Yuku free message boards
Username or E-mail:
Password:
Forgot
Password?
Sign Up
Grab the Yuku app
Search:
RSS
Email
Virtual Yeshiva Discussion Forums
>
Counter-Missionary Forum
>
TRINITARIAN challenge to Protestant Christians
0 Points
Search this Topic:
«Prev
1
2
3
4
5
…
16
17
Next»
Jump
Add Reply
Forum Jump
Counter-Missionary Forum
Counter-Missionary Education
Hebrew Language Education
Noahide Forum - בני נח
Ask The Rabbi
Knowing Your Orchard
Weekly Parsha Discussion
General Judaism Forum
Responding to Islam Forum
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Re: TRINITARIAN challenge to Protestant Christians
Author
Comment
Thomas
Re: trinitarian challenge
#1
[-]
Posts
: 356
Wed, 28-Nov-07 09:51:36
Reply
Quote
More
My Recent Posts
"Forget logic for now (as arguing the point would be a waste of time anyway) and let's just stick to Tanakh, as you say. Do you believe God took the form of 1 or 3 angels in Genesis 18 despite what Josephus and Philo of the 1st century wrote (see my quotes 4 posts above this one) on this episode?"
If you are willing to forget logic for now, I am completely in agreement. Taking just what the Tanach says, Genesis 18 calls the three visitors "men". In the middle of talking to these men, Abraham is suddenly found talking to the Lord. In verse 22 when "the men" go on towards Sodom, and Abraham stays before the Lord, Abraham evidently is dealing with some kind of physical representation of the Lord, since he "approached" the Lord, and the Lord "departed". Since only two beings reached Sodom, and are called "the angels" in 19:1, the natural inference would be that two of the men were angels in the form of men and the third man of Genesis 18 was the Lord in the form of man. This is what I believe is the case. The Lord in the form of man has to be the image of the invisible God who is the Word. I admit that this is not proof, but I say this as a way of illustration that what I believe anddn what the NT teaches is consistent with the text of the Tanach.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that this man cannot entail the complete being of God since that would deny what Solomon said, that the heaven of heavens cannot contain our Creator. That is why I say that God did not die on the cross. The man Jesus was God manifest in the flesh (the very same as this man/Lord whom Abraham talked to), but not encompassing the entire being of God, and was forsaken by the Father at the time of death. So, Jesus was God manifest in the flesh and the Word made flesh, but the body of Jesus was not God per se, nor to be worshipped. It was wrapped in grave clothes with the same respect shown to any human body and put in the tomb. God was not put into any tomb. You could not point to that tomb and say, "There is your god" as many on this forum have tried to say to me. Mary was not the mother of God, but mother of the body of human flesh that the Word took on. God did not die on the cross, but the man Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, did die on the cross. The Father, who is God supreme over all (John 14:2
, forsook the Son when the Son became the sin bearer and died on the cross. However, as a living image of God, he received worship, not for the body, but for the Word of G-d incarnated in that body. Neither did the Children of Israel worship the pillar of fire, but when they saw the pillar of fire, they worshipped God as He was expressed in that manifestation (Exodus 33:10).
Your discussion on whether the Son had a beginning is getting back to the debate that the man Arius launched (although I have not really studied that history well). It has occurred to me that perhaps both sides were right in part. John 1:1 states that the Word was with God and the Word was God, in the beginning with God. The Word was the active agent of creation (John 1:3). At that time, it seems that the Word was not the Son, since the Son was begotten at a certain day (Psalm 2:7). So, that would mean that at one time the Son was not the Son, but was the Word. This does not imply that the Son was a created being, but could simply mean that the Son came into being as the incarnation of the Word. The Word of God is eternal, but in eternity there was not always the Son. In other words, the person of the Word, incarnated as the Son was eternal, but the Son, per se, was not eternal. If this violates any statement of the NT, I would appreciate being informed of that. I know that it is not in accord with Trinitarian doctrine, so I probably would have been beheaded by the Inquisition.
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Add Reply
Forum Jump
Counter-Missionary Forum
Counter-Missionary Education
Hebrew Language Education
Noahide Forum - בני נח
Ask The Rabbi
Knowing Your Orchard
Weekly Parsha Discussion
General Judaism Forum
Responding to Islam Forum
Share This
Email to Friend
del.icio.us
Digg it
Facebook
Blogger
Yahoo MyWeb
«Prev
1
2
3
4
5
…
16
17
Next»
Jump
Virtual Yeshiva Discussion Forums
>
Counter-Missionary Forum
>
TRINITARIAN challenge to Protestant Christians
Click to subscribe by RSS
Click to receive E-mail notifications of replies