jn 10:7, "I am the true Vine" Jn 15:1. In the instution of the Lord's supper he said that the bread "is my body" and the cup "is my blood" I Cor11:24,25, clearly meant that they symbolized his broken body and shed blood.


This interpretation is strengthened by a close study of the whole passage from verse 1 to verse 11 of 1 Corinthians 10. Twice Paul states that the experiences of Israel were examples for us (vv.6,11). the Greek word used here actually means "types".. The passing of the Israelites through the cloud and through the Red Sea was a type of Christian baptism. They were baptized "into Moses" (v. 2, NASB) as we are baptized "into Christ" (Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27). Verses 3 and 4 continue the typological parallel by referring to the incidents of the giving of the manna in Exodus 16, and the incidents at Rephidim and Kadesh when God miraculously supplied water out of a rock (Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 20: 1-13). The "spiritual" food mentioned in verse 3 is clearly the manna miraculously given daily to Israel over a period of 40 years. The giving of the manna is recorded in Exodus 16 and forms the background to John 6.

There are two incidents involving a rock recorded during the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites and it is important to notice the difference between them. The first incident occurred just after the miraculous giving of the manna. Israel arrived at Rephidim (Ex. 17:1) and immediately began to complain about lack of water, whereupon God commanded Moses to strike the rock. Water gushed out and the people's thirst was satisfied. The striking of the rock typifies the fact that Christ our Rock was smitten for us. The miraculous giving of the water typifies the giving of the Holy Spirit, the water of Life (John 7:37-39).

The second incident occurred toward the end of the wandering in the wilderness. Again, Israel complained for lack of water and again God provided for their needs. This time, however, he clearly instructed Moses to speak to the rock, but in his anger Moses disobeyed and struck the rock twice (Num. 20: 1-12). In smiting the rock instead of speaking to it Moses was guilty of destroying the type. The rock in Exodus 17 typified Christ in the flesh, smitten to give to us the water of life while the rock in Numbers 20 typified Christ our High Priest, not to be smitten twice (cp. Heb. 6:6), but only to be spoken to to supply the water of life.

The first incident occurred at the beginning of the wanderings, the second at the end; both incidents thus form a parable of Christ's continuous presence with his people during their "wilderness wanderings." The two incidents we have looked at took place in entirely different locations and there is a different Hebrew word for "rock" used in each place. In Exodus 17 the word is tsur and in Numbers 20 it is sela.

So what does Paul mean when he states that "they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them"? Obviously, a literal rock did not accompany Israel through the wilderness and many feel that this is proof that Christ himself went with them. The answer is that Paul is using the language of Christian experience and reading it back into the Old Testament type. This is shown clearly by his reference to baptism in verses 1 and 2. The Israelites were not literally "baptized". In fact, we are told that the water did not come near them; they walked dryshod through the Red Sea. But their experience is a close enough parallel for Paul to say they were baptized "into Moses". Likewise the rock did not literally follow them. It was simply a type of Christ accompanying us through life.

Well, this is about the best I can do to help you understand this paticular verse. John Young first showed it to me about 5 years ago... Shuts down Trinitarians on this verse topic in a single post!!

Perhaps someone could add to it... from studies and data they have collected???
Paul



#444729 Trinity Talk

Posted by Pierac on 08 January 2013 - 11:50 PM in Theology

Since I was brought here due to my Trinitarian studies... I guess it would be appropriate to share! Being a Non-Trinitarian on mostly Trinitarian sites... I assure you I have faced opposition that you would not believe!!! ... :blush:

I have perfected the art of anti-Trinitarian post... meaning cramming in the most damaging evidence into any single post against me. Let me be more clear.... If it takes you more than 1 posting to make your point on any given verse... you have already lost the debate due to the simple minded followers of men... A single fact filled post in context on any verse is a slap in the face to the traditions of men!

I'm here to help... If you have a verse Trinitarian's use against you that your having difficulty with... I'm willing to share my studies and experience... :coffee:

Allow me to offer and example...


1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.


So in a single post explain this Trinitarian usage of scripture that Trinitarians' claim Jesus was alive and active as God in the O.T.!!!

My point is... I'm willing to share my studies... If you have a question on any given verse.... I believe I can help!

Try explaining 1Co 10:1 in a single post... It's not easy! Yet I have done it! Infact, maybe you have done it too... if so what did you say in reply... I can only offer more data to help you!

Ask and ye shall recieve... but hurry... I'm almost done with posting on forums.. you may indeed be the last discussion forum I post in... as I grow old and weary in my years.

ASK and ye shall recieve...
Paul