Genesis 1:26 and the Royal we! [Archive]

Menachem

January 18th 2005, 04:30 PM

Pythagoras

January 19th 2005, 03:05 PM

Hi,

In the Talmud tractate Megilla 9a...we are told how the Original Septuagint done by the 72 Rabbis of Alexandria rendered this verse as:

"I shall make man in image and likeness,"

This is not found in the current Septuagint we have today...
This is correct.

i happen to knwo what the traditional interpretation of this verse is and its not that of a triune G-d but that G-d took counsel with the Angels on the ceation of man...
In other words you're saying the traditional interpretation is better.

So in conclusion with the evidence supplied by the targum yonatan it is safe to say that the traditional interpretation of this verse is not that of a multiple godhead but of one G-d talking to the angels...But regarding the Akedah yours is hardly the traditional interpretation, virtually identical to (perhaps borrowed from) Lippman Bodoff .

Good luck,

Menachem

January 19th 2005, 03:15 PM

Hi,

This is correct.

In other words you're saying the traditional interpretation is better.

But regarding the Akedah yours is hardly the traditional interpretation, virtually identical to (perhaps borrowed from) Lippman Bodoff .

Good luck,

hardly the traditional...LOL...and you never got that off the ground in the other thread....anyhow let's stay on topic!

Goose

January 19th 2005, 04:26 PM

I think the trinitarian idea is just an ignorant perverse knock off of the "godhead" of Jewish mysticism. Binah, Chochmah and Tiferet. Each referring to the Father, Mother and Son aspect of Elohiym. One of the big reasons leading to this confusion is the fact that the majority of Christian writings are in Greek. However, not that if they were written in Hebrew, they would therefore be true mind you, but that a better understanding could be made.

InChristAlways

January 19th 2005, 05:57 PM

i happen to knwo what the traditional interpretation of this verse is and its not that of a triune G-d but that G-d took counsel with the Angels on the ceation of man...
I have heard many times from christian friends that this particular verse points to a triune G-d...is this true?? Is this the traditional interpretation of the verse?? Below we will examine this very verse...and see how it was originally interpreted...Hi Yosef.
There is also this quote if translated correctly
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' That is how I would read it because as we know angels/messengers appeared all through the OT and even to the disciples and Christ's followers after His crucifixion and resurrection. Michael and Gabriel are even mentioned as "high ranking angels" in Daniel and appear in the gospels.
I believe Jesus may even be the "new name" of God and why I always pray to the Father in the "name" of Jesus. One God, One Name, "Jesus" just as it says to us christ-ians in Acts. I am one of the few that feel the bible is completely fulfilled (so I and others differ with the church "creeds", but those "creeds" have also failed to bring all the churches to One Mind in Christ, as the jews can readily see with all the beliefs and doctrines that divide them) God bless.

Hebrews 1:8 and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy reign;

[i]Acts 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 "This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

psalm 2:6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion." 7 "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, 'You [are] My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 Ask of Me, and I will give [You] The nations [for] Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth [for] Your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel.' " 10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, And rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish [in] the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all those who put their trust in Him.

Btw Yosef, just one question. Do the jews believe that their messiah will accomplish all things outright upon His appearance and what name will He have, Emmanuel?God bless.

Pythagoras

January 19th 2005, 08:05 PM

I think the trinitarian idea is just an ignorant perverse knock off of the "godhead" of Jewish mysticism. Binah, Chochmah and Tiferet. Each referring to the Father, Mother and Son aspect of Elohiym. .Goose you're absolutely correct. great insight.

The Kaballa, especially the Zohar is one of the earliest inductions of the trinity concept known to man. Infact many quarters of first century Judaism taught the Trinity. Where do you think the Christians got this idea from ? Constantine and the Nicean council?-- hardly!

Infact Reuchlin divided the Jewish literature into seven classes, and judging singly, he arrived at the conclusion that Talmud, the Kabalist book of Zohar, the commentatories of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, (and a couple of others) should not be burned, as they were useful theology for Science, and from the Christian point of view presented no heresy against the trinity . But books which contained blasphemies against Jesus, such as the Toldeoot Yeshuu, he wanted burned.

The common misconception is that the trinity was a Catholic or early Christian conception/innovation. It's genesis (in this context ) lay rather in Jewish mystical thought which flourished well before the founding of Christianity.

God Bless,

Pythagoras

January 19th 2005, 09:44 PM

Hi,

hardly the traditional...LOL...and you never got that off the ground in the other thread....anyhow let's stay on topic!Lol... Now you're even contradicting Lipman . Check the other thread to see what he says.

I believe now is the perfect time to use the phrase, "out to lunch".

Carry on, and do stay on topic.

Goose

January 19th 2005, 11:23 PM

Pythagoras,

No, the christian trinity is not a Jewish concept. If you would please re-read my last post. I'm not mad at you, but this must be firmly clear.

The trinity is not an "induction" of a Jewish concept, but rather is a bastardized perversion of an authentic Jewish concept, just as the Roman "Christ" is a bastardized concept of a Jewish Messiah. Christianity has tried to hijack Jews and their faith for far too long.

The Christian trinity and the Jewish concepts that were hijacked, are NOT the same thing.

If you want to study true Jewish concepts, I suggest you start your journey with some works by Gershom Scholem (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805210814/qid=1106188278/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-8693428-2456066?v=glance&s=books). They can usually be found at your local Borders, B&N, etc.

If someone would like to follow in the footsteps of a true Jewish Messiah, and not the Romanized bastardized perversion, the first step is to learn more about what the Messiah is really like and what is required of those who follow in the Messiah's footsteps. Quite worshipping idols. It's possible.

Pythagoras

January 20th 2005, 12:57 AM

Goose,

No, the christian trinity is not a Jewish concept.The Christians got their trinity from somewhere -- either from the Pagans or from Jews(mysticism, Zohar). I would bet my money on the latter since the characterization of primitive Christianity as a messianic Jewish sect with mystical undertones is beyond doubt

I hope you aren't suggesting the trinity originated at the Council of Trent.

The first emperor to become Christian, Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology. The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, hoinoousios("of one substance") , comes from no less a person than the emperor himself. To the present day no one has cleared up the problem of where the Emperor got the term. It seems likely that it was suggested to him by his episcopal counselor Bishop Hosius of Cordova and it was probably nothing more than a Greek translation of a term already found in Tertullian.
Wherefore did Tertullian derive this concept?

If you would please re-read my last post. I'm not mad at you, but this must be firmly clear.
Actually, if you meant what you said first time around, I understood you quite well.Now your position is shifting. That always happens when a strong counter post causes a poorly thought out position to be reconsidered.

The trinity is not an "induction" of a Jewish concept, but rather is a bastardized perversion of an authentic Jewish concept
The trinity is a primordial Jewish concept .(whether they were the first to fathom it is open to speculation, but certainly they were one of the earliest to do so.) ...And I suggest this teaching began to attach itself to Christian thought very early on(even during the time of the apostle John) though it was never sanctioned by Christ or the Apostles.For example, in the Book of Revelation John warns against this heresy. Where from this idea? I wager Jewish mystical Gnosticism be responsible. The council of Trent, a few hundred years later ,merely formalized what was already well accepted by so-called Christians. Though it must immediately be pointed out that some sub-divisions of Christians never bought into the trinity idea.

just as the Roman "Christ" is a bastardized concept of a Jewish Messiah.

Roman christ? Are you refering to the teachings of Saul of Tarsus?

Christianity has tried to hijack Jews and their faith for far too long.
I think you're missing the boat. Christianity is a Jewish concept. -- it was founded by a Jew, all the apostles were Jews, all the early converts were Jews, the whole of the GNT was compiled by Jews, etc.. .

No, the christian trinity is not a Jewish concept.So where did the early 1st century Messianic Jews(Christians) got this idea from ? The Bogey-Man?

The Christian trinity and the Jewish concepts that were hijacked, are NOT the same thing.
Now you're suggesting Jews( Early Christians) hijacked Jewish concepts. So there is a Christian Trinity and a Jewish Trinity, but they aren't the same. I suppose it would be logical to assume//postulate that over time the Christian trinity evolved separately from the Jewish conception and became distinct. .. But you're already contradicting yourself. Do you not see it?

If you want to study true Jewish concepts, I suggest you start your journey with some works by Gershom Scholem (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805210814/qid=1106188278/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-8693428-2456066?v=glance&s=books). They can usually be found at your local Borders, B&N, etc.
I'm familiar with this.
BTW,What do you mean by "true Jewish concepts"?

If someone would like to follow in the footsteps of a true Jewish Messiah, and not the Romanized bastardized perversion, the first step is to learn more about what the Messiah is really like and what is required of those who follow in the Messiah's footsteps.
You must prove the Jewish writers of the NT portrayed a Romanized bastardized perversion. I don't see that. One cannot simply make unsubstantiated statements like that if one is to be taken seriously.

Quite worshipping idols. It's possibleThe Jews, despite the fact that they had benifit of Torah, Moses and God's Miracles, have been some of the most ardent, irredeemable idol worshippers in human history. Sorry to burst your bubble.

best,

kofh2u

January 20th 2005, 02:48 AM

I have heard many times from christian friends that this particular verse points to a triune G-d...is this true?? Is this the traditional interpretation of the verse?? Below we will examine this very verse...and see how it was originally interpreted...

the verse in question reads " And G-d said "let us make Man in Our image, after Our Likeness..."

The Hebrew reads pretty much that: ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???????

i happen to knwo what the traditional interpretation of this verse is and its not that of a triune G-d but that G-d took counsel with the Angels on the ceation of man...Here is the Evidence to support the claim....It comes from the targum Yonatan....

Here is the Aramaic:
???? ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????????{?}<?> ???? ?????
?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ????????? ???????
??????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????
???? ????? ????? ????? ????

Here is the translation:

Genesis 1:26(Targum Yonatan)And the Hashem said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness;

as we can see the traditional translation of this verse is not of a multiple godhead but of one G-d talking to the angels....or the "Royal We" in Heaven...

In the Talmud tractate Megilla 9a...we are told how the Original Septuagint done by the 72 Rabbis of Alexandria rendered this verse as:

"I shall make man in image and likeness,"

This is not found in the current Septuagint we have today...

This rendering went far from the Hebrew text as to simply avoid Heresies arising from this verse...In the midrash we have a conversation between Moses and G-d:

R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why do you furnish an excuse to heretics[For maintaining a plurality of gods]?’ ‘Write,’ replied He; ' Whoever wishes to err may err.’ ' Moses,’ said the Lord to him, ‘this man that I have created-do I not cause men both great and small to spring from Him? Now if a great man comes to obtain permission [for a proposed action] from one that is less than he, he may say, " Why should I ask permission from my inferior!" Then they will answer him, " Learn fom your creator (Genesis Rabbah 8:8)

A stunning explanation to say the least...This is explained in many other midrashim as to why it was written "Let us make man in our image"

One says "He took counsel with his own heart"...another says "He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth.... and the best one of all "He created man with both the Oral and Written Torah..

So in conclusion with the evidence supplied by the targum yonatan it is safe to say that the traditional interpretation of this verse is not that of a multiple godhead but of one G-d talking to the angels...

Ely, our ancient pre-Freudian ancestors had no clue, and even the people of the early 1900's had difficulty realizing what it was that Freud and Jung were saying.

Yes, you are correct that the truine Godhead is not the point of Gen 1:26. But, the amazing survival tool of man's mind has roots way back in evolution, where the first creatures in our genetic heritage first appeared.

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 So God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), created man (whose facility of mind enabled him to image The Universal Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created (the external theistic Universal Force), God, him (man, in God's own immanent reflection); male and female created he them.

Pythagoras

January 20th 2005, 07:05 AM

Addendum:

I wrote: "So where did the early 1st century Messianic Jews(Christians) got this idea from ? The Bogey-Man?"

Correct sholud be ""So where did the early 2nd century Messianic Jews(christians) got this idead from? The Bogey-Man?".

It must also be stressed that by the time John the Beloved Apostle recited the Rev. AD 90, the trinity concept was already making a concerted , and full frontal assault against Christian thought in the form of Gnostic heresy; though it would take another generation or so for it to be apparently gleaned in the writings of the Church fathers.

There is a theory purpoting to show that in the AD 50's(and very markedly so after the 70's, after the destruction of the Jewish temple) as Paul was busy treking Gentile lands spreading the Good News, Platonic notions of the logos were already making themselves felt in the new faith, in embryonic form . And by the time the fourth and final Gospel came along Greek influence over Christianity was apparent as the prologue to the Gospel of John clearly shows, where we see Jesus as the logos,the Word of God, etc. Though it must be quickly pointed out that no where do we see the trinity in the Prologue to John. For that matter there is no real evidence to show the trinitarian concept in the entire GNT even as we know it, which is all the more remarkable since it is a central tenet of the bulk of Christiandom.Which goes to show that it was not an idea sanctioned either by Christ or his Apostles. Infact the term trinity is nowhere to be found in the entire New Testament.

Solly

January 20th 2005, 07:18 AM

I have heard many times from christian friends that this particular verse points to a triune G-d...is this true?? Is this the traditional interpretation of the verse?? Below we will examine this very verse...and see how it was originally interpreted...

the verse in question reads " And G-d said "let us make Man in Our image, after Our Likeness..."

The Hebrew reads pretty much that: ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו

i happen to knwo what the traditional interpretation of this verse is and its not that of a triune G-d but that G-d took counsel with the Angels on the ceation of man...Here is the Evidence to support the claim....It comes from the targum Yonatan....

Here is the Aramaic:
ואמר אלקים למלאכייא דמשמשין קומוי דאיתבריי{ן}<ו> ביום תניין
לבריית עלמא נעבד אדם בצילמנא כדייוקננא וישלטון
בנוניבכוורי ימא ובעופא דבאויר שמייא ובבעירא ובכל ארעא
ובכל ריחשא דרחיש עילוי ארעא

Here is the translation:

Genesis 1:26(Targum Yonatan)And the Hashem said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness;

as we can see the traditional translation of this verse is not of a multiple godhead but of one G-d talking to the angels....or the "Royal We" in Heaven...

In the Talmud tractate Megilla 9a...we are told how the Original Septuagint done by the 72 Rabbis of Alexandria rendered this verse as:

"I shall make man in image and likeness,"

This is not found in the current Septuagint we have today...

This rendering went far from the Hebrew text as to simply avoid Heresies arising from this verse...In the midrash we have a conversation between Moses and G-d:

R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why do you furnish an excuse to heretics[For maintaining a plurality of gods]?’ ‘Write,’ replied He; ' Whoever wishes to err may err.’ ' Moses,’ said the Lord to him, ‘this man that I have created-do I not cause men both great and small to spring from Him? Now if a great man comes to obtain permission [for a proposed action] from one that is less than he, he may say, " Why should I ask permission from my inferior!" Then they will answer him, " Learn fom your creator (Genesis Rabbah 8:8)

A stunning explanation to say the least...This is explained in many other midrashim as to why it was written "Let us make man in our image"

One says "He took counsel with his own heart"...another says "He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth.... and the best one of all "He created man with both the Oral and Written Torah..

So in conclusion with the evidence supplied by the targum yonatan it is safe to say that the traditional interpretation of this verse is not that of a multiple godhead but of one G-d talking to the angels...

Given the undatability of most of the early jewish commentators, it is difficult to decide if such an interpretation is not offered as a counter to an already existing Christian one.

These words are directed not to the earth, out of which man was made, as consulting with it, and to be assisting in the formation of man, as Moses Gerundensis, and other Jewish writers (f), which is wretchedly stupid; nor to the angels, as the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, and others, who are not of God's privy council, nor were concerned in any part of the creation, and much less in the more noble part of it: nor are the words spoken after the manner of kings, as Saadiah, using the plural number as expressive of honour and majesty; since such a way of speaking did not obtain very early, not even till the close of the Old Testament: but they are spoken by God the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost, who were each of them concerned in the creation of all things, and particularly of man: hence we read of divine Creators and Makers in the plural number, Job_35:10 and Philo the Jew acknowledges that these words declare a plurality, and are expressive of others, being co-workers with God in creation (g):

(f) Vet. Nizzachon, p. 5. Lipman. Carmen Memorial. p. 108. apud Wagenseil. Tela ignea, vol. 1. (g) De confusione Ling. p. 344. De Profugis, p. 460. De Opificio, p. 16.

Commentary on the Pentateuch, c 1770

And if it means he spoke to the angels, then does that mean we are made in their image and likeness too? 'Let US make them in OUR image...'

AntonS

January 20th 2005, 09:24 AM

Whoever wishes to err may err. I agree with this. I also believe it is impossible to make someone do or accept something they do not want to. People are varied. Everyone has his own beliefs. "We", "they" are often a technique to deceive. Everyone, as i think, does or does not believe in trinity. If he is mistaken it is his own mistake.

Goose

January 20th 2005, 11:48 AM

Pythagoras,

You have reading a comprehension problem and/or you have denial issues in regards to my posts. Look up words in the dictionary like:

"perversion"
"bastardization"
"hijack"

The trinity is not a Jewish idea. Period. I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who can't understand what I write.

Solly

January 20th 2005, 11:51 AM

Not as it is expresed in Christianity, but there are echoes, ie in the Angel of the Lord, the Logos, Wisdom, Bath Qol [?], Shekinah, and other hypostatisations. Not that Judaism came to a fully fledged doctrine of a triune God, but there were intimations which made it easier for the change to be made.

Menachem

January 20th 2005, 12:20 PM

Hi,

Lol... Now you're even contradicting Lipman . Check the other thread to see what he says.

I believe now is the perfect time to use the phrase, "out to lunch".

Carry on, and do stay on topic.

And I care because???? I can cite numerous Rabbi's who go against what Lipman says...

Yes and you are diverging from the topic at hand...

Menachem

January 20th 2005, 12:28 PM

The Zochar came in as a 15th century Writing of Moses De Leon who claimed it to be the writings of Shimeon Bar Yochai a famous Rabbi who commented in the Talmud...several attempts have been made to prove its authenticity....The Zochar, how it may be accepted by many Jews, Is not accepted by all of the Jewish community...I am one of them who doesnt accept it and see it as a later product of Moses De Leon....

kofh2u

January 20th 2005, 01:35 PM

The trinity is not a Jewish idea. Period. I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who can't understand what I write.

Of course Trinity is a Jewish idea. Jesus was Jewish, he specifical said words that have never been clearly explained.

His statement that his Jewish followers go everywhere and advertise the triad connection of the F/S/G is totally Jewish.

The Father/Son/Ghost idea not only was "coined" by these Jews, but it was initially spread around the known world by Jews.

What you are presumptuously assuming is your authority to excommunicate these men, the ideas they expressed as valid interpretation of Hebrew Scripture.

The big question you circumvent by such audacity to sit in judgement, to honor yoirself by sitting in the seat of Moses, judging, is this.

If F/S/H is ever demonstrated as true, it is you who are not scripturally informed and, truly, therefore, not a Jew: (ie; the messiah appears).

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament),
and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell), even to (2K4AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased.

Menachem

January 20th 2005, 02:26 PM

Of course Trinity is a Jewish idea. Jesus was Jewish, he specifical said words that have never been clearly explained.

His statement that his Jewish followers go everywhere and advertise the triad connection of the F/S/G is totally Jewish.

The Father/Son/Ghost idea not only was "coined" by these Jews, but it was initially spread around the known world by Jews.

What you are presumptuously assuming is your authority to excommunicate these men, the ideas they expressed as valid interpretation of Hebrew Scripture.

The big question you circumvent by such audacity to sit in judgement, to honor yoirself by sitting in the seat of Moses, judging, is this.

If F/S/H is ever demonstrated as true, it is you who are not scripturally informed and, truly, therefore, not a Jew: (ie; the messiah appears).

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament),
and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell), even to (2K4AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased.

from what I have read of the christain bible it seems that jesus himself didnt even carry the concept of a Holy trinity...he recognized G-d as his "father" and G-d being a "Holy spirit." The concept of the trinity seemed to come much later than jesus' time....I would have to say from the first council of Nicea... (http://www.abcog.org/trinity.htm) where the whole issue of who was jesus?, What was his nature? His relationship to G-d the father?....etc....by this time all of the jewish christians had either died out or were so small a minority that their voice was unheard....

Pythagoras

January 20th 2005, 02:42 PM

And I care because???? I can cite numerous Rabbi's who go against what Lipman says...You're not understanding. Let's try once more:

Lipman(like you) is one of the very few who propound the theory that Abraham had absolutely no intention to sacrifice Issac as God commanded .But even he does not suggest his views are (a) traditional and (b) held by the majority of Jewish thinkers. You do. Where does that leave you?

Yes and you are diverging from the topic at handYes, and that's why this will be my last post on the Akedah on this thread.

God Bless,

Menachem

January 20th 2005, 02:46 PM

You're not understanding. Let's try once more:

Lipman(like you) is one of the very few who propound the theory that Abraham had absolutely no intention to sacrifice Issac as God commanded .But even he does not suggest his views are (a) traditional and (b) held by the majority of Jewish thinkers. You do. Where does that leave you?

Yes, and that's why this will be my last post on the Akedah on this thread.

God Bless,

the one before this should have been the last....

Sacrificial Ram

January 20th 2005, 02:58 PM

Of course Trinity is a Jewish idea. Jesus was Jewish, he specifical said words that have never been clearly explained.

His statement that his Jewish followers go everywhere and advertise the triad connection of the F/S/G is totally Jewish.

The Father/Son/Ghost idea not only was "coined" by these Jews, but it was initially spread around the known world by Jews.

What you are presumptuously assuming is your authority to excommunicate these men, the ideas they expressed as valid interpretation of Hebrew Scripture.

The big question you circumvent by such audacity to sit in judgement, to honor yoirself by sitting in the seat of Moses, judging, is this.

If F/S/H is ever demonstrated as true, it is you who are not scripturally informed and, truly, therefore, not a Jew: (ie; the messiah appears).

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament),
and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell), even to (2K4AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased.
Where, pray tell, does it have Jesus talking about the father, the son and the holy ghost?

Sacrificial Ram

January 20th 2005, 03:07 PM

kofh2u

January 20th 2005, 06:52 PM

Pythagoras:

Goose you're absolutely correct. great insight.

KOFHY:
He is correct that "The Secret Doctrine of Israel," aka Kabbalah, contains a triad relationship between the "Three Mothers" of all things, Y, H, V.

He is wrong that Kabbalah is heresy. The Qabbalah is like all other religious ideas which lend themself to diverse inte pretations (mumbo jumbo) coming from sources as you, Pythag, have listed for us.

This highly esteemed Rabbi (read: has many followers) says this, while others insisted on that.

Pythagoras:
The Kaballa, especially the Zohar is one of the earliest inductions of the trinity concept known to man. Infact many quarters of first century Judaism taught the Trinity.

KOFHY:
Those who esteem Kabbalah insist its root began with Moses. It can be shown from ancient writings and symbolizm that Kabbalah utilized some now lost, hence esote ic, form of ordering the 22 letters/numbers of the zHebrew Alphabet. There were a number of purposes for this.
The Sopherim, scribes who by hand made copies of scripture to replace deteriating "originals," used the Gematria Kabbalah. The letters all have numerical values, so the constraint on typo errors in copying utilized sums at the ends of each verse.

That Christian might be prepared to accept the Kabbalah when, in the last of days it will be revealed, the puzzle of 666, the name of the beast wa included in the GNT.

Pythagoras:
Where do you think the Christians got this idea from ? Constantine and the Nicean council?-- hardly!

KOFHY:
Yes, I agree that Matthew 28:19 has much support in the OT.

Pythagoras:
Infact Reuchlin divided the Jewish literature into seven classes,... and judging singly, he arrived at the conclusion that Talmud, the Kabalist book of Zohar, the commentatories of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, (and a couple of others) should not be burned, as they were useful theology for Science, and from the Christian point of view presented no heresy against the trinity . But books which contained blasphemies against Jesus, such as the Toldeoot Yeshuu, he wanted burned.

KOFHY:
Interesting. Especially the relationship to his thinking on this matter, the decision to itemize seven catagories of literature, and the Kabbalahistic teaching that humans can move to seven different states of mind, or thinking, each representing one of the "Seven Doubles," that is, seven of the Hebrew letters remaining after utilizing the three mothers, Y, H ,V.

Pythagoras:
The common misconception is that the trinity was a Catholic or early Christian conception/innovation. It's genesis (in this context ) lay rather in Jewish mystical thought which flourished well before the founding of Christianity.

KOFHY:
I agree. It can be shown that the Kabbalah is related to the present "Hand Blessing Services" rendered by the Kohans in synagogues today.

Pythagoras

January 20th 2005, 09:53 PM

Hi Kfu,

Thanks for the great insights. We disagree on a fundamental point, yet both of us still manage the same conclusion. -- the Christian(actually Messianic Jewish) trinity was a pre-Trentian conception. It seems all roads(at least these two) do indeed lead to Rome, or Jerusalem as the case might be..

He is wrong that Kabbalah is heresy. The Qabbalah is like all other religious ideas which lend themself to diverse inte pretations (mumbo jumbo) coming from sources as you, Pythag, have listed for us.I don't think I ever said Kabalah is heresy. Kabbala is not something I would endorse , but that's beside the point. Some Jews and Christians certainly do consider it heretical, however.

He is correct that "The Secret Doctrine of Israel," aka Kabbalah, contains a triad relationship between the "Three Mothers" of all things, Y, H, V.
There is no doubt in this.

Those who esteem Kabbalah insist its root began with Moses.
And it's not without foundation.

It can be shown from ancient writings and symbolizm that Kabbalah utilized some now lost, hence esote ic, form of ordering the 22 letters/numbers of the zHebrew Alphabet. There were a number of purposes for this.
That kabbalah and the trinity ideas encoded in the Zohar are pre-Christian cannot be seriously disputed.

Yes, I agree that Matthew 28:19 has much support in the OT.

Here I respectfully digress with you. Most ecular scholars consider it to be an addition.There is the stunning admission regarding Matt 28:19 by the World Bible Commentatory. :

"The threefold name(at most only an incipient trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, seems clearly to be liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day. There is a good possibility that in it's original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form,the text read "make disciples in my name"(see Conybeare). The shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits akwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation(see H.B. Green;,..)"

Kosama points to the central importance to the "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the early practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with refrence to the hope of the Gentilesin Isa. 42:2, quoted matt. 12:18-21. As carson rightly notes of our passage: "there is no evidence we have Jesus ipsissima verba here'. The narrative of acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism(Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal. 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus"(tou kuriou Iesou, acts 8:16, 19:5).

I agree. It can be shown that the Kabbalah is related to the present "Hand Blessing Services" rendered by the Kohans in synagogues todayExcellent point. And I concour.

Peace,

Jephunneh

January 20th 2005, 10:09 PM

Just a thot;

Don't listen to man's interpretation of the scripture.
God said "Let us..." , Now if He was talking to angels, did He need help from them in creating man?

Pythagoras

January 20th 2005, 11:09 PM

Hello Eliyosef,

The Zochar came in as a 15th century Writing of Moses De Leon who claimed it to be the writings of Shimeon Bar Yochai a famous Rabbi who commented in the Talmud
And his claim is not without foundation.Jewish mystics claim that Kabbalah represented an unbroken oral tradition originally revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai, just as you claim the Midrash is of ancient origin.Zohar thus part of the authentic Mesora from Mt. Sinai.

several attempts have been made to prove its authenticity....The Zochar, how it may be accepted by many Jews, Is not accepted by all of the Jewish community...
If I'm not mistaken, most Jews accept the Zohar.

I am one of them who doesnt accept it and see it as a later product of Moses De LeonBecause the Zohar teaches the trinity. You wish it to be a 15th century document to wash your hands..Wishful thinking.

Even Joseph Dan, Gershom Scholem Professor of Kabbalah at Hebrew University in Jerusalem admits that Kabbalist teachings varify many Christian doctrines, like the trinity. "Because the Kabalah was supposed to be ancient, it must be true, and because it must be true, it must be Christian," .-- get it?I think Kfu would agree that christianity has always recognized itself as originating in Judaism(which is true) and interpreted the OT as a symbolic foreshadowing of Christian redemption. Johannes Reuchlin, whose book on the art of the kabbalah argued that works of Jewish mysticism reflected classical traditions and supported Christian doctrine.

Then there is 'Rambam'. Why did he avail himself of Gentile greek philosophies? "The Guide to the Perplexed" is considered to be consummate Aristotelian philosophical thought! I wonder what our sophomore has to say regarding this? Was 'Rambam' using Gentile theology in his writings to expound God's mysteries or ancient Jewish mysticism? infact many Rabbis are of the opinion 'Rambam' was a Kabbalist.

Rabbi Haim David Azullai writes in his work Shem Hagedolim that 'Rambam' authored Sefer HaNimtzah, a book which refrences Sefer Yetzirah. Rabbi Moshe Greens is of the opinion that 'Rambam' was a Kabbalist. So is Rabi Gerson Henoch, and many others.

This is just skimming the surface.

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 02:29 AM

Hi Eliyosef,

from what I have read of the christain bible it seems that jesus himself didnt even carry the concept of a Holy trinity...We agree. What a breath of fresh air.

he recognized G-d as his "father"Twice in a row!

The concept of the trinity seemed to come much later than jesus' time....Here you really start going wrong....Pick a Church Father... Ok, I'll do it for you. Shall we say Origen?(200 years before the Nicean council).... Let's see. Here we are:

Origen:

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only the temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the trinity, which are to be measured by times and ages."

And Origen, again:

"We believe, however that there are THREE PERSONS, the FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT; ..."

And again;

"Jesus Christ Himself, who came; and after He had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things-- for through Him were all things made-- in the final period he emptied Himself and was made man. Although He was God, He took flesh.."

[William Jurgens, "The Faith of the Early Fathers", Volume 1, p.202]

I would have to say from the first council of Nicea... (http://www.abcog.org/trinity.htm)Hardly.

where the whole issue of who was jesus?, What was his nature? His relationship to G-d the father?....etc...... was formalized.

by this time all of the jewish christians had either died out or were so small a minority that their voice was unheardYour original premise has been proved wrong. Thus this statement is also untrue.

Next Up.

kofh2u

January 21st 2005, 03:35 AM

Pythagoras:
Hi Kfu,
I don't think I ever said Kabalah is heresy

KOFHY:
I thought Ely said that, not you.

Pythagoras:
We disagree on a fundamental point, yet both of us still manage the same conclusion. -- the Christian(actually Messianic Jewish) trinity was a pre-Trentian conception.

KOFHY:
Perhaps not exactly.
You differ with the Christian interpretation totally.

I disagree with they way they understand, not its presence in both the OT & NT.

I say they try to make God anthropomorphic in the presence of Christ rather than immanent.

Pythagoras:
Kabbala is not something I would endorse , but that's beside the point.

KOFHY:
Kabbalah is admittedly a secret. I have often asked the rabbi who promote the kabbalah whether this Secret Doctrine of Israel is a secret they will not ecpose or whether it remainds a secret unknown even to them.
How could you takea position on this when you MUST admit to ignorance?

Pythagoras:
Some Jews and Christians certainly do consider it heretical, however.

KOFHY:
The same Christian wonder about the Gematria Kabbalah of Revelation 666 in direct contradiction to their acvutions.

The Jews mean their congregation opposes other congregations on this issue, so heresy is relative to which side of the issue your are on. The rabbi who revere kabbalah held a momentary shiva for me when I suggested that I could deny its validity. So, go figure.

Pythagoras:
Here I respectfully digress with you. Most secular scholars consider it to be an addition.There is the stunning admission regarding Matt 28:19 by the World Bible Commentatory.

KOFHY:
I do not dispute the possiblity of such a literary criticism. And though the text as it stands in our bibles today may have been altered, either to more clearly say what this verse referred to, or to corrupt it, in support the nicean agreements, the trinity concept is inherent in OT and NT scripture.

Furthermore, the idea of Trinity is related to the baptisms performed by Christ in a totally different way than Christians understand:

It has to do with the "fan,"...

Jesus held a "...fan in his hand by which he baptized with fire"....
(Matt 3:12-13... LU3:18)

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 05:13 AM

Correction:

I wrote: "the Christian(actually Messianic Jewish) trinity was a pre-Trentian conception."

Correct should be, "the Christian(actually Messianic Jewish) trinity was a pre-Nicean conception", ofcourse.

Sorry for the inadvertant error.

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 05:30 AM

Hi all,

Arius' argument was that since a Father must pre-exist a son, the Son must, therefore, be subservient to the Father, which voids the Trinity concept.

This was part of the argument that was glossed over at Nicea, and has not been answered since.

AntonS

January 21st 2005, 05:56 AM

In my eyes, if someone believe that
1 Adam is the first man
2 The Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left
he is a good man

shunyadragon

January 21st 2005, 10:52 AM

In my eyes, if someone believe that
1 Adam is the first man
2 The Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left
he is a good manAccording to Exodus, both good and bad men believed that, and the bad guys payed a heavy price.

Many others who have sincerely believed this with all their heart and soul, including Christians and Moslems, have been very bad men indeed.

Menachem

January 21st 2005, 02:08 PM

Hi Eliyosef,

We agree. What a breath of fresh air.

Twice in a row!

Here you really start going wrong....Pick a Church Father... Ok, I'll do it for you. Shall we say Origen?(200 years before the Nicean council).... Let's see. Here we are:

Origen:

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only the temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the trinity, which are to be measured by times and ages."

And Origen, again:

"We believe, however that there are THREE PERSONS, the FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT; ..."

And again;

"Jesus Christ Himself, who came; and after He had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things-- for through Him were all things made-- in the final period he emptied Himself and was made man. Although He was God, He took flesh.."

[William Jurgens, "The Faith of the Early Fathers", Volume 1, p.202]

Hardly.

...... was formalized.

Your original premise has been proved wrong. Thus this statement is also untrue.

Next Up.

Name one or two prominant "jewish christians" by the time of the formulation of the Trinity and its finalization and I will accept your last statement....

Origen himself was not a jewish christian so he will not help...he was a post split genitle christian from Alexandria...http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm#Origen's%20Life%20and%20Times

I stand corr4ected on the trinity conception...

Goose

January 21st 2005, 03:10 PM

Origen himself was not a jewish christian so he will not help...he was a post split genitle christian....
:blush:

ouch

Sacrificial Ram

January 21st 2005, 03:16 PM

That kabbalah and the trinity ideas encoded in the Zohar are pre-Christian cannot be seriously disputed.

Let's see.. ideas that are encoded in a 12 century docuement can not be seriously disputed to be pre-first century..

Is that what you are claiming?? Really??

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 03:39 PM

Hi Eliyosef(and goose),

Name one or two prominant "jewish christians" by the time of the formulation of the Trinity and its finalization and I will accept your last statement....

Origen himself was not a jewish christian so he will not help...he was a post split genitle christian from Alexandria...http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm#Origen's%20Life%20and%20Times

I stand corr4ected on the trinity conception...When confronted with superior knowledge the opposing thesis usually shifts. So it is with you two. Your original claim was that the Trinity was a Nicean formulation. I furnished a source two hundred years younger to debunk this claim. Thanks for "standing corrected on the trinity conception".

In anycase following is the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.He was born around 50AD and died between 98 and 117AD. He was a friend of Polycarp. Legend has it that Ignatius was the child whome Jesus took up in his arms, as described in mark 9:35

Anyhow, let's cut to the chase:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians:

Chapter 4:

"Since,also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son ,God , the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth..."

Ignatius Chp. 6:

"Entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only begotten Son, and remains the same for ever, for "of his kingdom there shall be no end", says Daniel the prophet."

And again:

"If anyone confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith."

etc.

There is more.

If Messianics believed the trinity 300 years before Nicea, then it's redundant to "name one or two prominant Jewish christians by the time of the formulation of the Trinity and its finalization" to prove this thesis. For one, by the time Nicea came along Christianity was a preponderantly Gentile religion.

Or perhaps you can name me a Jewish Church Father from the time of Nicea and we can dissect his works.

Good Luck,

Goose

January 21st 2005, 03:45 PM

Hi Eliyosef(and goose),

When confronted with superior knowledge the opposing thesis usually shifts. So it is with you two. Your original claim was that the Trinity was a Nicean formulation.
I never claimed such. You're delusional. Please quote where I stated it was a Nicean formulation. You keep spinning unsubstantiated tales...

kofh2u

January 21st 2005, 03:53 PM

Hello Eliyosef,

And his claim is not without foundation.Jewish mystics claim that Kabbalah represented an unbroken oral tradition originally revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai, just as you claim the Midrash is of ancient origin.Zohar thus part of the authentic Mesora from Mt. Sinai.

If I'm not mistaken, most Jews accept the Zohar.

Because the Zohar teaches the trinity. You wish it to be a 15th century document to wash your hands..Wishful thinking.

Even Joseph Dan, Gershom Scholem Professor of Kabbalah at Hebrew University in Jerusalem admits that Kabbalist teachings varify many Christian doctrines, like the trinity. "Because the Kabalah was supposed to be ancient, it must be true, and because it must be true, it must be Christian," .-- get it?I think Kfu would agree that christianity has always recognized itself as originating in Judaism(which is true) and interpreted the OT as a symbolic foreshadowing of Christian redemption. Johannes Reuchlin, whose book on the art of the kabbalah argued that works of Jewish mysticism reflected classical traditions and supported Christian doctrine.

Then there is 'Rambam'. Why did he avail himself of Gentile greek philosophies? "The Guide to the Perplexed" is considered to be consummate Aristotelian philosophical thought! I wonder what our sophomore has to say regarding this? Was 'Rambam' using Gentile theology in his writings to expound God's mysteries or ancient Jewish mysticism? infact many Rabbis are of the opinion 'Rambam' was a Kabbalist.

Rabbi Haim David Azullai writes in his work Shem Hagedolim that 'Rambam' authored Sefer HaNimtzah, a book which refrences Sefer Yetzirah. Rabbi Moshe Greens is of the opinion that 'Rambam' was a Kabbalist. So is Rabi Gerson Henoch, and many others.

This is just skimming the surface.

Hello pytho,

"...unbroken oral tradition originally revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai"

I am glad you bring up the subject of Oral Tradition.

I have previously avoided the responsibility of denying Eliyoseph's claim that Talmud IS the written down Oral Language.

He has said that, ignoring the Babylonian Talmud, perhaps, that he insists upon equal force to Talmud and Tanakh.

Both are divinely revealed, or inspired, I believe he has either implied or stated. But, he is wrong.

Talmud is a compilation of responses and analysis of scripture at the time it was written, to the best of the ability of the men, the rabbi, of that moment. It is not that "unbroken oral tradition originally revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai."

As you have demonstrated, he can hardly maintain arguments like this because the Jews are fractured in their own diverse intepretations, uniting only against the common "enemy" of a Christian perspective.

I have avoided telling Eli that the Oral Language refers to the dramatic presentation of Genesis by a minyon of Kohanim, sort of equivalent to a cast of actors.

What I am saying to you, is that @ a dozen men actually memorized Genesis, long before it was written down.

These men are genetically related to men who continue today to perform a telling ritual in the synagogues. Their "Hand Blessing" is the last vistage of their once dominant priestly function. In the time of Moses the Kohanim "performed" Genesis before a congregation. They did it by memory, in teams, a ritual that we might today call a dramatic play.

1) This can be substantiated by the references.
Certain rabbi point to mention in the Talmud concerning some sort of "fence," a restraint used to control the boundaries of the recitations, so as to prevent erosion of the "text."

2) The mysticism concerning this "lost art" of the Cohans is actual the Kabbalah.
The kabbalah was/is a mnemonic system utilizing cues written on their hands.
I have rediscovered how it works.

3) I have archeological evidences of this.

4) I have ancient graphic "manuscriptures" which support the assertion.

5) I have a self made video demo of how it was done.

6) I also have the witness of Jesus, who collected twelve "actors."
I believe that his sudden prominence in Israel, and the power to attract large crowds was directly related to his "resurrection" of the dead, the dead art of the oral presentation, and the resurrection of the dead practices of the Kohanim function in the tabernacle of Shiloh.

7) I also have NT scripture:

Matt. 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand,...
... and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the
chaff with unquenchable fire.

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 04:09 PM

Good Morning Goose,

I never claimed such. You're delusional. Please quote where I stated it was a Nicean formulation. You keep spinning unsubstantiated tales...Stop getting excited. I was refering to Eliyosef in this regard. For you only the part about shifting thesis applies.

Understood?

Let's see.. ideas that are encoded in a 12 century docuement can not be seriously disputed to be pre-first century..

Is that what you are claiming?? Really??Actually that's about what you and Eliyosef claim for your Talmud. The redaction of the Mishna was compiled under the auspices of Judah ha-nasi, c. 200AD, who collected and codified the legal material . thus the Talmud compilation was not even begun until late in the second century or early in the third.

Why is it only ok with refrence to Talmud.?

InChristAlways

January 21st 2005, 04:15 PM

As you have demonstrated, he can hardly maintain arguments like this because the Jews are fractured in their own diverse intepretations, uniting only against the common "enemy" of a Christian perspective.

I have avoided telling Eli that the Oral Language refers to the dramatic presentation of Genesis by a minyon of Kohanim, sort of equivalent to a cast of actors.Hi kofh2u. You now show your true "colors". By calling those of the "non-jewish" faith "enemies" you appear to have called the whole "non-jewish" world your "enemy" much like the muslims call those not of the faith of "Allah" their enemies and christians call muslims "enemies" because they pick on Israel because christians for some unknown reason believe Israel is God's "chosen", so the muslims also pick on us .
According to the OT prophets, God's enemy were the Israelites themselves and are in fact "cursed" by God in Malachi, not the pagan gentiles. God bless.

jeremi 23:14 Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: They commit adultery and walk in lies; They also strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah. 15 "Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets: 'Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, And make them drink the water of gall; For from the prophets of Jerusalem profaneness has gone out into all the land.' "

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread DUNG on your faces, The DUNG of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

If God brought all the curses to Israel in the first century destruction of Jerusalem, Israel would appear to now be in Egypt.

Deut 28:15 " But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: 68 "And the LORD will take you back to Egypt in ships, by the way of which I said to you, 'You shall never see it again.' And there you shall be offered for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy [you."]

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 05:27 PM

Hi Inchrist,

Hi kofh2u. You now show your true "colors". By calling those of the "non-jewish" faith "enemies" you appear to have called the whole "non-jewish" world your "enemy" much like the muslims call those not of the faith of "Allah" their enemies and christians call muslims "enemies" because they pick on Israel because christians for some unknown reason believe Israel is God's "chosen", so the muslims also pick on us .
According to the OT prophets, God's enemy were the Israelites themselves and are in fact "cursed" by God in Malachi, not the pagan gentiles. God bless.....

."I think you should calm down. And stop over-reacting.You're distorting Kfu's position.

And no, God's enemy were not the Israelites. Infact they are the Apple of His eye.

InChristAlways

January 21st 2005, 06:13 PM

As you have demonstrated, he can hardly maintain arguments like this because the Jews are fractured in their own diverse intepretations, uniting only against the common "enemy" of a Christian perspective.

Hi Inchrist,
I think you should calm down. And stop over-reacting.You're distorting Kfu's position.
And no, God's enemy were not the Israelites. Infact they are the Apple of His eye.Hi Pythah. I am sorry if I came across strong like that, it was just the way he phrased it, as I am pretty zealous for the Lord and His Book.
Do I have to call myself a "jew" and live in Israel to be the "apple of His eye"? Wasn't ALL of Israel the apple of His eyes and not just jews?
If the people of Israel are the "apple of His eye" why are they now cursed in malachi?(or was it just the jews of Judah that were cursed?) Is this curse until the Lord/messiah comes to His temple as in malachi 3? Most Israelites or jews of today don't believe the messiah came to his temple as prophecied in malachi.
If I happen to be of one of the northern tribes of Israel(an Israelite instead of a "jew"), but I believe the messiah did come in the first century so that I am under "blood of the NC" of the messiah and not Law, does that make me less of an "apple in God's eyes" than an Israelite or "jew" that doesn't believe the messiah came in the first century?
Another words, I can belong to either the house of Judah(jews) or house of Israel to be the "apple of His eye", whether I believe the messiah came or not correct? I am still trying to understand how the jews interpret prophecies in the OT I guess. God bless.

I believe it was the temple that was still standing in the first century that the "Lord/messiah" came to, and why would I be wrong to believe what God says here?

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 08:02 PM

Hi Inchrist,

If the people of Israel are the "apple of His eye" why are they now cursed in malachi?(or was it just the jews of Judah that were cursed?) Is this curse until the Lord/messiah comes to His temple as in malachi 3? Most Israelites or jews of today don't believe the messiah came to his temple as prophecied in malachi.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take to heart. 3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it. When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he was in Corinth(Ac. 20:2-3) on his third missionary journey.His work in the eastern Mediterranean was almost finished, and he greatly desired to visit the Roman church. At this time however he could not go to Rome. So instead of going to Rome he sent the following letter to prepare these Gentile Christians for his coming. He was not acquainted directly with all the problems of the Roman church, but he was aware of their grumblings against the Jews, much as you are now grumbling. Here is a portion of what Paul wrote in this regard to admonish them. And since you consider the whole of the GNT to be inspired, you had better pay heed to Paul's words here:--

Read Rom. 11:16-22

16, For if the firstfruit [i]is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17, And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, [i]remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19, You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20, Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21, For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22, Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

InChristAlways

January 21st 2005, 08:36 PM

Hi Inchrist,

When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he was in Corinth(Ac. 20:2-3) on his third missionary journey.His work in the eastern Mediterranean was almost finished, and he greatly desired to visit the Roman church. At this time however he could not go to Rome. So instead of going to Rome he sent the following letter to prepare these Gentile Christians for his coming. He was not acquainted directly with all the problems of the Roman church, but he was aware of their grumblings against the Jews, much as you are now grumbling. Here is a portion of what Paul wrote in this regard to admonish them. And since you consider the whole of the GNT to be inspired, you had better pay heed to Paul's words here:--

Read Rom. 11:16-22

16, For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17, And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19, You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20, Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21, For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22, Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.Hi Pytha.
I am well aware of Paul's writings before the coming destruction of Jerusalem by the roman armies and just realized this is "off topic", so this will be my last response on this thread.
If one wants to be called a jew because of their religion of judaism, that is fine with me, but just because they live in Israel doesn't mean they alone are the "apple of God's eyes". That is what I was trying to say without sounding anti-semetic. I forgot to ask, are you jewish?
So how do the jews interpret mala 3? Is this suppose to be another temple other than the one standing when this prophecy was written?
Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. Paul was trying to save as many of his kinsmen as he could from the coming vengeance and wrath as prophecied in the OT and Jesus. Paul also said there was no more jew or gentile, but all are one in Christ.God bless.

romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy [those who are] my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away the reconciling of the world, what [will] their acceptance [b]but life from the dead?

[i]According to Paul, we become the apple of God's eyes and sons of God upon belief in the name of Jesus. Acts 2 also says no other name under heaven that one can be saved except by the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. So that makes me the apple of His eye as I do believe unto Him. The vessels of wrath appear to be the ones Jesus was talking to and what Malachi was predicting once the Lord came to His temple in the first century, the destruction of Jerusalem God bless..

romans (:22 [What] if God, wanting to show [His] wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 [even] us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As He says also in Hosea: "I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved." 26 "And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ['You are] not My people,' There they shall be called sons of the living God." 27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. 28 For He will finish the work and cut short in righteousness, Because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth."

[i]matt 23::1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat........ 31 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' [guilt.] 33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 "Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: [some] of them you will kill and crucify, and [some] of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,

Pythagoras

January 21st 2005, 10:40 PM

Hello inchrist,

I forgot to ask, are you jewish?What difference would it make if I told you?

You also go on to paraphrase Paul (letter to the Galations(3:26) ) "there is no more Jew or Gentile, but all are one in Christ". So, follow his teaching and quit worrying about whether I'm Jewish or not. I though you take the NT very seriously?

According to Paul, we become the apple of God's eyes and sons of God upon belief in the name of Jesus.Ok,have it your way if it will make you fell better ;you're the apple of God's eye; though Paul nowhere uses this phrase to describe Gentiles, and neither does God.

Paul also said there was no more jew or gentile, but all are one in Christ.God bless
So obey his command.

Acts 2 also says no other name under heaven that one can be saved except by the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. So that makes me the apple of His eye as I do believe unto Him.
If you wish.

matt 23::1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat........ 31 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' [guilt.] 33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 "Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: [some] of them you will kill and crucify, and [some] of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city
Jesus was only talking about the Scribes and Pharasees. I can quote you passages in the NT where Jesus says he only came for the Jews. But then you would really freak out, so I shall spare you.

Take Care. There is a saying: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

InChristAlways

January 22nd 2005, 12:24 AM

Hello inchrist,

What difference would it make if I told you?

You also go on to paraphrase Paul (letter to the Galations(3:26) ) "there is no more Jew or Gentile, but all are one in Christ". So, follow his teaching and quit worrying about whether I'm Jewish or not. I though you take the NT very seriously?

Ok,have it your way if it will make you fell better ;you're the apple of God's eye; though Paul nowhere uses this phrase to describe Gentiles, and neither does God.

So obey his command.

If you wish.

Jesus was only talking about the Scribes and Pharasees. I can quote you passages in the NT where Jesus says he only came for the Jews. But then you would really freak out, so I shall spare you.

Take Care. There is a saying: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Hi Pytha. Thanks for the response. God must have been talking about the "lost sheep" of Israel being the apple of His eye as it couldn't have been the Priest/rulers of Judah according to malachi. I also asked how jews view malachi 3 and the LORD Himself coming to His temple. Would this be the one standing in the first century, if not why not. I know Jesus was admonishing the scribes and pharisees just as God is admonishing them in Malachi 2 God bless.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. 2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?

Would this be the curses of Deut 28?

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread refuse on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

Pythagoras

January 22nd 2005, 01:48 AM

Hi inchrist,

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. 2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?

In the context of the NT properly considered, this is talking about the end times when the Lord(presumably jesus) returns,though Jesus's first coming pictured here as a type or foreshadowing of the final fulfilment of this prophecy is not out of bounds either. Killing two birds with one stone.Interesting thought.

Would this be the curses of Deut 28?I suppose this could be construed as the curses of Deut 28 and especially if the Prophet like unto Moses( i.e. Jesus in this case,that Moses himself predicted ) arrived(the Lord Jesus whom you seek) and they harkened not unto him. Interesting.

In the NT context:

Who is this messenger Malachi talks of? He does not say who he is, where he is from, nor when he will come. This prophecy, however sems to be a further development of the prediction in Isaiah 40:3-5 of one who would prepare the way of the Lord.This passage may also be linked to Malachi 4:5 which indicates that Elijah would come before the great and terible day of the Lord. Fortunately these three related passages are explained in the NT. The Gospel writers affirm that John the Baptist is the messenger of Isaiah and the Elijah of Malachi (Matt 3:1-3, Mark 1:3, luke 3:4).John himself used the language of Isaiah to identify himself as the voice in the wilderness(John 1:19-23).Before his birth, an angel announced to his father that John would go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah who would come(matt 11:14; 17:12). From all this it could be construed that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the promise of a preparatory messenger.

Baldwin points out that suddenness was usually associated with with calamitous events, and hence the word here is omnious.The announcement of his birth and that of his forerunner is unexpected. Herod the great was surprised and disturbed when the wise men came seeknig a new born king.(Matt. 2:3)Christ's appearance at the Jordan was also unexpected, etc. etc..

Three clues are given with regard to the identity of the Coming One in verse 1.

.He is the Lord(ha-'adon, presumably jesus Christ in this conception)
.He is the one they are seeking.
.He is the rightful owner of the Temple. Somel ike Laetsche take the term temple to be a symbol for the peopel of God; others think the physical temple is intended.
.He is the messenger of the covenant. This title appears onlt here. It harkensback to the angelophanies(Christophanies?) of earlier times?! I don't know.One thing is certain however, NT authorrity identifies the messenger of the covenant as Jesus Christ-- ex. Heb 8:7-11, 12:24, 13:20, matt 26:28.

Of which covenant is Messiah messenger? Keil seems to think that the refrence is to the old covenant. Most seem to think that the new covenant is intended. Packard thinks that Messiah was to be the messenger of both old and new covenants. Just as the angel of the Lord wasinstrumental in establishing the Mosaic covenant(Exod 3:2,isa 63;9), so he would be needed also to institute the new covenant(Jer 31:31, Ezek 37:26). This verse may also contain a refrence to the covenant with Levi(2:4, 8) which the priestly messengers had failed to observed. The future messiah would establish a new covenent and a new priesthood, a theme which revebrates throughout the NT.

One fact is clear. Messiah is coming! The certainty of his coming is underscored by the second use of behold in the verse.Ready or not.he was coming.

.

Pythagoras

January 22nd 2005, 03:54 AM

In the 4 Gospels there are two clear instances I can think of where Jesus personally suggests eternal life is available to non-Jews : (1) in John 4:10 to a specific Samaritan woman, and (2) in Matt 8:11 to Gentiles in general in the course of his dealings with the Centurian.

Consider statements like the following first, however:

".. 'Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"
- Matthew 10:5-6

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel..it is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”, in refrence to the Cannanite woman’s request for Jesus to heal her daughter.

- Matthew 15:24, etc.

Now this:

(John 4:4-26)Along came a Samaritan woman to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” His disciples had gone into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, who are Jewish, are asking me, a woman of Samaria, for a drink?” (For the Jews do not associate with the Samaritans.) Jesus replied, “If you had known the gift of God, and Who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

“Woman, believe me, a time is coming when you will worship your God neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you don’t know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is coming from the Jews.

The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. When Christ comes, Christ will teach us everything.” Jesus replied, “I who speak to you am He.”

So here we have Jesus spreading the good news to a Samaritan , which he commanded against in Matthew 10:56 .

And even Matt. 15:24 which at first glance seems so final and out of character for Jesus , when read in full context shows that Jesus not only ends up healing this Cannanite woman's demon possessed daughter but highly complimenting her.Remember this is the same woman he initially likened to a dog(Jews derogatorily termed gentiles as dogs). Only two times in the entire Gospel accounts does Jesus use the word great faith, and in both instances with refrence to Gentiles(as opposed to his characterization of Israel as faithless.) "Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith. Your request is granted." (Matt. 15:28)

Now consider another passage:

(Mat 8:5-13 NKJV) Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, {6} saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented." {7} And Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." {8} The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. {9} "For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." {10} When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! {11} "And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. {12} "But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." {13} Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed that same hour.

If it had not been for these two instances, I would have been forced to conclude Jesus not once personally suggested non-jews could enter his kingdom of Heaven.

Comments?

kofh2u

January 22nd 2005, 08:24 AM

You pick out two explicit verses that demonstrate three things.

First, your own point. Jesus definitely offers salvation to the Gentile, and he himself brings them the Good News as illustrated by those verses..

Second observation is that Jesus openly admits to being the Christ to the woman, while the truth of his statement, "A prophet is without renown in his own people." His implicit reference to his arrival was greeted with an attack and he escaped a "tar and feathering" in his own synagogue.
So, the lesson he teaches us is that we, today, are psychologically set to miss the Second Coming (for the Jew). The inference is that our Christian priesthoods will repond in kind, just as did the pharisees of his day.
Hopefully Christians will do better than the Jews, forewarned; pray for half, half of the Christian virgins to such an ecperience (Matt 24:1), those living in the day of the yet to arrive, the "First Coming" (for Christianity).

Think about it. Everyone on Tweb is certain they already have the Truth. This is true for all 12 major mainstream denominations. The Christian membership has been enculturated to believe in their Church and they are primed to judge the Lord, not be judged.

Third, I add to your observation that Mathew 28:19 was a final command to his apostles. It was also an initial command to preach the Good News to the Gentiles..

Before his crucifixion, the first statement, go only to the house of Israel, was then augmented. He said, "Go over all the world preaching the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

InChristAlways

January 22nd 2005, 02:47 PM

If it had not been for these two instances, I would have been forced to conclude Jesus not once personally suggested non-jews could enter his kingdom of Heaven. Hi Pythas. The main reason I brought Malachi up is the Lord would come to His temple, then wrath.
There is a phsyical temple/Jerusalem and spiritual temple/Jerusalem in the Bible(the Jerusalem "above" which is now our Mother, both jews and gentiles).
Paul says those in Christ are the "temple of God" and God promised to dwell with His people, first the jews, then us. He came to the "physical" temple first, then to us, through the Holy Spirit.
1 corin 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit [who is] in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.

The book of revelation contains a lot of symbology concerning the plauges of Egypt and the curses found in Deut 28. I believe revelation is the destruction of Jerusalem and the Day of the Lord of Malachi 4 and Isaiah 28 after Jesus and John the baptist had come and preached and bringing both Nations of Israel, Judah and Israel, together as One Nation under One King.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch.

Isaiah 28 also agrees with malachi as it shows the "precious cornerstone"/messiah being layed then wrath coming on Jerusalem afterward. This has to be concerning the first century Jerusalem and temple, as it corresponds to the coming of the Lord to His temple, correct? The Israelites were God's chosen(the jews of Judah were to be in charge of the temple and jerusalem, the "Sheperds" of the flock), set apart as a "Holy People" to the Lord, but as with all men born from Adam, it shows we could do nothing on our own without God being with us Himself, and that was to be through the Spirit He would pour out on His people, the jews first, then the gentiles. At least that is the way I have always viewed it in the Bible and scriptures. God bless.

Isaiah 28:14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who [are] in Jerusalem, 15 Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." 16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. 17 Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place.

Pythagoras

January 22nd 2005, 03:43 PM

Hi Kfu,

Jesus definitely offers salvation to the Gentile, and he himself brings them the Good News as illustrated by those verses..
And these two sections of scripture are definately not spurious either.
In Matt.8:5-13 we already see the first signs that Christ's teaching is moving away from Jews and towards Gentile believers. Whether the following words of Jesus are predictive or whether they harken to what was already happening during Jesus's ministry, not withstanding, read Matt. 8-11-12. Gentiles entering into the kingdom of Heaven and Jews being cast out into the outer darkness.

Second observation is that Jesus openly admits to being the Christ to the woman

This much is certain. Jesus also termed himself the Son of Man.

A prophet is without renown in his own people." His implicit reference to his arrival was greeted with an attack and he escaped a "tar and feathering" in his own synagogue
There is a theory suggesting Jesus's own kinsfolk were offended at him because they considered/suspected him of being a bastard,i.e. word that Joseph was not the father had got out.. Proponents of thisidea refer to passages like John 8:41 for their point of view. Then there are others who mantain no one kew Joseph was not jesus's father since Jesus was allowed in the Synnogue (which would be impossible had he been considered a bastard .)Besides, they say, Mary was still alive, and had not been stoned to death............. What are your thoughts on this?

Third, I add to your observation that Mathew 28:19 was a final command to his apostles. It was also an initial command to preach the Good News to the Gentiles..
Matt 28:19 is spurious as previously stated.According to Conybeare:

"Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstration Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:

Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name,teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

etc.

InChristAlways

January 22nd 2005, 04:32 PM

Hi Kfu,
And these two sections of scripture are definately not spurious either.
In Matt.8:5-13 we already see the first signs that Christ's teaching is moving away from Jews and towards Gentile believers. Whether the following words of Jesus are predictive or whether they harken to what was already happening during Jesus's ministry, not withstanding, read Matt. 8-11-12. Gentiles entering into the kingdom of Heaven and Jews being cast out into the outer darkness.

This much is certain. Jesus also termed himself the Son of Man.

There is a theory suggesting Jesus's own kinsfolk were offended at him because they considered/suspected him of being a bastard,i.e. word that Joseph was not the father had got out.. Proponents of thisidea refer to passages like John 8:41 for their point of view. Then there are others who mantain no one kew Joseph was not jesus's father since Jesus was allowed in the Synnogue (which would be impossible had he been considered a bastard .)Besides, they say, Mary was still alive, and had not been stoned to death............. What are your thoughts on this?

Matt 28:19 is spurious as previously stated.According to Conybeare:

"Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstration Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:

Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name,teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

etc.Hi Pythas. After having read the Bible through numerous times, I decided to also study on what went on from the period that the jews returned from exile from babylon("daughter of babylon?) to the time that Jesus appeared. God foreordained His People (mainly the rulers) would be both "spiritually blind and deaf" and why Jesus proclaimed He had come but for the "Lost Sheep of Israel", not to the corrupt rulers, scribes and priests(though some did believe unto Him).
I found this article interesting and almost relates to our own churches and their "bible colleges and seminaries", teaching the traditions of men and not "God/Christ In Us".

http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/tracts/tract_14a.htm

In Ethics of the Fathers the rabbis taught "A child of five years should study the Bible, at ten the Mishna, at fifteen the Gemara."
The Mishna is a voluminous commentary on the Bible; the Gemara is the commentary of the Mishna. So as the student advanced in years and developed in mental acumen, he studied God's word less and human writings more.

In order for leaders to be accepted by Jewish assemblies, they must have completed a course in the rabbinical schools. Those who failed to follow the procedure mapped out by the Great Sanhedrin (or by the lesser Sanhedrin located in cities and towns of Palestine outside Jerusalem, headquarters of the Beth din ha-go-dol, The Great House of Judgment) received no recognition by the populace. The graduate rabbi was known by his garb. It was imperative that rabbinical qualifications be met in order for a person to gain a hearing by the children of Abraham.

Such were conditions in the land of Judea at the time John and Jesus appeared.

"By the Babylonish captivity the Israelites were effectually cured of the worship of graven images. During the centuries that followed, they suffered from the oppression of heathen foes until the conviction became fixed that their prosperity depended upon their obedience to the law of God . . . After the return from Babylon, much attention was given to religious instruction. All over the country, synagogues were erected where the law was expounded by the priests and scribes. And schools were established, which, together with the arts and sciences, professed to teach the principles of righteousness. But these agencies became corrupted . . . In many things they conformed to the practices of idolaters.

"As they departed from God, the Jews in a great degree lost sight of the teaching of the ritual service . . . The Jews lost the spiritual life from their ceremonies, and clung to the dead forms . . . In order to supply the place of that which they had lost, the priests and rabbis multiplied requirements of their own(sounds almost like the catholic church); and the more rigid they grew, the less of the love of God was manifested. They measured their holiness by the multitude of their ceremonies, while their hearts were filled with pride and hypocrisy."-- The Desire of Ages, 29.

Since John and Jesus were not the products of rabbinical schools, the people would not recognize their authority as teachers. But God gave these men a message filled with divine power and with the heavenly Spirit. Because the leaders of Israel failed to accept the message of John as coming from God, they were unprepared to receive the message of the Saviour, although He assured them that His life and advent were based on the sacred Scriptures. The rabbis argued: "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15).

This passage in Jeremiah is interesting because it specifically mentions the house of JUDAH and not Israel. Jesus came from the house of Judah/Judas but His own house did not recognize Him as prophecied.

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, [i]2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

Pythagoras

January 22nd 2005, 05:06 PM

Hi,

In order for leaders to be accepted by Jewish assemblies, they must have completed a course in the rabbinical schools....
Such were conditions in the land of Judea at the time John and Jesus appeared.
Yes, they all march in lock step. Such institutions exist to propogate the party line,so to speak. Any deviation from 'traditional' doctrine is not tolerated much as a decon,priest , Cardinal or even Pope of the Catholic Church who does not hold to certain vitally accepted dogmas/doctrines of the Catholic hierarchy is excommunicated or (sometimes)even killed.

In Ethics of the Fathers the rabbis taught "A child of five years should study the Bible, at ten the Mishna, at fifteen the Gemara."
The Mishna is a voluminous commentary on the Bible; the Gemara is the commentary of the Mishna. So as the student advanced in years and developed in mental acumen, he studied God's word less and human writings more.
Interesting.I think Jesus might have been refering to exactly the above when he accused the Scribes and Pharisees of 'following the traditions of men', as you also rightly point out.

In order for leaders to be accepted by Jewish assemblies, they must have completed a course in the rabbinical schools. Those who failed to follow the procedure mapped out by the Great Sanhedrin (or by the lesser Sanhedrin located in cities and towns of Palestine outside Jerusalem, headquarters of the Beth din ha-go-dol, The Great House of Judgment) received no recognition by the populace. The graduate rabbi was known by his garb. It was imperative that rabbinical qualifications be met in order for a person to gain a hearing by the children of Abraham.
I agree.

In order to supply the place of that which they had lost, the priests and rabbis multiplied requirements of their own(sounds almost like the catholic church); and the more rigid they grew, the less of the love of God was manifested. They measured their holiness by the multitude of their ceremonies, while their hearts were filled with pride and hypocrisy."-- The Desire of Ages, 29.
Interesting. Jesus accuses the Scribes and Rabbis of exactly the above.

Since John and Jesus were not the products of rabbinical schools, the people would not recognize their authority as teachers. But God gave these men a message filled with divine power and with the heavenly Spirit. Because the leaders of Israel failed to accept the message of John as coming from God, they were unprepared to receive the message of the Saviour, although He assured them that His life and advent were based on the sacred Scriptures. The rabbis argued: "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15).

You are correct in this asumption. Infact the 'scholars' of his day were shocked at Jesus's understanding of scripture even though he had no formal education, as you rightly point out. In a sense they were threatened , and offended by him since he did not tow the party line. He took the exact same scriptures which they were reading and reinterpreted for the Scribes and Pharisees . They had lost the clear meaning of these scriptures which Jesus re-clarified for them, since they were so steeped in the traditions of man.Jesus showed them the true intent of these scriptures. They didn't take this too kindly..These scribes could mystify, obscure, and argue over even the clearest of verses in scripture to suite their own needs.

kofh2u

January 22nd 2005, 07:19 PM

hello pythago
I must compliment your academics, if Matthew 24 means burning the oil in the lamp needed to search the truth of scriptures, your lamp has been full a long time.

Pythagorus:
Matt. 8-11-12. Gentiles entering into the kingdom of Heaven and Jews being cast out into the outer darkness.

KOFHY:
In hindsight it seems clear that there was a "plan." Trite as it might sound, God has had a plan, and from the Christian perspective, God is Christ.

Searching scripture to prove gentiles are embraced in this plan ignors the 1.44 billion professing membership, de facto. Rather than search to valid this membership and/or excuse it into Judeo-Christian realities, we should focus on the prophetic nature of the NT, i.e.; Matt 24:14.
What you are underlining here is meat for Jewish reflection. Jews still debate the validity of OT prophecy, arguing against the verses which Christians insist predicted arrival of Jesus.

I point to what has happened since 32AD.
Matt. 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.

Pythagorus:
This much is certain. Jesus also termed himself the Son of Man.

Yes. And many might wonder what is meant by the difference between that truth and this:

John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, "Thou blasphemest"; (accusing me), because (you say), I said, "I am the Son of God?"

Pythagorus:
There is a theory suggesting Jesus's own kinsfolk were offended at him because they considered/suspected him of being a bastard,...
What are your thoughts on this?

KOFHY:
I consider it all too delicate a subject to discuss fully. But, I do see a central issue in this matter which is related to the endless complaint of YHVH concerning the "sacrifices of children" at the highest levels of Jewish society due to the consequently out of wedlock pregnacies resulting from Ba'al and Ashtorah worship.

I see abortion as related to this ancient matter of Mary.
I see analogy with the crucifixion of Jesus at a mature age, and the ;resent pre-natal consequences he would endure today.
I see that all chikdren are innocently the Son of men, and that ultimately, God is the father of all.
I see that Christ is the Glory of unborn children and a tacit reminder that we kbow not what we do in sacrificing them, 1.5 million annually.

Pythagorus:
Matt 28:19 is spurious as previously stated.According to Conybeare:

KOFHY:
I accept the text as we read it today on the basis of ground rules.

Pythagorus:
I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: [/font][/b]

Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name,teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

KOFHY:
I focus on "Go ye and make disciples of all nations"... as it regards the early part of this discussion, i..e.; gentile enclusion.

I see the basis of trinity here as quite different from the tradition attempts to make sense of the Father, Son (which? son of God, man?), Holy Ghost.

So, I reserve the topic for discussion later. I believe the implications of this expression, whether original to Matthew or later affected did not mean exactly what we have come to say it does.

Pythagoras

January 23rd 2005, 02:35 AM

Hi Kfu,

I must compliment your academics, if Matthew 24 means burning the oil in the lamp needed to search the truth of scriptures, your lamp has been full a long time.
Thanks for the kind words. But I fear my lamp is hardly full. The more I presume to know, the less actually I do understand.

John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, "Thou blasphemest"; (accusing me), because (you say), I said, "I am the Son of God?"Which is easier, to be termed Son of God or God ? To give sight to the blind or make the cripple to walk?

focus on "Go ye and make disciples of all nations"... as it regards the early part of this discussion, i..e.; gentile enclusion.I understand. Yet I left it out because part of that verse is disputed.

Peace,

kofh2u

January 24th 2005, 01:59 AM

Hi Kfu,

Thanks for the kind words. But I fear my lamp is hardly full. The more I presume to know, the less actually I do understand.

Which is easier, to be termed Son of God or God ? To give sight to the blind or make the cripple to walk?

I understand. Yet I left it out because part of that verse is disputed.

Peace,

Hello pythago,
Matt 28:19 seems to be a problem for you in some way or another.

I find the interpretation easily accommodates a number of ways of "taking" its meaning. The different perspectives are all complementary to one another, not oppositional.

Here is one:
1) Jesus said to tell people about the Father. John 1 specifically identifies the Father with God, and God with the OT Word.
So, to tell the gentile about the Hebrew Scriptures is a direct and clear imperative.

2) Tell them about the Son, the son of man who walked with those apostles.

3) And, tell people about the Spirit that resides within them, the same spirit as found in the son. It is within them. The kingdom of the Father is within. People must die in their old spirit, and live, as if born again, a new creature in the Spirit, the spirit of the Son which is also in them if they call upon it, his name.

One, two, three... trinity!
This particular "take" is absent the metaphysical drama of traditional and "orthodox" theological critique. It is practical, simple, do-able, uncomplicated, and ea ily synergetic with the ancient expression of the concept.

There are a number of other ways to understand this verse without denying the traditional and orthodox statements.

Pythagoras

January 24th 2005, 04:04 AM

Who came up with the Christian Trinity?--

Philo of Alexandria was a Jew and a contemporary of Paul(Saul of Tarsus) . Philo described the Logos as the "image" of God. It was God's "first begotten', the primary of his emanations.Through this "eldest son" God produced everything else.

Philo introduced the idea of trinity to the Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria. The following quotations from Philo are of great theological importance because they inspired the early Christian fathers, who developed the doctrine of the Christian Trinity.

Philo allegorized the passage of Genesis where God appeared to Abraham with two angels at Mamre. In interpreting Genesis 18:2 he wrote, “What is the meaning of the words ‘He {Abraham} saw, and behold, three men were standing over him?’ ... it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for they were one by a higher principle. ... For as soon as one sets eyes upon God, there also appear together with His being the ministering powers{“angels” or “words”}, so that in place of one He makes the appearance of a triad.” He also wrote, “... God, being attended by two of his heavenly powers as guards ... he himself, the one God between them ...” In another passage he explains, “... the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the holy scriptures is called by his proper name, ‘I am that I am’; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers that are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power {the Word} is a god {an angel}, for it is by this that he created and arranged the universe; and the royal power is Lord {? Philo did not explain this royal power/angel} ... Therefore, the middle person {Yahweh} of these three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind ... a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three beings. ... But that which is seen, is in reality a three-fold appearance of one subject ... For when the wise man {Abraham} begs those persons who are in the likeness of three travelers to come and lodge in his house, he speaks to them not as three persons, but as one ... For the expression {of Abraham} ‘my lord,’ and ‘with you,’ and ‘do not pass by,’ ... are all ... addressed to a single person, but not to many. And when those {three} persons ... address their host {Abraham} ... it is again one of them who promises ... ‘I will return again and visit you again’ ...”

Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God is greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

Anybody out there still thinks the council of Nicea came up with the Christian Trinity?

AntonS

January 24th 2005, 08:27 AM

Many others who have sincerely believed this with all their heart and soul, including Christians and Moslems, have been very bad men indeed.If someone believes today that, for example, World War II is not imagined or thought, it does not mean that he is a good man. But if someone believes today that Adam is the first man, and Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left - he is a good man, in my eyes. It is very difficult to believe in this today.

Pythagoras

January 24th 2005, 02:18 PM

If someone believes today that, for example, World War II is not imagined or thought, it does not mean that he is a good man. But if someone believes today that Adam is the first man, and Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left - he is a good man, in my eyes. It is very difficult to believe in this today.
Don't you have anything new to say? You keep on repeating the same platitude.

kofh2u

January 24th 2005, 02:38 PM

If someone believes today that, for example, World War II is not imagined or thought, it does not mean that he is a good man. But if someone believes today that Adam is the first man, and Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left - he is a good man, in my eyes. It is very difficult to believe in this today.

So, then do you discount the Hebrew Scriptures or wonder that it is literature in the genre of Mystery Religion and therefore seek kabbalahistic insights?

AntonS

January 25th 2005, 07:24 AM

So, then do you discount the Hebrew Scriptures or wonder that it is literature in the genre of Mystery Religion and therefore seek kabbalahistic insights?No. The Bible is true. I know many people who consider themselves to be Christians or declare themselves to be Christians. But when i ask 'Do you believe the Bible is true, or is it a tale or fable for people to live easier?' then they answer 'It is a tale...' It is comical that they think about Christ, Daniel, Moses, Adam. It is likely they do not believe that, for example, it is possible for an apple to be appeared by invisible way on their palm. They do not believe in miracles described in the Bible. So it is easy for me to know who someone really is. I think many people who declare themselves to be Christians or Muslims or Jews etc are not really Christians or Muslims or Jews etc.

kofh2u

January 25th 2005, 12:34 PM

anton,
Hi. When you say, " It is very difficult to believe in THIS today,"...

aren't we supposed to believe with the faith of not knowing?

I mean, the controversy about how to understand scripture was the reason for Christ. He demonstrated the attitude we are to mimic. He is the meaning of scripture.

It is ok for people to read and understand it anyway they wish if Christ is the final message, that his "way" is the only way to behave. In this belief we have the power to become the sons of God, too.

Different ways of reading scripture have emerged over the centuries because people have lived in different paradigms, understanding there worlds much differently.
But, scripture lives. It transforms to the same meaning but from new perspectives, always culminating in the clear illustration set down by the example of Christ.

He summed up scripture in two statements concerning how one behaves.

He told the "believers" of his day that they had faith in their doctrines, not the advent of messiah.

His message was to keep attention on how you act, and humble yourself in regard to self-righteousness.

True?

AntonS

January 26th 2005, 07:01 AM

When you say, " It is very difficult to believe in THIS today,"...
aren't we supposed to believe with the faith of not knowing?All knowledges are beliefs. It is impossible to prove anything. For example, it is impossible to prove that i have five fingers on the hand. I can show my hand and ask someone: 'How many fingers do i have on the hand?' They may answer: 'five'. But it is not proof. And i, do i have a mental disorder? It is impossible to prove. It is possible to believe. But the truth exists. Those who believe in reality are right, the rest are mistaken. I believe the Earth has the spheroidal image, though i have no proof of it.
For example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 What is the next? 6? Where do you know from? The next number may be 14, 50,1309768
Something may be considered to be conditionally proved. If ... then a theorem is proved. If experiment to check a law of physics was done 1000 times, that law may be considered to be proved, but what will happen the 1001st time? Almost no-one knows.
His message was to keep attention on how you act, and humble yourself in regard to self-righteousness.
True?I agree.

kofh2u

January 26th 2005, 03:48 PM

All knowledges are beliefs. It is impossible to prove anything. For example, it is impossible to prove that i have five fingers on the hand. I can show my hand and ask someone: 'How many fingers do i have on the hand?' They may answer: 'five'. But it is not proof. And i, do i have a mental disorder? It is impossible to prove. It is possible to believe. But the truth exists. Those who believe in reality are right, the rest are mistaken. I believe the Earth has the spheroidal image, though i have no proof of it.
For example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 What is the next? 6? Where do you know from? The next number may be 14, 50,1309768
Something may be considered to be conditionally proved. If ... then a theorem is proved. If experiment to check a law of physics was done 1000 times, that law may be considered to be proved, but what will happen the 1001st time? Almost no-one knows.I agree.

We agree on what you say here. The fundamental truth is that man thinks and that is the only fact that confirms his existence.
Virtually everything external to thinking is sensory dependent.

The sensory inputs themselves are subject to thinking which analyzes the meanings we dedide to assign to them. Autism is an example of thinking which gets detoured from the most common avenues of sensory interpretation.

It is not to disparage the validity and the clear probability that our our thinking is, in fact, constructing a truthful scheme of the external world. Nor is the implication of what we agree to here implying that the conclusions arrived at are shaky. The point is that when we say we "know" what lies beyond our mind, we actually mean "we believe we know."

What we construct, external to this empirical process of thinking, we call Reality. But, we must admit the weakness of our empirical deductions. We must recognize that everything we believe we know is subject to change if new information is (sensed) discovered.

So, yes, we agree that everything is merely belief. One belief, however, is that something actually does exist externally. It is that "something" which stimulates our sensory system, and which causes the nerve inputs we are thinking about. When we misunderstand what these sensory inputs actually mean, fantasy, myth, illusion, is created. Reality then is defined in that it is those deductions of our mind which actually are true.

It is not difficult to argue that the Reality we understand, being Truth, is our only hope for survival in the real world external to our thinking. Our God becomes clar, He is Truth.

1Cor. 13:12 For now (in this 1st Century) we see (in (semi-consciousness) as through a glass, darkly, (we perceive as well as our growing knowledge allows); but then, (in the coming time of Daniel, in the Information Age of the 21st Century), face to face (with secular understanding and Truth of God): now I know (both God and his Truth) in part; but then shall I know (tangibly) even as also I am known (concretely).

AntonS

January 27th 2005, 05:35 AM

No-one is alive except for God. People are not alive. Even Angels, Satan are not alive. People and Angels are similar to candles. God sometimes lights someone when He wants to light them.

kofh2u

January 27th 2005, 11:51 AM

No-one is alive except for God. People are not alive. Even Angels, Satan are not alive. People and Angels are similar to candles. God sometimes lights someone when He wants to light them.

Many people would be startled at what you say, but if they thought about it, you are right.

Everyone from the last century, back throught time, is dead. All now insisting they are indeed alive, are soon dead men, walking.

But, the God of the living has been actively tending his gardn since the advent ot the very first cell of protoplasm. It has been by splitting (mitosis) that that first cell has continued to live, spliting and splitting. The process of evolution has formed and redesigned the original protoplasm, but the continuity of the first spark of life is still implicit in each and very living cell. That is what lives. T
at is the "vine" of life. We are merely budding flowers.

However, in each of us, there is The Book of Life.

Rev. 17:8 The beast (the economic empire) that thou sawest was (ancient Rome), and is not, (that Rome has fallen); and shall ascend (in a Renaissance) out of the bottomless pit (of time), and go into perdition, ( into future ignominy): and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the the book of life (the phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind of evolving Homoiousians), from the foundation of the world (of mankind) when they behold the beast, (the economic empire) that was (before 475 AD), and is not (during those 1000 Years of The Dark Age), and yet is to come (in the Renaissance).

Menachem

January 27th 2005, 03:16 PM

Boy did this thread get off topic or what!!

TrevorL

February 8th 2005, 04:53 AM

Howdy eliyosef and others,

Greetings. From your original post, eliyosef wrote:
"So in conclusion with the evidence supplied by the targum yonatan it is safe to say that the traditional interpretation of this verse is not that of a multiple godhead but of one G-d talking to the angels...." I agree that Genesis 1:26 is one God talking to the angels. The following is my explanation and I would be interested if any could correct and modify my understanding. Do the targums give an explanation?

The word usually translated "God" is "Elohim" and is part of a family of words "El", "Eloah" and "Elohim". "El" represents Strength or Power and thus speaks of God Himself, the Father, the Creator, the source of Power and Strength Isaiah 45:22, 43:10.
Psalm 90:2 (KJV): "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (or El)."

"Eloah" is a singular, masculine word derived from "El" and represents "a Mighty One". "Elohim" is the plural form and represents "Mighty Ones". This word "Elohim" is translated in the KJV Bible usually as God, but sometimes as god, gods, angels and judges according to each context. There is some inconsistency with modern translations, where the KJV "angels" is translated "God" in Psalm 8:5, and "judges" is translated "God" in Exodus 22:8-9, eg ASV, RV, RSV. Note "heavenly beings" NIV and "God" NIV mg for Psalm 8:5, "judges" and mg "God" for Exodus 22:8-9.

Another unique feature is that while "Elohim" is plural it is often used with a singular verb, eg Genesis 1:1 Elohim (he) created, or Mighty Ones (he) created. My explanation then of the plurality is that "Elohim" speaks primarily of God but often includes the angels, but not as independant beings, they are Mighty Ones whose power and strength is derived from God, and they are God's agents in creation and jurisdiction over this age. Thus it was the angels not God Himself that met with Adam and Eve in the garden after their transgression Genesis 3:8-24, Exodus 33:20, Judges 6:22, 13:21,22..

The serpent used the angels as examples when he said:
Genesis 3:4-5 (KJV): "4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Note: ASV, RV, RSV, NIV have "God" not "gods" for "Elohim" here).
The serpent was partially correct on the "knowledge of good and evil" aspect, but he was wrong to claim that Adam and Eve would not die::
Genesis 3:22-24 (KJV): "22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Genesis 1:26 (KJV): "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
The conclusion then is that Adam and Eve were fashioned in the image and after the likeness of God and the angels. This also indicates that the angels themselves are fashioned after the image and likeness of God. That the angels were involved in Genesis 1:26 is confirmed in Psalm 8:5.

When David contemplates the spiritual and natural creation in Psalm 8, he alludes to Genesis 1:26:
Psalm 8:3-6 (KJV): "3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:"

As stated above, the translators have had trouble deciding how to render "Elohim" in Psalm 8:5, eg ASV, RV, RSV render this as "God". The KJV recognises the range and meaning of the word "Elohim" in this context and translates this word as angels, as does also the LXX, who were perhaps fearful of the many gods of the Greeks. Why does God involve the angels in His work when it is obvious that He could accomplish all things by Himself? Surely, He delights to involve others, as much as others are delighted to be involved in God's work.

A brief confirmation of the range of this word "Elohim" can also be seen when the word is applied to the judges appointed by Moses to administer God's judgments. They also were called "elohim" because they represented and acted on God's behalf, adminstering God's word and judgments Exodus 22:8-9, 28, 2 Chronicles 19:6, Deuteronomy 1:16-17, Psalm 82:1,2-5,6. God is Judge, He is acting in and through these ministering agents. Similarly He the Source of all Power and Strength by means of the Mighty Ones created the heaven and earth and mankind upon the earth Genesis 1:1, 26. The special delight that God and the angels had in creating man is evidenced by the record of their united consultation on the final design, to be fashioned in their own image and after their own likeness.

God delights to share His own glory with His creation, and we should seek after God's likeness
Psalm 17:15 (KJV): "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness."

Kind regards
Trevor

kofh2u

February 8th 2005, 03:19 PM

This "brief confirmation," your interpreted meaning of Elohim quoted below, is compatible with my understanding of God as transcendent, the Theistic God
pre-existing the Big Bang.

God, El, as theistically defined according to Webster, works in the world through aspects of
Elohim, which are "pantheistic expressions" of the Almighty:

As you say:
"A brief confirmation of the range of this word "Elohim" can also be
seen when the word is applied to the judges... (which I see in analogy with Natural Laws by which the workings of the Universe may also be judged)... appointed
by Moses to administer God's judgments."

You continue:
"They also were called 'Elohim' because they represented and acted on God's behalf, administering God's word and judgments Exodus 22:8-9, 28,
2 Chronicles 19:6, Deuteronomy 1:16-17, Psalm 82:1,2-5,6. God is Judge, He is acting in and through these ministering agents."

EXACTLY.
There is a compatibility with the analogy of administering the
Law to men through judges, and the administering works of God through invisible agents of Natural Law.

In other words, "the spirit of God (EL) moves over the face of the deep" by means of these entities (Elohim). These are entities which we make analogous to Natural Laws, in their image in our mind.
We reflect this relationship, mentally, between El and Elohim, between the Theistic Godhead and the spirit of God, i.e.; "angelic forces."

In the processes of universe, as understood above, the external world is fashioned, in our mind, as a model, by our thinking. We create in our mind the world external to
us. In so doing, the image of God that is beyond us, external to our mind, is perceived.

AntonS

February 9th 2005, 08:43 AM

Lord is also Sebaoth, Lord of hosts.

kofh2u

February 9th 2005, 10:24 AM

Lord is also Sebaoth, Lord of hosts.

Yes.
The Lord of a great amassing of servants for non-military "warfare" is another expression:

Zech. 8:1 Again the word of the LORD of hosts (to 1.44 billion Christians) came to me, saying,

Zech. 8:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for (the lost) Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her (as my testimony before men) with great fury.

Zech. 8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned, (in 1948 AD), unto Zion (the State of Israel), and will dwell in the midst of (Israel, in) Jerusalem: and Jerusalem (by that day) shall (have come to) be called (throughout the Christian World) a city of Truth, (Christ); and the mountain of the LORD of hosts, the holy mountain (of Old and New Testament).

TrevorL

February 10th 2005, 05:16 AM

kofh2u

February 10th 2005, 06:15 PM

Howdy kofh2u,

Greetings. I was interested in your perspectives in your various posts, but found some difference with my assessment of Scripture teaching. From your Post #70 and Post #10 you advocate evolution or theistic evolution. The Bible teaches special creation, that Adam was created from the dust of the ground, and the creation of Eve was by a special process of removing a rib from Adam so that there would be a unity, sympathy and love between husband and wife. This delight and unity could not be expressed if evolution were true.
Genesis 2:23-24 (KJV): "23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

The terms of Genesis 1:26 describe the consultation between God and the angels immediately before God's wisdom and power was brought into effect to create Adam in the Divine image and after the Divine likeness. God does not need millions of years of mutations and "natural selection" to produce something that even today is made in 9 months through God's wonderful design and care.
In Posts #18 and #29 you discuss the origins of the Trinity. I believe that there is one God, the Father and Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Matthew 28:18 teaches that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have one Name. As the Son of God, Jesus is the development of God's Name, he is the fulfilment of "He who will be, or become". An understanding of the usage and range of "Elohim" in Genesis 1:26, Psalm 8:5, Psalm 82 and the endorsement of this in Hebrews 2:7, John 10:34-36 excludes the Trinity.

Your addition to John 10:36 in Post #55 "because (you say), I said, "I am the Son of God?" alters the sense of this verse, as Jesus is actually claiming to be the Son of God when he says
John 10:30 (KJV): "I and my Father are one."
He is saying that God is His Father, and this is another way of saying that He is the Son of God. He also says that He is at unity with His Father. This unity is explained in John 17, and this unity is to be shared with the Apostles and other believers.
John 17:11 (KJV): "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."

The idea of the Trinity may have some origin in Jewish philosophy, but this 3rd and 4th century doctrine is based more on Greek philosophy and gnosticism. I have not read much on these developments, but accept that the following is typical. Reville in his "History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ" 1905 states: Kind regards
Trevor

I appreciate your careful analyze of what I have said.

I believe that your obvious attention to supporting your own views will preclude any possible change in the way you perceive your interpretations.
I, too, will admit to the same position.

Like you, what I say is "taught by the Bible."

Rev. 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, (an undeniable
interpretation of scripture); as the vessels of a potter shall they be
broken to shivers, (so the verses, as the individual pieces of a massive
puzzle, shall they be separated out from one another): even as I
received of my Father, (the Word of the Old Testament).

YOU SAY:
The Bible teaches...

KOFHY:
Agreed.
But, now we will differ in the interpretation of the lesson, and our understanding of it from here on, no doubt.

YOU SAY:
..special creation, ...

KOFHY:
Evolution is such a special process.

YOU SAY:
...that Adam was created from the dust of the ground,...

KOFHY:
Yes.
The submicro-paricularsvwe now, in the knowledge of Chemistry would call atoms.

Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God (of all the Universe) formed man of the dust of (the twelve families of chemical elements) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living psyke'.

YOU SAY:
... and the creation of Eve was by a special process of removing a rib from Adam...

KOFHY:
This was expressed as a metaphor for audiences prior to our times, and is true. It is metaphorically explaining what no one could have been expected to understand the way we can elect to understand it today.

Women are different from men in the way they t ink, favoringan intuitive perspective sourced from the Anima, a "rib" of the seven fold psyche'.

Gen. 2:18 And God, (Father Nature), said, It is not good that the man, (a subconscious libido) should be alone; I will make him (a separate faculty of mind, the Animus), an help meet for him.

YOU SAY:
...so that there would be a unity, sympathy and love between husband and wife. This delight and unity could not be expressed if evolution were true.

KOFHY:
Huh?
Why so?
It may be JUST that man is fulfilled by the addition of this powerful mental facility so weak or absence in his own thinking that he does bond so meaningfully with his mate. The word "soul" is drived from Greek. Soul means "psyke'.
This seems to give much meaning in my interpretaion to the common sense that men and women have "soulmates."

YOU RECOMEND:
[color=#0000ff]Genesis 2:23-24

KOFHY:
Gen. 2:23 And Adam, (the evolved Ramaphiticus), said, This is now (a) bone (or partition) of my "bones," (those seven archetypes of mind in my psyche): she shall be called Woman, because she was taken (and given added intuitive power) out of Man.

Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his "father" and his "mother,"
and shall cleave unto his "wife": and they shall be one (psyche in their combined) flesh.

Gen. 2:25 And they were both naked, (subconscious), Adam, (the human Libido) and his wife, (full of Intuition sourced from the Anima), and were not ashamed.