B
baddog
Guest
<<<
- Status
L
leopolis1
Guest
I’ll try to make it as short as possible: God the Father sent His Son Jesus Christ to redeem the mankind. Jesus said: I and the Father are one. It means: they are equal and both divinine. Jesus also said about the Holy Spirit: HE will teach you everything. It means that HS is a person, just like the Father and the Son. The only reasonable explanation is that God is the Trinity - ONE God but three divine Persons.
M
MEgus
Guest
MEgus;4944078:
As a matter of fact, it does. It’s just not the Catholic Church.Ben Masada;4942955:
And tell me, does the Church know of these ideas of yours?
Ben:
And Ben, I do study the Jewish Torah, as well as other Jewish Scripture. It strengthens my beliefs as what I believe about God fits in very well with them.
MEgus
B
baddog
Guest
“We should go to God, who is the ultimate authority on his word. Not to any other, and if we do, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth unto us.”
Which truth promoted by whom? Why should I believe your “truth” over some else’s
truth? Who determines truth? Is it not the Church?
1 Tim. 3:-15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
“As Peter received knowledge of the Truth, so can we.”
Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. Not so with us.
Matt. 16:18- And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Peter had the power of binding and loosing.
M
MEgus
Guest
No, there is another reasonable explanation other than the Trinity one, but people do not want to listen to it.
But, other than the explanation of the Trinity, I agree with everything you said.
John 17:11
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:21
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
MEgus
B
baddog
Guest
V
Valke2
Guest
That’s great and of course as a Jew I disagree. But it doesn’t really address the use of “Elohim” in Genesis.
S
Spirithound
Guest
To answer your first question, I would like to quote another poster, who quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
To answer you second point, I will say that I have read the thread, although it took me about half as long as I thought it would, due to a little squabble…Nita said:
but that does not answer my question. I asked for a morphological analysis, not a definition. It has been said here the “El” means god, “im” means plural, but what does “oh” mean?
M
MEgus
Guest
Baddog, those are good questions. One thing you should consider though is the translation you have of the Bible. For instance, here’s what Catholic Answers says:
"At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. This is an important question about which Catholics need to be informed. Some have been given very little help about how to pick a Bible translation, but keeping in mind a few tips will make the decision much easier.
There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.
Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.
The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text."
Now, with that in mind, let’s look at a different texts of 1 Tim. 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.
16 The pillar and ground of the truth is (and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,) God, manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Now, while this is almost the exact same wording as you quote, there is one subtle difference. That being that the pillar and ground(bulwark) of truth is Jesus Christ, not the Church. And other scriptures also support this same contention. Our foundation needs to be built on the Rock of Jesus Christ, not the Church.
Another great point. Yes, Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, but not until later. Peter gained the personal revelation that Jesus was the Christ before he obtained these keys. And we too can gain the same personal revelation from our Father in Heaven just as Peter did. There is nothing preventing this except our lack of faith.
And the rock that Christ tells Peter he will build his church upon is the Rock of God, not Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church that Christ built after Christ was gone. Peter did not build it, Christ did.
MEgus
M
MEgus
Guest
B
baddog
Guest
The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text."
Now, with that in mind, let’s look at a different texts of 1 Tim. 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.
16 The pillar and ground of the truth is (and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,) God, manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Now, while this is almost the exact same wording as you quote, there is one subtle difference. That being that the pillar and ground(bulwark) of truth is Jesus Christ, not the Church. And other scriptures also support this same contention. Our foundation needs to be built on the Rock of Jesus Christ, not the Church.
Another great point. Yes, Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, but not until later. Peter gained the personal revelation that Jesus was the Christ before he obtained these keys. And we too can gain the same personal revelation from our Father in Heaven just as Peter did. There is nothing preventing this except our lack of faith.
And the rock that Christ tells Peter he will build his church upon is the Rock of God, not Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church that Christ built after Christ was gone. Peter did not build it, Christ did.
MEgus
“Baddog, those are good questions. One thing you should consider though is the translation you have of the Bible. For instance, here’s what Catholic Answers says:”
Generally, I use the RSV Catholic Edition, as above. Sometimes I use the ASV.
Here is how the ASV renders the verse:
15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The AKJV:
15 But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The AV:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Douay:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Darby:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
ESV:
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.
Webster:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
NIV:
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
NASB:
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
HCSB:
15 But if I should be delayed, * so that you will know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
All consistently identify the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Now, I have no idea which translation you are using but I can’t find any that agree with it.
"Another great point. Yes, Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, but not until later. Peter gained the personal revelation that Jesus was the Christ before he obtained these keys. And we too can gain the same personal revelation from our Father in Heaven just as Peter did. There is nothing preventing this except our lack of faith.
And the rock that Christ tells Peter he will build his church upon is the Rock of God, not Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church that Christ built after Christ was gone. Peter did not build it, Christ did."
I don’t think so.
Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun “taute” which means ‘this very’ in reference to the rock on which the Church would be built. “Taute petra”, this very rock. When a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘and’, which is ‘kai’, the pronoun refers back to the preceeding noun. The second rock has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases. Jesus could have said, “but”, ‘alla’ on this rock I will build my Church, meaning a different rock, but He didn’t do that. He would have had to explain what the other rock was, but He didn’t do that, either.*
Now, with that in mind, let’s look at a different texts of 1 Tim. 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God.
16 The pillar and ground of the truth is (and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,) God, manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Now, while this is almost the exact same wording as you quote, there is one subtle difference. That being that the pillar and ground(bulwark) of truth is Jesus Christ, not the Church. And other scriptures also support this same contention. Our foundation needs to be built on the Rock of Jesus Christ, not the Church.
Another great point. Yes, Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, but not until later. Peter gained the personal revelation that Jesus was the Christ before he obtained these keys. And we too can gain the same personal revelation from our Father in Heaven just as Peter did. There is nothing preventing this except our lack of faith.
And the rock that Christ tells Peter he will build his church upon is the Rock of God, not Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church that Christ built after Christ was gone. Peter did not build it, Christ did.
MEgus
“Baddog, those are good questions. One thing you should consider though is the translation you have of the Bible. For instance, here’s what Catholic Answers says:”
Generally, I use the RSV Catholic Edition, as above. Sometimes I use the ASV.
Here is how the ASV renders the verse:
15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The AKJV:
15 But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The AV:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Douay:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Darby:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
ESV:
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.
Webster:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
NIV:
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
NASB:
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
HCSB:
15 But if I should be delayed, * so that you will know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
All consistently identify the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Now, I have no idea which translation you are using but I can’t find any that agree with it.
"Another great point. Yes, Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, but not until later. Peter gained the personal revelation that Jesus was the Christ before he obtained these keys. And we too can gain the same personal revelation from our Father in Heaven just as Peter did. There is nothing preventing this except our lack of faith.
And the rock that Christ tells Peter he will build his church upon is the Rock of God, not Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church that Christ built after Christ was gone. Peter did not build it, Christ did."
I don’t think so.
Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun “taute” which means ‘this very’ in reference to the rock on which the Church would be built. “Taute petra”, this very rock. When a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘and’, which is ‘kai’, the pronoun refers back to the preceeding noun. The second rock has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases. Jesus could have said, “but”, ‘alla’ on this rock I will build my Church, meaning a different rock, but He didn’t do that. He would have had to explain what the other rock was, but He didn’t do that, either.*
B
baddog
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
“El” indeed means god in the singular. The plural is Elim. And yes, in Hebrew grammar, “im” is one of the indications of plurality for masculines, as “ot” is for words in the feminine. But that’s not an absolute rule, as we have many words ending in “im” and in “ot” and give no indication of plurality. For instance, in “Ephraim” “im” comes at the end and it does not mean more than one Ephraim. “Yerushalaim” brings “im” at the end and it does not indicate plurality. Therefore, Elohim does not indicate plurality of itself or the subject, but plurality of extension in the object. That’s what I call Psychological plurality.
Ben:
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Hello Ben.Shalom Rebecca, your first paragraph above is gorgeous and I agree with you in everything. But you had to get into the second paragraph; and here I have a problem. Do you know when it was reported that Jesus said he was “I am?” 50+ years after he had been gone. And since it has been reported by the fourth gospel, at the end of the First Century. Between 95 and 100 CE.
That chapter 8 of John is so loaded with contradictions and non-Jewish facts about Jesus that almost the whole thing constitutes an interpolation with the purpose to reflect Jesus as the one. It’s no longer good on those who have a mind of their own. Jesus was a religious Jew. Anything not Jewish about him is prone to fail at the onset.
Ben:
I understand the Pentateuch was written many years, if not hundreds, after a long oral tradition. I think if there is any religious group that understands the impact and meaning of Sacred Tradition, it would be our older brothers.oh yes, I respect the Jewish-ness (if you will) of our Lord.
God bless.
Rebecca
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
MEgus;4944078:
Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God (Elohim) is one Jehovah:
The Unity of God is demonstrated as follows: Two Gods would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other. The two Beings would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be god. Both God’s would move to action by will; the will, being without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in two separate beings.
Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of a second God is not proved, even if it were possible, possibility is inapplicable to God. Therefore, there is no such a thing as a second God.
The possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence. Again, if one God suffices, the second God is superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.
Now, mind you that the absolutely One God is incorporeal too. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or He would be comparable to other beings.
Since comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, God would thus not be one. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.
Therefore, as you state above our Jewish confession, God is absolutely One and the Only Lord.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Yes, you are right about most of the Pentateuch being written many years after a long oral tradition. But why do I have issue with the NT and not with the Pentateuch? Because the Pentatecuch is Jewish, writen by “Jews” and according to the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism. The NT tempers with Judaism by claiming non-JewishHello Ben.
oh yes, I respect the Jewish-ness (if you will) of our Lord.
God bless.
Rebecca
facts about people whose Faith was Judaism.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Ben Masada;4944379:
Sorry pal, but your ideas are absolutely not cosher. I mean, not according to the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
The Unity of God is demonstrated as follows: Two Gods would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other. The two Beings would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be god. Both God’s would move to action by will; the will, being without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in two separate beings.
Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of a second God is not proved, even if it were possible, possibility is inapplicable to God. Therefore, there is no such a thing as a second God.
The possibility of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence. Again, if one God suffices, the second God is superfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.
Now, mind you that the absolutely One God is incorporeal too. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or He would be comparable to other beings.
Since comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, God would thus not be one. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.
Therefore, as you state above our Jewish confession, God is absolutely One and the Only Lord.
Ben:
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, you are right about most of the Pentateuch being written many years after a long oral tradition. But why do I have issue with the NT and not with the Pentateuch? Because the Pentatecuch is Jewish, writen by “Jews” and according to the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism. The NT tempers with Judaism by claiming non-Jewish
facts about people whose Faith was Judaism.
Ben:
You defend Jesus, as a Jew? That is sweet.You shouldn’t be threatened. He was killed for being Who He Is. For us. There is no threat in this.
God bless.
Rebecca
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Ben Masada:
Welcome to Mormon101.
Rebecca
He’s not kosher for the Faith of Jesus, Jewish or the New Covenant.Sorry pal, but your ideas are absolutely not cosher. I mean, not according to the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.
Ben:
Welcome to Mormon101.
Rebecca
- Status