Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Muslims Are Christians According To The Definition Found In The Acts Of The Apostles
0 views
Skip to first unread message
kolw...@astromail.com
Apr 15, 2012, 2:39:53 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 13, 7:54 pm, Religious Intolerance Exposed
<mormoni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Muslim War on Christians and U.S. Indifference
It has been shown on this news group that Muslims are Christians
though
they may NOT be Trinitarians, I mean Catholico-Trinitarians or
politically
they may have never sworn allegiance to the Roman POWER.
According to the definition of the word CHRISTIAN found in the Acts of
the Apostles
Muslims are closer to the first century Jesus' disciples doctrinally
and theologically speaking.
So the dichotomy of Christians VERSUS Muslims is a false one. Muslims
Versus Trinitarians
should have been better understood and historically and theologically
meaningful.
I am assuming that you know that Christian is defined as the one who
believes that JESUS
is the MESSIAH foretold by Moses. At least this is the definition
found in the Acts of the
Apostles where the pagans used this WORD as a derogative term to refer
to those who
during a persecution in Jerusalem fled to Antioch to save their lives
because they were confessing
that Jesus was the CHRIST or Messiah that Moses foretold in
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
There, we are told,they were called for the first time Christians.
Paul was NOT known yet.
Trinity did not have even a CHANCE
Circumcision and Moses Law were the only reference
No book of New Testament was written yet.
Popes were NOT EVEN BORN.
Rome was considered as the center of the universe only by the Romans.
Caesar was the SOLE RULER of mankind only in his own mind.
There was a CHURCH in Jerusalem that never merged with the gentiles
After all, MESSIAH IS A PROPHET LIKE MOSES according to the LAW
NOT that of Caesar, but that of Moses
-----------------
Devillepin, La Cote D'Ivoire n'est pas un VIL pain, et elle sera
decolonisée
que Allassane Ouattara or Sarkozy le veuille ou non.
>
> Assyrian International News Agency
> Posted GMT 4-12-2012 19:55:14
>
> In recent years, we’ve begun to brace ourselves for news of bombings,
> burnings, and other attacks on churches full of Christian worshipers
> on religious holy days — for example, in Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq,
> Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Ethiopia. This violence
> comes out of the growing community of Salafi Muslims, adherents of the
> radical brand of Islam that is Saudi Arabia’s official doctrine and
> which Saudi Arabia exports throughout the Sunni world. We’ve also come
> to expect the willful blindness of the Obama administration about the
> religious implications of these horrific events. Last weekend’s Easter
> Sunday was no exception.
>
> On Easter morning, a Protestant church in Kaduna, Nigeria, was
> targeted by a suicide car bombing that killed 39 and wounded dozens,
> apparently the handiwork of Boko Haram, the Salafi network whose
> stated aim is to turn Africa’s largest country into a sharia state.
> Last Christmas, Boko Haram had bombed St. Theresa’s Catholic Church
> outside the capital Abuja killing 44 worshipers, as well as attacked
> various Christian churches in the towns of Jos, Kano, Gadaka, and
> Damaturu.
>
> Four days have now passed and there has been no official comment from
> the Obama administration about this most recent monstrous example of
> anti-Christian persecution. However, on April 8, that is, Easter,
> Secretary Clinton did manage to issue one press release. It announced
> that “today we celebrate the history, impact and culture of Romani
> people” (formerly called “gypsies”), and inveighed against Europe,
> demanding that it become “more inclusive.” But for the northern
> Nigerian Christians savagely attacked on one of their most important
> religious days, there has not been a word of condolence.
>
> Even worse, the day after the Nigeria church bombing, at a forum on
> U.S. policy toward Nigeria held at Washington's Center for Strategic
> and International Studies, Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for
> African Affairs Johnnie Carson — overlooking Boko Haram’s self-
> proclaimed identity, pattern of behavior, statements and very name,
> which means “Western education is a sin” — publicly denied that Boko
> Haram has religious motives. He went out of his way to stress:
> “Religion is not driving extremist violence in . . . northern
> Nigeria.”
>
> Carson is articulating official U.S. policy. Its theory is that Boko
> Haram is “exploiting religious differences” to “create chaos” to
> protest “poor government service delivery,” poverty, and a variety of
> good-governance concerns. The U.S. Commission on International
> Religious Freedom (on which I served as a commissioner until last
> month) finds that Boko Haram's violence is indeed “religiously
> motivated.” Even Nigeria’s Committee of Imams of the Federal Capital
> Territory has acknowledged that the church bombings are done in the
> name of Islam and condemned them as “deviant.”
>
> Elsewhere, too, the Obama administration has demonstrated a persistent
> refusal to acknowledge the pattern of Salafi persecution of
> Christians. On November 1, 2010, Salafis blew up Baghdad's Our Lady of
> Salvation Catholic Church during a Sunday Mass, killing or wounding
> virtually all of the congregation, including three priests. This is
> what the White House said:
>
> The United States strongly condemns this senseless act of hostage
> taking and violence by terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda in Iraq that
> occurred Sunday in Baghdad killing so many innocent Iraqis. Our hearts
> go out to the people of Iraq who have suffered so much from these
> attacks. We offer sincerest condolences to the families of the victims
> and to all the people of Iraq who are targeted by these cowardly acts
> of terrorism.
>
> There was no acknowledgement that the “innocent Iraqis” targeted in
> this catastrophic attack were all Christians, that the massacre took
> place in a church, and that it occurred during Sunday worship. It
> mistakenly describes as “senseless” what was all too sensibly a
> deliberate and horrific act of religious cleansing against Christians
> targeted for their faith. That church bombing — one of 70 in Iraq
> since 2004 — was the watershed moment for Iraqi Christians: Many then
> concluded that there would be no future for them in Iraq, and en masse
> abandoned their ancient homeland.
>
> And in Egypt, in October 2011, when the Arab Spring had long since
> turned into the Coptic Christian Winter, Egyptian government forces
> massacred two-dozen Copts as they were staging a peaceful street
> protest in Cairo's Maspero area. They were demonstrating precisely to
> demand religious freedom in the face of Salafi religious violence
> against Coptic churches and the failure of the Egyptian security
> forces to protect them from it. After the Maspero massacre, the White
> House stated: “Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that
> Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united
> Egypt.”
>
> The statement made no mention of the identity of those who were
> killed. Nor did it acknowledge that they were attacked while
> demonstrating against church bombings and burnings in that country on
> Christmas, New Year’s Day, and many other occasions. And, it drew a
> moral equivalency between the victims and their aggressors. My Hudson
> colleague and Coptic expert Samuel Tadros ironically commented:
> “Perhaps I ought to join the president in his concern and call for
> restraint: I call upon the security forces to refrain from killing
> Christians, and upon Christians to refrain from dying.”
>
> It is not as though the administration is reticent in cases involving
> other religions. On October 4, 2011, and on January 11, 2012, when two
> mosques were vandalized — though no one was hurt — in Israel, the
> State Department issued two statements. They were quite specific about
> the identity of the victims and impassioned in moralizing against the
> attacks:
>
> The United States strongly condemns the dangerous and provocative
> attacks on a mosque in the northern Israeli town of Tuba-Zangariyye,
> which took place on October 3. Such hateful sectarian actions are
> never justified.
>
> And:
>
> The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms today's
> most recent vandalizing of a mosque, as well as the burning of three
> cars, in the West Bank village of Deir Istiya. Hateful, dangerous, and
> provocative actions such as these are never justified.
>
> Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia –the fountain head of Salafi thought and
> our “strategically” — King Abdullah retains in his distinguished
> cabinet as Grand Mufti, Salafi Sheikh Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Aal al-
> Sheikh, who recently issued a fatwa declaring it “necessary to destroy
> all the churches in the region,” including those outside of Saudi
> Arabia, itself (which, of course, does not have any churches to blow
> up). The Kingdom will not be hearing from the Obama administration
> about the need to be “inclusiveness” though — here, again, it has
> fallen silent.
>
> By Nina Shea
>
> Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious
> Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced: How Apostasy &
> Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide (Oxford University
> Press), 2011.
>
> http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimobama.htm
<mormoni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Muslim War on Christians and U.S. Indifference
It has been shown on this news group that Muslims are Christians
though
they may NOT be Trinitarians, I mean Catholico-Trinitarians or
politically
they may have never sworn allegiance to the Roman POWER.
According to the definition of the word CHRISTIAN found in the Acts of
the Apostles
Muslims are closer to the first century Jesus' disciples doctrinally
and theologically speaking.
So the dichotomy of Christians VERSUS Muslims is a false one. Muslims
Versus Trinitarians
should have been better understood and historically and theologically
meaningful.
I am assuming that you know that Christian is defined as the one who
believes that JESUS
is the MESSIAH foretold by Moses. At least this is the definition
found in the Acts of the
Apostles where the pagans used this WORD as a derogative term to refer
to those who
during a persecution in Jerusalem fled to Antioch to save their lives
because they were confessing
that Jesus was the CHRIST or Messiah that Moses foretold in
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
There, we are told,they were called for the first time Christians.
Paul was NOT known yet.
Trinity did not have even a CHANCE
Circumcision and Moses Law were the only reference
No book of New Testament was written yet.
Popes were NOT EVEN BORN.
Rome was considered as the center of the universe only by the Romans.
Caesar was the SOLE RULER of mankind only in his own mind.
There was a CHURCH in Jerusalem that never merged with the gentiles
After all, MESSIAH IS A PROPHET LIKE MOSES according to the LAW
NOT that of Caesar, but that of Moses
-----------------
Devillepin, La Cote D'Ivoire n'est pas un VIL pain, et elle sera
decolonisée
que Allassane Ouattara or Sarkozy le veuille ou non.
>
> Assyrian International News Agency
> Posted GMT 4-12-2012 19:55:14
>
> In recent years, we’ve begun to brace ourselves for news of bombings,
> burnings, and other attacks on churches full of Christian worshipers
> on religious holy days — for example, in Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq,
> Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Ethiopia. This violence
> comes out of the growing community of Salafi Muslims, adherents of the
> radical brand of Islam that is Saudi Arabia’s official doctrine and
> which Saudi Arabia exports throughout the Sunni world. We’ve also come
> to expect the willful blindness of the Obama administration about the
> religious implications of these horrific events. Last weekend’s Easter
> Sunday was no exception.
>
> On Easter morning, a Protestant church in Kaduna, Nigeria, was
> targeted by a suicide car bombing that killed 39 and wounded dozens,
> apparently the handiwork of Boko Haram, the Salafi network whose
> stated aim is to turn Africa’s largest country into a sharia state.
> Last Christmas, Boko Haram had bombed St. Theresa’s Catholic Church
> outside the capital Abuja killing 44 worshipers, as well as attacked
> various Christian churches in the towns of Jos, Kano, Gadaka, and
> Damaturu.
>
> Four days have now passed and there has been no official comment from
> the Obama administration about this most recent monstrous example of
> anti-Christian persecution. However, on April 8, that is, Easter,
> Secretary Clinton did manage to issue one press release. It announced
> that “today we celebrate the history, impact and culture of Romani
> people” (formerly called “gypsies”), and inveighed against Europe,
> demanding that it become “more inclusive.” But for the northern
> Nigerian Christians savagely attacked on one of their most important
> religious days, there has not been a word of condolence.
>
> Even worse, the day after the Nigeria church bombing, at a forum on
> U.S. policy toward Nigeria held at Washington's Center for Strategic
> and International Studies, Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State for
> African Affairs Johnnie Carson — overlooking Boko Haram’s self-
> proclaimed identity, pattern of behavior, statements and very name,
> which means “Western education is a sin” — publicly denied that Boko
> Haram has religious motives. He went out of his way to stress:
> “Religion is not driving extremist violence in . . . northern
> Nigeria.”
>
> Carson is articulating official U.S. policy. Its theory is that Boko
> Haram is “exploiting religious differences” to “create chaos” to
> protest “poor government service delivery,” poverty, and a variety of
> good-governance concerns. The U.S. Commission on International
> Religious Freedom (on which I served as a commissioner until last
> month) finds that Boko Haram's violence is indeed “religiously
> motivated.” Even Nigeria’s Committee of Imams of the Federal Capital
> Territory has acknowledged that the church bombings are done in the
> name of Islam and condemned them as “deviant.”
>
> Elsewhere, too, the Obama administration has demonstrated a persistent
> refusal to acknowledge the pattern of Salafi persecution of
> Christians. On November 1, 2010, Salafis blew up Baghdad's Our Lady of
> Salvation Catholic Church during a Sunday Mass, killing or wounding
> virtually all of the congregation, including three priests. This is
> what the White House said:
>
> The United States strongly condemns this senseless act of hostage
> taking and violence by terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda in Iraq that
> occurred Sunday in Baghdad killing so many innocent Iraqis. Our hearts
> go out to the people of Iraq who have suffered so much from these
> attacks. We offer sincerest condolences to the families of the victims
> and to all the people of Iraq who are targeted by these cowardly acts
> of terrorism.
>
> There was no acknowledgement that the “innocent Iraqis” targeted in
> this catastrophic attack were all Christians, that the massacre took
> place in a church, and that it occurred during Sunday worship. It
> mistakenly describes as “senseless” what was all too sensibly a
> deliberate and horrific act of religious cleansing against Christians
> targeted for their faith. That church bombing — one of 70 in Iraq
> since 2004 — was the watershed moment for Iraqi Christians: Many then
> concluded that there would be no future for them in Iraq, and en masse
> abandoned their ancient homeland.
>
> And in Egypt, in October 2011, when the Arab Spring had long since
> turned into the Coptic Christian Winter, Egyptian government forces
> massacred two-dozen Copts as they were staging a peaceful street
> protest in Cairo's Maspero area. They were demonstrating precisely to
> demand religious freedom in the face of Salafi religious violence
> against Coptic churches and the failure of the Egyptian security
> forces to protect them from it. After the Maspero massacre, the White
> House stated: “Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that
> Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united
> Egypt.”
>
> The statement made no mention of the identity of those who were
> killed. Nor did it acknowledge that they were attacked while
> demonstrating against church bombings and burnings in that country on
> Christmas, New Year’s Day, and many other occasions. And, it drew a
> moral equivalency between the victims and their aggressors. My Hudson
> colleague and Coptic expert Samuel Tadros ironically commented:
> “Perhaps I ought to join the president in his concern and call for
> restraint: I call upon the security forces to refrain from killing
> Christians, and upon Christians to refrain from dying.”
>
> It is not as though the administration is reticent in cases involving
> other religions. On October 4, 2011, and on January 11, 2012, when two
> mosques were vandalized — though no one was hurt — in Israel, the
> State Department issued two statements. They were quite specific about
> the identity of the victims and impassioned in moralizing against the
> attacks:
>
> The United States strongly condemns the dangerous and provocative
> attacks on a mosque in the northern Israeli town of Tuba-Zangariyye,
> which took place on October 3. Such hateful sectarian actions are
> never justified.
>
> And:
>
> The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms today's
> most recent vandalizing of a mosque, as well as the burning of three
> cars, in the West Bank village of Deir Istiya. Hateful, dangerous, and
> provocative actions such as these are never justified.
>
> Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia –the fountain head of Salafi thought and
> our “strategically” — King Abdullah retains in his distinguished
> cabinet as Grand Mufti, Salafi Sheikh Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Aal al-
> Sheikh, who recently issued a fatwa declaring it “necessary to destroy
> all the churches in the region,” including those outside of Saudi
> Arabia, itself (which, of course, does not have any churches to blow
> up). The Kingdom will not be hearing from the Obama administration
> about the need to be “inclusiveness” though — here, again, it has
> fallen silent.
>
> By Nina Shea
>
> Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious
> Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced: How Apostasy &
> Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide (Oxford University
> Press), 2011.
>
> http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimobama.htm
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Apr 15, 2012, 4:12:12 PM4/15/12
to
Gen 18:1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and
he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the
tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice: three persons, one Lord
Philo lived c.20 BC-c.AD 50 ...
http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-philo-live-367023.html
Philo writes:
...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of
a
trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm
Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:
Notice: Name singular, three persons
The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
Mystery of the Trinity.
http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm
he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the
tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice: three persons, one Lord
Philo lived c.20 BC-c.AD 50 ...
http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-philo-live-367023.html
Philo writes:
...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of
a
trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm
Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:
Notice: Name singular, three persons
The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
Mystery of the Trinity.
http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm
arah
Apr 16, 2012, 6:01:00 AM4/16/12
to
Jim
Have your read Isaiah 40:28- 31
“Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the
weary and increases the power of the weak. Even youths grow tired and
weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the Lord
will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they
will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.”
and Genesis 2:2
" By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
on the seventh day he rested from all his work."
Tell me why the bible contradicted?
On Apr 15, 11:12 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
Have your read Isaiah 40:28- 31
“Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the
weary and increases the power of the weak. Even youths grow tired and
weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the Lord
will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they
will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.”
and Genesis 2:2
" By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
on the seventh day he rested from all his work."
Tell me why the bible contradicted?
On Apr 15, 11:12 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Apr 16, 2012, 9:22:50 AM4/16/12
to
Hbr 3:7 ¶ Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear
his voice,
Hbr 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day
of temptation in the wilderness:
Hbr 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works
forty years.
Hbr 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said,
They do alway err in [their] heart; and they have not known my ways.
Hbr 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my
rest.)
his voice,
Hbr 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day
of temptation in the wilderness:
Hbr 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works
forty years.
Hbr 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said,
They do alway err in [their] heart; and they have not known my ways.
Hbr 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my
rest.)
kolw...@astromail.com
Apr 16, 2012, 11:53:05 AM4/16/12
to
On Apr 15, 4:12 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
God
Eternal is one." He did not say THREE Trinity is pagan novelty no
matter how hard
you try to justify it...
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Gen 18:1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and
> he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Moses knew that, but after all he said," Hear O Israel Eternal your
> Gen 18:1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and
> he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
God
Eternal is one." He did not say THREE Trinity is pagan novelty no
matter how hard
you try to justify it...
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Apr 16, 2012, 9:02:29 PM4/16/12
to
HOW ANCIENT IS THE TRINITY DOCTRINE?
________________________________________
by Wesley P. Walters
As different as para-Christian groups or cults are from each other,
most have one thing in common: they hate the biblical teaching of the
Trinity. They want their God to be simplistic, uncomplicated, and less
complex than the world He created. They want a God reduced to terms
they can get their finite minds around.
Modern advances in science have shown that the created world is an
extremely complex mechanism. Those who work in nuclear physics or
molecular biology are continually discovering the complexity of the
world God has created.
In fact, some complex, seemingly contradictory data has yet to be
fitted into a rational system that explains the relationships. A
simple thing like "light" is known to move like "waves" yet strike
like "particles." Atomic physicists are still struggling to put
together a theory that can fully explain this apparent contradiction.
Those who work in the complex mathematical equations of quantum
mechanics are told by their instructors that "If you think that you
really understand quantum mechanics and how it applies to reality,
that proves you do not understand it." One of the basic theorems is
that if the speed of a particle is known, then its location can not be
known, and the more accurately you know its location, the less
accurately you know its speed. This does not seem very logical to the
average person, but it works very well in atomic physics, in which
scientists get very close to the essence of matter.
Thus, while scientists are continually learning more about how complex
and even apparently contradictory the world of created reality is,
cults that reject the complexity of the God who made this reality are
proliferating. They, along with Moslems and modern Jews, taunt
Christians, saying: "How can there be just one God, and yet the Father
be God, the Son be God and the Holy Spirit be God? Is He the Son of
Himself and the Father of both?"
Even though Christ Himself taught that the name [singular] of God in
which we baptize is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), all
cults falsely assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching
that grew out of fourth century paganism. So unified are the cults in
this assertion that they appear to be using the same erroneous Church
history book and parroting one another.
The truth is that by the time of Christ, the first century A.D., the
Jews themselves, on the basis of the Old Testament, were coming to an
understanding of the complexity of Yahweh.
The Teachings of The Targums
When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity 450 years before the
birth of Jesus, they had adopted Aramaic as their native language.
Although it is a dialect of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic is about as
different from it as modern Italian is from its classical Latin
ancestor. Consequently, during the first and early second centuries
A.D., Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament were made.
These translations, called Targums, were The Living Bibles of their
day, an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture. They help us see how
these first-century Jews understood their Old Testament.
One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century
Jews had come to understand the phrase "the Word of God" as referring
to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times
from God. J.W. Etheridge, in the introduction to his translations of
the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, has given us a number of examples
of this Jewish understanding of the term, "the Word" (Aramaic:
Memra).
In Genesis 18:1, where the Hebrew Bible says Yahweh (Jehovah) appeared
to Abraham, the Targum says, "The Word of the Lord appeared to
Abraham." Further on, where the Hebrew reports "Yahweh rained down
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of
heaven," the Targum states that "the Word of the Lord sent down upon
them sulphur and fire from the presence of the Lord out of
heaven." (Genesis 19:24)
In Genesis 16, when Hagar sees "the Angel of the Lord," the Targum
says she saw "the Word of the Lord." After seeing this "Word" (Memra)
she says, "Here has been revealed the glory of the Shekineh of the
Lord." Then, according to the Jerusalem Targum, "Hagar returned thanks
and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who had appeared to
her." Thus the Word not only is regard- ed as the presence of deity,
but is in some manner personally distinguishable from the Lord.
In Genesis 28:20 the Targum of Onkelos paraphrases Jacob's vow, "If
God will be with me... then Yahweh will be my God" with the words, "If
the Word of the Lord will be my help... the Word of the Lord shall be
my God." Again, the Angel of Yahweh who spoke to Moses at the burning
bush (Exodus 3:14) is designated by the Jerusalem Targum as "the Word
of the Lord."
The distinct personality of this Divine Word is seen pointedly in
Jonathan's Targum of Isaiah 63:7-10. There, where the Hebrew text
speaks of Yahweh being their Savior, the Targum reads, "the Word
(Memra) was their Redeemer." (vs. 8) When the Israelites continued to
disobey, then "His Word (Memra) became their enemy, and fought against
them" -- an action ascribed to Yahweh in the Hebrew text. Again in
Isaiah 45:22 the Targum of Jonathan exhorts, "Look unto My Word and be
saved."
While this personalizing of the Word was being expressed in Palestine
in the Targums of Jesus' day, Philo, an Egyptian Jew and contemporary
of Jesus, was expressing similar thoughts in even more distinct words.
In his essay "On the Creation," Philo states that man was not made in
the image of some creature, but in the image of God's own uncreated
Word. He wrote: "for the Creator, we know, employed for its making no
pattern taken from among created things, but solely, as I have said,
His own Word."
Philo continues: "Man was made a likeness and imitation of the Word,
when the Divine Breath was breathed into his face. ("On the Creation,"
XLVIII: 139, Loeb Edition I, pp. 110-111)
In his work on Noah, Philo again expresses the teaching that man is
made by "the First Cause" (that is, God) in the image of "the Eternal
Word:" "Our great Moses likened the fashion of the rea- sonable soul
to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that
dread Spirit, the Divine and Invisible One, signed and impressed by
the seal of God, the stamp of which is the Eternal Word."
He continues: "...man has been made after the Image of God (Genesis
1:27), not however after the image of anything created... man's soul
having been made after the image of the Archetype, the Word of the
First Cause." ("Noah's Work as a Planter," I:18-20, Loeb III, pp.
222-223)
Thus, the eternal Word is in some sense distinguishable from God, and
yet at the same time is, like God, uncreated, rational and the bearer
of the divine image. This comes very close to the teaching of the New
Testament that the Word was distinguishable from God, and yet was God.
As John 1:1 expresses it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." It also appears similar to Paul's
teaching that the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians
1:15); and the writer of Hebrews statement that the Son "is the exact
representation of His being." (Hebrews 1:3)
Philo, however, goes further. He says that God is the king and
shepherd of all creation, but rules and controls it through his
eternally existing Word, whom Philo calls God's "First-born Son."
His "hallowed flock" of created things God directs by his divine laws,
setting over it His true Word and first-born son, who shall take upon
Him its government like some viceroy of a great king. ("On Husbandry,"
I:51, Loeb III, pp. 134-135)
Philo has God expressing Himself in this manner: "I alone... sustained
the Universe to rest firm and sure upon the Mighty Word, who is My
viceroy." ("On Dreams," I:241, Loeb V, pp. 424- 425)
Therefore this eternal Word, God's first-born Son, is the upholder of
the whole creation, "the everlasting Word of the eternal God is the
very sure and staunch prop of the Whole. He it is, who extending
Himself from the midst to its utmost bounds... keeps up through all
its length Nature's unvanquished course, combining and compacting all
its parts. For the Father who begat Him constituted His Word such a
Bond of the Universe as nothing can break." ("Noah's Work as a
Planter," I:8-9, Loeb III, pp. 216-217)
This reflects the same thought that Paul expressed about the Son as
being the one "in whom all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17) It
also reminds also reminds us of Hebrews 1:3, which depicts the Son as
"sustaining all things by his powerful Word."
Philo continues his discussion of the Word by maintaining that to
those incapable of seeing the supreme cause, God Himself, He appears
to them in the form of His Angel, the Word: "For just as those who are
unable to see the sun itself, see the gleam of the parahelion and take
it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary
itself, so some regard the image of God, His Angel, the Word, as His
very self." ("On Dreams," I:239, Loeb V, pp. 422-423) This sounds very
similar to the teaching tha t the Son is "the radiance (or outshining)
of God's glory" (Hebrews 1:3), the only part of God's nature that
people are allowed to see. This is true because "no one has ever seen
God," but "the only begotten God... He has made Him known." (John
1:18) Thus, Jesus, the Son, can say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father." (John 14:9)
Philo further explained that God, being light, is "the archetype of
every other light." As such He is "prior to and high above every
archetype." Thus He holds the position of "a model of a model," that
is, He is the model for His Word, which Word becomes the model for
creation. The Word, therefore, contains all the qualities of God. As
Philo expressed it, "the model or pattern was the Word which contained
all His fullness -- light, in fact." ("On Dreams," I:75, Loeb V, pp.
336-337) Paul expressed a similar thought when he wrote that in the
Son all God's fullness dwells. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9)
To Philo, therefore, the Word of God is the eternal, uncreated Word
containing all the fullness of God and bearing His image. That divine
image which the Word bears is the image in which man was created. The
Word is further the sustainer, upholder and ruler of the world,
carrying on the governing of all things, as God's viceroy, and
containing all God's fullness.
While the Word is not a created thing and carries on all the functions
of God, Philo is clear that there are not two gods -- although he does
not attempt to explain how this can be. Philo's teaching is,
therefore, very close to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Philo
reached his conclusions without the aid of the New Testament and
certainly without deriving his ideas from pagan notions of deity. The
Old Testament teaching that the Angel of Yahweh is really the presence
of Yahweh Himself seems to have strongly influenced Philo's ideas.
To relegate the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, to a fourth-
century adaptation of paganism is to ignore the conclusions that
several Jewish theologians and teachers had reached four centuries
earlier, from God's revelations given to Israel before the time of the
coming of Christ. At the very time that the Word was becoming flesh
(John 1:1, 14), Jewish writers were already beginning to see that
God's Word could in some way be distinguished from God the Father
Himself, yet have all the fullness of God contained in Him.
http://prophecyarchive.com/ray/barr-family.com/godsword/trinity.htm
________________________________________
by Wesley P. Walters
As different as para-Christian groups or cults are from each other,
most have one thing in common: they hate the biblical teaching of the
Trinity. They want their God to be simplistic, uncomplicated, and less
complex than the world He created. They want a God reduced to terms
they can get their finite minds around.
Modern advances in science have shown that the created world is an
extremely complex mechanism. Those who work in nuclear physics or
molecular biology are continually discovering the complexity of the
world God has created.
In fact, some complex, seemingly contradictory data has yet to be
fitted into a rational system that explains the relationships. A
simple thing like "light" is known to move like "waves" yet strike
like "particles." Atomic physicists are still struggling to put
together a theory that can fully explain this apparent contradiction.
Those who work in the complex mathematical equations of quantum
mechanics are told by their instructors that "If you think that you
really understand quantum mechanics and how it applies to reality,
that proves you do not understand it." One of the basic theorems is
that if the speed of a particle is known, then its location can not be
known, and the more accurately you know its location, the less
accurately you know its speed. This does not seem very logical to the
average person, but it works very well in atomic physics, in which
scientists get very close to the essence of matter.
Thus, while scientists are continually learning more about how complex
and even apparently contradictory the world of created reality is,
cults that reject the complexity of the God who made this reality are
proliferating. They, along with Moslems and modern Jews, taunt
Christians, saying: "How can there be just one God, and yet the Father
be God, the Son be God and the Holy Spirit be God? Is He the Son of
Himself and the Father of both?"
Even though Christ Himself taught that the name [singular] of God in
which we baptize is Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), all
cults falsely assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching
that grew out of fourth century paganism. So unified are the cults in
this assertion that they appear to be using the same erroneous Church
history book and parroting one another.
The truth is that by the time of Christ, the first century A.D., the
Jews themselves, on the basis of the Old Testament, were coming to an
understanding of the complexity of Yahweh.
The Teachings of The Targums
When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity 450 years before the
birth of Jesus, they had adopted Aramaic as their native language.
Although it is a dialect of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic is about as
different from it as modern Italian is from its classical Latin
ancestor. Consequently, during the first and early second centuries
A.D., Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament were made.
These translations, called Targums, were The Living Bibles of their
day, an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture. They help us see how
these first-century Jews understood their Old Testament.
One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century
Jews had come to understand the phrase "the Word of God" as referring
to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times
from God. J.W. Etheridge, in the introduction to his translations of
the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, has given us a number of examples
of this Jewish understanding of the term, "the Word" (Aramaic:
Memra).
In Genesis 18:1, where the Hebrew Bible says Yahweh (Jehovah) appeared
to Abraham, the Targum says, "The Word of the Lord appeared to
Abraham." Further on, where the Hebrew reports "Yahweh rained down
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of
heaven," the Targum states that "the Word of the Lord sent down upon
them sulphur and fire from the presence of the Lord out of
heaven." (Genesis 19:24)
In Genesis 16, when Hagar sees "the Angel of the Lord," the Targum
says she saw "the Word of the Lord." After seeing this "Word" (Memra)
she says, "Here has been revealed the glory of the Shekineh of the
Lord." Then, according to the Jerusalem Targum, "Hagar returned thanks
and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who had appeared to
her." Thus the Word not only is regard- ed as the presence of deity,
but is in some manner personally distinguishable from the Lord.
In Genesis 28:20 the Targum of Onkelos paraphrases Jacob's vow, "If
God will be with me... then Yahweh will be my God" with the words, "If
the Word of the Lord will be my help... the Word of the Lord shall be
my God." Again, the Angel of Yahweh who spoke to Moses at the burning
bush (Exodus 3:14) is designated by the Jerusalem Targum as "the Word
of the Lord."
The distinct personality of this Divine Word is seen pointedly in
Jonathan's Targum of Isaiah 63:7-10. There, where the Hebrew text
speaks of Yahweh being their Savior, the Targum reads, "the Word
(Memra) was their Redeemer." (vs. 8) When the Israelites continued to
disobey, then "His Word (Memra) became their enemy, and fought against
them" -- an action ascribed to Yahweh in the Hebrew text. Again in
Isaiah 45:22 the Targum of Jonathan exhorts, "Look unto My Word and be
saved."
While this personalizing of the Word was being expressed in Palestine
in the Targums of Jesus' day, Philo, an Egyptian Jew and contemporary
of Jesus, was expressing similar thoughts in even more distinct words.
In his essay "On the Creation," Philo states that man was not made in
the image of some creature, but in the image of God's own uncreated
Word. He wrote: "for the Creator, we know, employed for its making no
pattern taken from among created things, but solely, as I have said,
His own Word."
Philo continues: "Man was made a likeness and imitation of the Word,
when the Divine Breath was breathed into his face. ("On the Creation,"
XLVIII: 139, Loeb Edition I, pp. 110-111)
In his work on Noah, Philo again expresses the teaching that man is
made by "the First Cause" (that is, God) in the image of "the Eternal
Word:" "Our great Moses likened the fashion of the rea- sonable soul
to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that
dread Spirit, the Divine and Invisible One, signed and impressed by
the seal of God, the stamp of which is the Eternal Word."
He continues: "...man has been made after the Image of God (Genesis
1:27), not however after the image of anything created... man's soul
having been made after the image of the Archetype, the Word of the
First Cause." ("Noah's Work as a Planter," I:18-20, Loeb III, pp.
222-223)
Thus, the eternal Word is in some sense distinguishable from God, and
yet at the same time is, like God, uncreated, rational and the bearer
of the divine image. This comes very close to the teaching of the New
Testament that the Word was distinguishable from God, and yet was God.
As John 1:1 expresses it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." It also appears similar to Paul's
teaching that the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians
1:15); and the writer of Hebrews statement that the Son "is the exact
representation of His being." (Hebrews 1:3)
Philo, however, goes further. He says that God is the king and
shepherd of all creation, but rules and controls it through his
eternally existing Word, whom Philo calls God's "First-born Son."
His "hallowed flock" of created things God directs by his divine laws,
setting over it His true Word and first-born son, who shall take upon
Him its government like some viceroy of a great king. ("On Husbandry,"
I:51, Loeb III, pp. 134-135)
Philo has God expressing Himself in this manner: "I alone... sustained
the Universe to rest firm and sure upon the Mighty Word, who is My
viceroy." ("On Dreams," I:241, Loeb V, pp. 424- 425)
Therefore this eternal Word, God's first-born Son, is the upholder of
the whole creation, "the everlasting Word of the eternal God is the
very sure and staunch prop of the Whole. He it is, who extending
Himself from the midst to its utmost bounds... keeps up through all
its length Nature's unvanquished course, combining and compacting all
its parts. For the Father who begat Him constituted His Word such a
Bond of the Universe as nothing can break." ("Noah's Work as a
Planter," I:8-9, Loeb III, pp. 216-217)
This reflects the same thought that Paul expressed about the Son as
being the one "in whom all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17) It
also reminds also reminds us of Hebrews 1:3, which depicts the Son as
"sustaining all things by his powerful Word."
Philo continues his discussion of the Word by maintaining that to
those incapable of seeing the supreme cause, God Himself, He appears
to them in the form of His Angel, the Word: "For just as those who are
unable to see the sun itself, see the gleam of the parahelion and take
it for the sun, and take the halo round the moon for that luminary
itself, so some regard the image of God, His Angel, the Word, as His
very self." ("On Dreams," I:239, Loeb V, pp. 422-423) This sounds very
similar to the teaching tha t the Son is "the radiance (or outshining)
of God's glory" (Hebrews 1:3), the only part of God's nature that
people are allowed to see. This is true because "no one has ever seen
God," but "the only begotten God... He has made Him known." (John
1:18) Thus, Jesus, the Son, can say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father." (John 14:9)
Philo further explained that God, being light, is "the archetype of
every other light." As such He is "prior to and high above every
archetype." Thus He holds the position of "a model of a model," that
is, He is the model for His Word, which Word becomes the model for
creation. The Word, therefore, contains all the qualities of God. As
Philo expressed it, "the model or pattern was the Word which contained
all His fullness -- light, in fact." ("On Dreams," I:75, Loeb V, pp.
336-337) Paul expressed a similar thought when he wrote that in the
Son all God's fullness dwells. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9)
To Philo, therefore, the Word of God is the eternal, uncreated Word
containing all the fullness of God and bearing His image. That divine
image which the Word bears is the image in which man was created. The
Word is further the sustainer, upholder and ruler of the world,
carrying on the governing of all things, as God's viceroy, and
containing all God's fullness.
While the Word is not a created thing and carries on all the functions
of God, Philo is clear that there are not two gods -- although he does
not attempt to explain how this can be. Philo's teaching is,
therefore, very close to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Philo
reached his conclusions without the aid of the New Testament and
certainly without deriving his ideas from pagan notions of deity. The
Old Testament teaching that the Angel of Yahweh is really the presence
of Yahweh Himself seems to have strongly influenced Philo's ideas.
To relegate the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, to a fourth-
century adaptation of paganism is to ignore the conclusions that
several Jewish theologians and teachers had reached four centuries
earlier, from God's revelations given to Israel before the time of the
coming of Christ. At the very time that the Word was becoming flesh
(John 1:1, 14), Jewish writers were already beginning to see that
God's Word could in some way be distinguished from God the Father
Himself, yet have all the fullness of God contained in Him.
http://prophecyarchive.com/ray/barr-family.com/godsword/trinity.htm
kolw...@astromail.com
Apr 17, 2012, 8:10:03 AM4/17/12
to
> Gen 18:1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and
> he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>
> Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
> stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the
> tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
>
> Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
> sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>
> Notice: three persons, one Lord
>
> Philo lived c.20 BC-c.AD 50 ...
>
> http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-philo-live-367023.html
>
> Philo writes:
>
> ...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
> they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of
> a
Who is philo? an apostle? A prophet?
> he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>
> Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
> stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the
> tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
>
> Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
> sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>
> Notice: three persons, one Lord
>
> Philo lived c.20 BC-c.AD 50 ...
>
> http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-philo-live-367023.html
>
> Philo writes:
>
> ...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
> they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of
> a
Why should we care about his opinion.
Paul,the apostle to the Greco Roman world said nothing
about TRINITY. Moses said nothing about trinity.
Trinity is nothing but a product of greek speculative philosophy
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Apr 17, 2012, 11:19:03 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 7:10 am, kolwe...@astromail.com wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:12 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Gen 18:1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and
> > he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>
> > Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
> > stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the
> > tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
>
> > Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
> > sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>
> > Notice: three persons, one Lord
>
> > Philo lived c.20 BC-c.AD 50 ...
>
> > http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-philo-live-367023.html
>
> > Philo writes:
>
> > ...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
> > they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of
> > a
>
> Who is philo? an apostle? A prophet?
> Why should we care about his opinion.
> Paul,the apostle to the Greco Roman world said nothing
> about TRINITY. Moses said nothing about trinity.
> Trinity is nothing but a product of greek speculative philosophy
>
Philo Judaeus (lived 1st century AD)
> On Apr 15, 4:12 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Gen 18:1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and
> > he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>
> > Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
> > stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the
> > tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
>
> > Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy
> > sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>
> > Notice: three persons, one Lord
>
> > Philo lived c.20 BC-c.AD 50 ...
>
> > http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-philo-live-367023.html
>
> > Philo writes:
>
> > ...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
> > they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of
> > a
>
> Who is philo? an apostle? A prophet?
> Why should we care about his opinion.
> Paul,the apostle to the Greco Roman world said nothing
> about TRINITY. Moses said nothing about trinity.
> Trinity is nothing but a product of greek speculative philosophy
>
Jewish philosopher of Alexandria who in AD 40 undertook a mission to
Caligula to protest against the emperor's claim to divine honours. In
his writings Philo Judaeus attempts to reconcile Judaism with Platonic
and Stoic ideas.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Philo+Judaeus
>
>
> > trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
> > [else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
> > Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
> > "Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
> > vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
> > [triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
> > (Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
>
> >http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm
>
> > Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> > baptizing them in the name
> > of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> > Ghost:
>
> > Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> > The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
>
> > It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
> > but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
>
> > It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
>
> > The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
> > Mystery of the Trinity.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 new messages