Impossible Questions For Trinitarians

[Georges]

So the Greek definition of the Word (logos) of John 1:1 would be...

The 2nd Person of 3 Persons in the Godhead

or...

"a word, uttered by a living voice, which embodies a conception or idea"..."a word/saying/account/speech/etc"?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word[/b[b]](Memra), and the Word [/b](Memra)was with God (Jehovah), and the Word [/b](Memra)was God (Elohim, not Jehovah).
Joh 1:2 He[/b](The Memra) was in the beginning with God (Jehovah).
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him[/b](The Memra), and without him[/b](The Memra) was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him[/b[color=red[b]]](The Memra)[/color] was life, and the life was the light of men.

You tell me.

Free...you tell us....since the "Word, Memra" is a Hebrew concept which means the "creative word of God"....is it a person?

I added the Hebrew concepts of John 1:1 in red...for reference...

Jehovah (EL), Elohhim, and the Memra.

How about you tell me if "Memra" is what is in view or is it the Greek "Logos"? Are the two synonomous? Yes...As in any language, sometimes words don't match up as well as they should...Logos is the closest definition in the Greek language that describes the Hebrew concept.

The Memra is the Hebrew concept of the "active word of God"...God speaks, the Memra performs. The Memra is the "Word" that was active in the creation. The Memra also acts as the "Angent (Angel) of the Lord" when dealing with men (such as Abraham, Moses etc). There is so much more to the Memra...that specifically is describes the offices related to our concept of Jesus. The below link is not very long but should be considered carefully.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... arch=Memra

 

[Imagican]

Well thank you Solo. First for recognizing my ignorance and secondly for your blessings regardless. Hopefully, one day, I will be able to understand as well as others and at that point, become 'free'. Until then, I guess I'll simply be forced to maintain my ignorance and live a life that is bound by the chains of such ignorance. But I DO appreciate your blessings and I mean that.

 

[Free]

The Memra is the Hebrew concept of the "active word of God"...God speaks, the Memra performs. The Memra is the "Word" that was active in the creation. The Memra also acts as the "Angent (Angel) of the Lord" when dealing with men (such as Abraham, Moses etc). There is so much more to the Memra...that specifically is describes the offices related to our concept of Jesus. The below link is not very long but should be considered carefully.

That's nice and all but is it synonomous with the Greek concept of logos?

 

[Georges]

The Memra is the Hebrew concept of the "active word of God"...God speaks, the Memra performs. The Memra is the "Word" that was active in the creation. The Memra also acts as the "Angent (Angel) of the Lord" when dealing with men (such as Abraham, Moses etc). There is so much more to the Memra...that specifically is describes the offices related to our concept of Jesus. The below link is not very long but should be considered carefully.

That's nice and all but is it synonomous with the Greek concept of logos?

Read the link Free....you tell me...it even details your question.

But to answer your direct question...since you didn't see my response in the previous post I'll rewrite it for you....


Yes...But, as in any language, sometimes words don't match up as well as they should...Logos is the closest definition in the Greek language that describes the Hebrew concept.

and this from wikipedia.com article on Logos....

...By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term used to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the world and of each other. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues. The development of the Academy with hypomnemata brought logos closer to the literal text. Aristotle, who studied under Plato and who was much more of a practical thinker, first developed the concept of logic as a depiction of the rules of human rationality.

The Stoics understood Logos as the animating power of the universe, (as it is also presently understood today in Theosophical terms and by the Rosicrucians in their conception of the cosmos) which further influenced how this word was understood later on (in 20th century psychology, for instance).

So...I guess the answer would be yes...but the Heberw concept is in very close alignment of what Jesus is....

Once you use Greek terms (especially terms steeped in Stoic philosophy) to describe Hebrew concepts, you open yourself up to interpreting the whole NT that same way....bingo...that is exactly what happened....and the trinity (a non Jewish concept) is born....

 

[R7-12]

What are believed to be appearances of God to men are what is referred to as Theophanies. What is not understood is the application of the Hebrew word elohim commonly translated God in English. Elohim is used of angels and occasionally of men. Therefore many instances where elohim is used in the OT are not references to Almighty God but to subordinate elohim. The fact of the matter is no one has seen God at any time - ever (1 John 4:12).

“Theophanies were a problem for the Israelis (which are Jews in this context--the return from captivity). They did not want to make God to seem human. The Sopherim were the scribes who set the text of the Hebrew Bible in order after the return from Babylonian captivity. Because of their exceptional reverence for the inexpressible Name of Yehovah they substituted the name Adonai (LORD) in the place of Yehovah. (That is why the King James Version uses the word LORD in the place of most uses of the name Yehovah (more commonly, Jehovah). That is also why many Jews will write the words LORD and God thus: L__D and G_d.) This same reverence for the NAME of God can be seen as reverence of His PERSON as well.

Since the Jews did not like Theophanies, they also substituted a word for God when He appeared to men. In the Targums, which are the Aramic versions of the Old Testament, the word memra is used in every instance of an appearance of God to men or God speaking to a man. This use of the memra rationalized every appearance of God to man.†Source: http://www.bibleword.org/memra.htm


The Jewish scribes called Sopherim altered many texts from the Hebrew because of their extreme reverence for the name of God and because they could not reconcile the texts that say God appeared to men because they did not understand the word elohim was used of subordinate spiritbeings such as angels – knowing man cannot see God and live. Assuming elohim referred directly to Almighty God, they substituted elohim for the Aramaic Memra in the Targums, which is roughly the equivalent of the Greek word Logos. They also substituted YHVH with Adonai which was then translated Lord along with each case of YHVH which was translated LORD in English. Thereby the Hebrew applications and usage is not understood and the truth concerning God's identity and that of His son is obscured (See Bullinger’s Companion Bible Appendices: 30, 32, & 33).

This approach altered the correct understanding of the function of elohim under haElohim or THE God, to a manifestation of God. This is the foundation upon which many false doctrine have their origin including the Oneness teaching also called Modalist Unitarianism, and aspects of Trinitarianism such as describing the Angel of YHVH as a manifestation of God.

Reducing elohim to a manifestation of God as in the use of Memra, in like manner conceals the correct understanding and identification of the pre-existent Messiah as the elohim of Israel, the Captain of the Host of God, the Angel of the Presence, and the subordinate Yahovah who acted as the agent of the Yahovah of Hosts, who is the Most High El.

Logos is also used to reduce the pre-existant Christ to an ousia or hypostasis of God rather than the beginning of the creation of God as one of many sons of God and one of several Morning Stars (Revelation 3:14, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, Revelation 22:16, Isaiah 14:12).

Properly understood, both Memra and Logos refer to the one who became Jesus Christ. He was one subordinate elohim of many (later anointed above his comrades, Psalm 45:6-7) given the authority to represent THE Elohim as the Command or Word of Eloah, and later gave up his spirit-life for all of fallen creation by becoming flesh and dying to pay our debts to the law.

The entire subject deserves considerable study to properly understand the structure and authority of God’s government within the heavenly realm. This paperand this one will help considerably.

R7-12

 

[BradtheImpaler]

So the Greek definition of the Word (logos) of John 1:1 would be...

The 2nd Person of 3 Persons in the Godhead

or...

"a word, uttered by a living voice, which embodies a conception or idea"..."a word/saying/account/speech/etc"?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

You tell me

The definition of the word "logos" is the first 4 verses of John? I don't understand. You mean wherever we find "logos" in a sentence we can substitute these verses?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

God is one in essence, but three in persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three whos.
There is one it, but three I’s. This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say God was only one person, but also was three persons. Or that God is only one nature, but that he also has three natures. But to declare as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence, eternally revealed in three distinct persons is not a contradiction.

Well, if there were 3 Gods wouldn't they all be one in "essence" (the essence of deity) and 3 in person? How then is the Trinity any different from 3 Gods except that you insist it is one?

 

[undertow]

God is one in essence, but three in persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three whos.
There is one it, but three I?s. This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say God was only one person, but also was three persons. Or that God is only one nature, but that he also has three natures. But to declare as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence, eternally revealed in three distinct persons is not a contradiction.

I think a Jew or Muslim would see 1 God as involving 1 person, 1 centre of consciousness. And indeed, they would see "1 person" as being essential to the concept of 1 God. So when the Christian says, "3 persons, 1 God", this will come off like saying, "3 Gods but also 1 God".

 

[TanNinety]

God is one in essence, but three in persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three whos.
There is one it, but three I’s. This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say God was only one person, but also was three persons. Or that God is only one nature, but that he also has three natures. But to declare as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence, eternally revealed in three distinct persons is not a contradiction.

Well, if there were 3 Gods wouldn't they all be one in "essence" (the essence of deity) and 3 in person? How then is the Trinity any different from 3 Gods except that you insist it is one?

Right Brad. With this trinity reasoning I don't see why hindus are considered polytheistic. They have 1 god who reincarnates as necessary into different forms. One god - multiple personalities, instead of triple personality, what would be a christian trinitarian monotheistic argument against a hindu monotheistic statement, I have no clue.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

God is one in essence, but three in persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three whos.

The gods of Mt. Olympus...

one in essence (they are all deity)

multiple persons

one nature (divine)

multiple centers of conciousness

one "what" (group of divine persons)

multiple "whos"

There is no "divine mystery" in your theology, but rather, a theological "sleight of hand". You simply call multiple gods, "One God". If someone switched the labels on a toaster and a dress, would you believe the toaster was a dress because the label said so? Or would you realize from the characteristics/nature of the item what it really was?

 

[TanNinety]

God is one in essence, but three in persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three whos.

Sounds like what my forefathers have taught some hippies who immigrated to india looking for spirituality. They have done well.

"Brahma" the 1 god of hinduism from whom permeate the rest of the deities. Yeah a lot of them took on flesh bodies so they could set things right on earth and died a physical death and passed onto the spiritual heavenlies again. Didn't buy it then, won't buy it now.

Can anyone provide proof that hinduism is polytheistic by trinitarian reasoning?

 

[Georges]

God is one in essence, but three in persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three whos.

The gods of Mt. Olympus...

one in essence (they are all deity)

multiple persons

one nature (divine)

multiple centers of conciousness

one "what" (group of divine persons)

multiple "whos"

There is no "divine mystery" in your theology, but rather, a theological "sleight of hand". You simply call multiple gods, "One God". If someone switched the labels on a toaster and a dress, would you believe the toaster was a dress because the label said so? Or would you realize from the characteristics/nature of the item what it really was?

Pretty much on the money there B the I....a good analogy...

 

[Vic C.]

This is nonsense. As long as you all kepp trying to "fit" human analogies into Divine equations, you will never hit the mark. Sorry. :-?

 

[Georges]

This is nonsense. As long as you all kepp trying to "fit" human analogies into Divine equations, you will never hit the mark. Sorry. :-?

You don't have to be sorry Vic....it works very well...and makes sense...

That's kind of the wrong way of looking at it...IMO....You should be able to understand God in human terms (understanding). Brad was simply pointing out the guess work of a trinity concept. It doesn't work and he logically showed why.

 

[Vic C.]

This is nonsense. As long as you all keep trying to "fit" human analogies into Divine equations, you will never hit the mark. Sorry. :-?

You don't have to be sorry Vic....it works very well...and makes sense...

That's kind of the wrong way of looking at it...IMO....You should be able to understand God in human terms (understanding). Brad was simply pointing out the guess work of a trinity concept. It doesn't work and he logically showed why.

Faith defies logic. 8-)

Unless God comes down and actually tells us who's right and who's wrong on this matter, no form of logic is going to convince those who are steadfast in their belief. No amount of scripture for or against is going to change anyone's mind... that's the impression I get from reading the various posts.

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is essential to salvation as some profess, who loses and who gains?

 

[Georges]

This is nonsense. As long as you all keep trying to "fit" human analogies into Divine equations, you will never hit the mark. Sorry. :-?

You don't have to be sorry Vic....it works very well...and makes sense...

That's kind of the wrong way of looking at it...IMO....You should be able to understand God in human terms (understanding). Brad was simply pointing out the guess work of a trinity concept. It doesn't work and he logically showed why.

Faith defies logic. 8-)

I can live with that...I think I have faith and logic.... :-D

Unless God comes down and actually tells us who's right and who's wrong on this matter, no form of logic is going to convince those who are steadfast in their belief.

True that, brudda...

No amount of scripture for or against is going to change anyone's mind... that's the impression I get from reading the various posts.

I don't know...although I will agree mostly with what you say...I've changed (modified) my theology over the past few years...the forum does play a part.

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is essential to salvation as some profess, who loses and who gains?

I don't have an answer for that...or I should say it's not for me to say...each states as he believes...

in red...

 

[undertow]

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is essential to salvation as some profess, who loses and who gains?

:roll:

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is idolatry which will get you sent to hell as some profess, who loses and who gains?

 

[Vic C.]

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is essential to salvation as some profess, who loses and who gains?

:roll:

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is idolatry which will get you sent to hell as some profess, who loses and who gains?

Bah, lol. Jesus IS the Son of God, do we all agree to that? I don't agree that believing in His Deity is idolatry. That sounds a lot like something the Sadducees would say.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is essential to salvation as some profess, who loses and who gains?

:roll:

If believing in the Deity of Jesus is idolatry which will get you sent to hell as some profess, who loses and who gains?

Bah, lol. Jesus IS the Son of God, do we all agree to that? I don't agree that believing in His Deity is idolatry. That sounds a lot like something the Sadducees would say.

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God" (1Jn.4:15)

There is the scriptural test of orthodoxy. It DOESN'T say -

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is GOD..."

Why not?

 

[Vic C.]

John 10:30-33

30 I and the Father are One!
31 Then again the Jews took up stones, that they might stone Him.
32 Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from My Father. For which work of them do you stone Me?
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone You concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God. (LITV)