Is Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 antisemitic?

[curious_cath]

No so reliable

The Jewish Synod of Jamnia did happen. It is a historical fact.

 

[Gorgias]

midori:

“Jesus was in the form of God…”

This is not the same as saying that Jesus is God. It only points into that direction but would not state it.

Actually, it does state it. Perhaps you need to take a look at the original Greek in order to see it:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων

literally, it’s “who, in [the] form [of] God subsisting”.

The word “subsisting” is what you want to pay attention to, here. To say that Jesus “subsists in the form of God” is what gives it away. His existence is God’s existence, according to Paul here. And, of course, you’ve got the fact that Paul is talking about form, rather than spirit or body.

This statement doesn’t “hint” at Jesus being God – it literally screams it from the rooftops!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

No so reliable

The Jewish Synod of Jamnia did happen. It is a historical fact.

Read up on recent literature, CC. It’s a council that is hypothesized, not “known as historical fact.” Even those scholars who want to suggest that it may have happened, now say that if it did occur, the events therein aren’t what they’ve been made out to be.

You said in another thread that you’re open minded to new and more current information, remember? This is one area in which you might want to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[curious_cath]

Perhaps you need to take a look at the original Greek in order to see it:

I apprecitae your Greek! I still cannot agree with your conclusion.
Paul had never talked about the Holy Trinity. This concept came into being later.

 

[curious_cath]

You said in another thread that you’re open minded

I watch and see a new, powerful revisionism taking over the minds of many, dictated by fundamentalists who don’t care about facts. This grand scale revisionism tries to reverse archaeology, history and natural science. This age is crying out for a new Galileo to make a wake-up call for those who still slumber, some 500 years after Galileo.

Eppur si mouve!

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

the Doctrine of the Trinity was always there from the beginning.

Reference?

Reference?

It’s Catholic teaching that the Deposit of Faith was there since the Apostles. Public Revelation ended with the death of St John. Doctrine is the Deposit of Faith, Dogma is the clearly defined doctine.

Yes, the Dogma of the Trinity came later, but the Doctine was there since Pentecost.

St Paul’s conversation happened after Pentecost. After Pentecost, the Apostles knew that the Holy Spirit was God. The Apostles, having their new teacher (the Holy Spirit) come upon them now had the full Deposit of Faith.

St Paul wasn’t taught about Christianity in a vacuum. After his encounter with Christ, he was taught by disciples of the Apostles and was eventually granted the rank of Apostle due to his encounter with the Risen Christ.

To assume that St Paul didn’t ultimately receive the same Deposit of Faith is wrong and supports anti-Christian ideas that St Paul changed the teachings of Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

I apprecitae your Greek! I still cannot agree with your conclusion.

umm… ok?

I mean, if I said “@curious_cath subsists in the form of a human”, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t understand me to be saying “@curious_cath is a human”? Really?

Paul had never talked about the Holy Trinity. This concept came into being later.

The descriptor ‘Holy Trinity’ didn’t come into existence until later, but that doesn’t mean that the concept of a single, Triune God wasn’t in play in Paul’s day! He talks about ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Spirit’, and affirms that “God is one”. It’s pretty hard to say that Paul didn’t believe in the persons of the Trinity and that he didn’t believe that they were one God, just by reading his writings.

Are you claiming that, unless a Scripture writer doesn’t call the Trinity by name, then he doesn’t believe the Trinity exists? That’s just ludicrous! Heck, I wasn’t able to call my Mom by name for the first year of my life… but I certainly knew and accepted her existence before then!

 

[curious_cath]

Are you claiming that, unless a Scripture writer doesn’t call the Trinity by name, then he doesn’t believe the Trinity exists?

He did not know about it. I quoted the Romans and the Hebrews above. Please read.

“Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” (Rom 8: 34) Jesus is interceding to God for us, while sitting at God’s right hand. Is he God?

“7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb. 5)

Who is the One who could have saved him from death? Is it not God?

 

[goout]

Here are 2 supposed antisemitic verses in KJV:
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
I think these verses are a bit antisemitic.

“The Americans” perpetrated the slaughter of the Japanese nation.
“The Germans” murdered millions of people.
“The Christians” killed many women and children in the crusades.

Perhaps you can see the problem with confining truth to a linguistic bias.

 

[curious_cath]

Also:

19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

(Hebrews 6)

“The ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one.”

(Hebrews 8:6)

 

[phil19034]

Gorgias:

Perhaps you need to take a look at the original Greek in order to see it:

I apprecitae your Greek! I still cannot agree with your conclusion.
Paul had never talked about the Holy Trinity. This concept came into being later.

St Paul never talked about the DOGMA of the Trinity - which developed & was defined later - but the Doctrine was still there.

The Church teaches that the Church cannot create new beliefs not given to the Apostles. The Church can only develop the ideas into more clearly defined Dogma. Doctrine cannot be created. Church Doctrine is the Deposit of Faith.

If the Apostles didn’t believe in the Trinity (even if they never used that word), then it would be heretical for us to do so.

St Paul died an apostle and was a missionary Bishop, establishing dioceses as and then moving on to the next place.

There is no way that The Holy Trinity and the Apostles allowed someone who didn’t believe in the Holy Trinity to evangelize and ordain many.

So again - if you think St Paul didn’t believe in the Holy Trinity, you need to provide solid evidence, not quoting English translations of scripture out of context.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Are you claiming that, unless a Scripture writer doesn’t call the Trinity by name, then he doesn’t believe the Trinity exists?

He did not know about it. I quoted the Romans and the Hebrews above. Please read.

I think it demonstrates a rather insightful understanding of the Trinity: Paul neither thinks that God is monolithic nor that there are three Gods.

“Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” (Rom 8: 34) Jesus is interceding to God for us, while sitting at God’s right hand. Is he God?

Yes, on both counts: Paul says (in Hebrews) that Jesus is sitting at the right on the throne of God. Who else sits at God’s throne than God?

Secondly, why is intercession with the Father a proof that Jesus is not God? That doesn’t follow. As early as the post-Resurrection appearances, Christians proclaimed Jesus as God (remember ‘doubting Thomas’? “My Lord and my God”?). And, they knew and remembered that Jesus prayed on their behalf to the Father (you need look no further than the Gospels to see this). So, if those who traveled with Jesus and knew He is God and knew He interceded on their behalf… why would Paul’s assertions of the same facts not be considered the same claims of divinity?

Who is the One who could have saved him from death? Is it not God?

It is His Father. This isn’t making a distinction that Jesus isn’t God – rather, this is Paul’s case that Jesus is our High Priest! Keep in mind what Paul is trying to prove: Jesus is our Priest; just as human priests make supplications on our behalf to the Father, so does Jesus. If you want to take that case and attempt to deconstruct it to make it say something it’s not, then that’s rather poor scholarship.

 

[curious_cath]

Using that discussion to ‘prove’ that he thought Jesus isn’t God is really just sophistry.

There is a subtle difference between things. High Christology points toward the doctrine of the Holy Trinity but not (yet) equal to it. What is the reason that even at the Synod at Nicaea in the 4th century there were serious disagreements on the nature of the Holy Trinity? I am sorry that I have to bring up well known facts from Church history. The Nicene Creed is the closure of a long process that produced the theological doctrine of a Tri-unite God.

Understanding the divine nature of Jesus did not come easy either. Paul has a high Christology, but not as high what we read in John’s Gospel. Paul never stated that Jesus was God per se, although he started to walk that direction. Paul did not deny that Jesus was God. He just did not have the concept of how a human being could be God himself.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Using that discussion to ‘prove’ that he thought Jesus isn’t God is really just sophistry.

What is the reason that even at the Synod at Nicaea in the 4th century there were serious disagreements on the nature of the Holy Trinity? I am sorry that I have to bring up well known facts from Church history.

No need to apologize – it’s important to recognize that it took a while to get the wording right and to correct errors!

But, here’s the thing: the fact that there were disagreements doesn’t mean that the belief wasn’t present! In fact, it would be absurd to suggest that the belief wasn’t present – and that there wasn’t concern over the non-standard theological suggestions – because we know that this conflict is what drove the councils! So, your point that there were councils demonstrates that the teaching pre-existed the councils!

To take an example from current events: one cannot have a debate over gun control until guns actually exist!

The Nicene Creed is the closure of a long process that produced the theological doctrine of a Tri-unite God.

Perhaps we need to discuss what ‘doctrine’ is. It is not something “created” by the Church. Rather, it is the Church’s explication of something already revealed by God. So, the fact that we have to undergo a process in order to formulate the expression of the understanding of God’s self-revelation does not imply that the ‘doctrine’ doesn’t exist! It does – we just took a while getting to the point at which it was explained sufficiently thoroughly in order to settle any arguments…

Understanding the divine nature of Jesus did not come easy either. Paul has a high Christology, but not as high what we read in John’s Gospel. Paul never stated that Jesus was God per se, although he started to walk that direction. Paul did not deny that Jesus was God. He just did not have the concept of how a human being could be God himself.

Again, it seems that you’re conflating “having an explanation” with “believing a doctrine.”

Does John’s project include explaining things that hadn’t previously been explained? Sure. Was Paul’s project identical? Nope. That doesn’t imply that Paul didn’t have a Christology as high as John’s… just that his mission was different.

 

[artortega]

Why I find those verses anti-semitic because it says that Jews are devil worshippers.

 

[TheOldColonel]

It says those pretending to be Jews are.

 

[guanophore]

“Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” (Rom 8: 34) Jesus is interceding to God for us, while sitting at God’s right hand. Is he God?

Yes.

Who is the One who could have saved him from death? Is it not God?

Yes,

Paul had never talked about the Holy Trinity. This concept came into being later.

False. The word “trinity” came into use later.

He did not know about it.

False

 

[artortega]

A synagogue is a Jewish place of worship. Synagogue of Satan is Judaism.

 

[Gorgias]

Why I find those verses anti-semitic because it says that Jews are devil worshippers.

No. It says that there are those who claim to be Jews, but are devil worshippers.

It doesn’t say that all Jews are devil worshippers (which would be anti-Semitic).

A synagogue is a Jewish place of worship. Synagogue of Satan is Judaism.

Actually, the word ‘synagogue’ is a Greek word, meaning ‘assembly’.

In any case, he’s not saying that “Judaism is the synagogue of Satan”, but rather, that this particular group of people, who claim to be Jews, are really an assembly of Satan. Not anti-Semitic.

 

[TheOldColonel]

You’re reading in your own bias. Take a look at what it says, not what you want it to say. Indeed.