Ronald Reagan explains the Trinity
JoeWallack
Hullo again everybody. My good friend, JoeWallack, asked if I would
come here to help explain the Trinity. Now, I'll be the first one to admit
that I'm not perfect. I can see now that JoeWallack was 100% correct
when he told me that if I would just select Jews for the Secretary of
Treasury, State, and Defense positions we could solve the Federal deficit
problem in no time, but I wouldn't listen. But as you know I am still
known as The Great Communicator. In looking over the posts in this
folder I must say that I haven't seen this much confusion since Yogi
Berra and the Pope issued a joint statement saying that 50% of
Catholicism was 90% mental.
In order to reduce all this confusion I will now explain the Trinity concept.
Think of the Trinity as supply side religion, plenty of G-d, more than
enough for everyone. You have the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Father and Son can have a relationship, known as the Trickle Down
Theory and the Holy Spirit can be anything which is not the Father or Son.
If you need to argue that there is just one God you can say they are all just
different dimensions of the same God. If you need to argue that they have a
relationship with each other you can say that they all have different
functions.
If you need to argue that G-d was human you can say that the Son was human.
If you need to argue that God is divine you can say that the Father is divine.
If
you need to argue that God can be human and divine you can say that the Son
was human and divine. If you have a missing piece you can argue that the
Holy Spirit is the missing piece. Let me give you an example.
Ronald Reagan : Now, think of God as an infinite pie. Now, half of the pie
well, that's God the Father. Now, half of the pie,
well, that's
God the Son and the other half well, let's just say
that that's
the Holy Spirit.
JoeWallack : But former President Reagan, that would be three halfs.
Ronald Reagan : No, you don't understand. Think of the Father as an infinite
Apple Pie. Now, think of the Son as an infinite
combination
of an infinite Chocolate Pie and an Infinite Pecan
Pie. Now,
think of the Holy Spirit as an infinite Pineapple
Upside-Down Pie. Now, take half of the Apple Pie and
half
of the Pineapple Upside-Down Pie and mix them
together in
an infinitely large mixing bowl and then pour them
out over
the Chocolate and Pecan Pie and then place
everything in an
infinitely large cooking pan and bake for eternity
in an
infinitely large oven at an infinitely hot
temperature and then
remove from the oven and cut into an infinite amount
of
pieces and mix for eternity with the remaining Apple
and
Pineapple Upside-Down Pies.
JoeWallack : But former President Reagan, that would be a big mess.
Ronald Reagan : That's right! Now you understand.
W-a-y-n-e
<19990606124127...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>Hullo again everybody.
Hey, here's a good one...
A Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim were having a discussion about who was the
most religious. "I was riding my camel in the middle of the Sahara,"
exclaimed the Muslim. Suddenly a fierce sandstorm appeared from nowhere. I
truly thought my end had come as I lay next to my camel while we were being
buried deeper and deeper under the sand. But I did not lose my faith in the
Almighty Allah. I prayed and prayed and suddenly, for a hundred metres all
around me, the storm had stopped. Since that day I am a devout Muslim and am
now learning to recite the Quran by memory." "One day while fishing,"
started the Christian, " I was in my little dinghy in the middle of the
ocean. Suddenly a fierce storm appeared from nowhere. I truly thought my end
had come as my little dinghy was tossed up and down in the rough ocean. But
I did not lose my faith in Jesus Christ. I prayed and prayed and suddenly,
for 300 metres all around me, the storm had stopped. Since that day I am a
devout Christian and am now teaching young children about Him." "One day I
was walking down the road," explained the Jew, " I was in my most expensive
designer outfit in the middle of New York city. Suddenly I saw a black bag
on the ground in front of me appear from nowhere. I put my hand inside and
found that it was full of cash. I truly thought my end had come as it was a
Saturday and we are not allowed to handle money on the Sabbath. But I did
not lose my faith in Jehovah. I prayed and prayed and suddenly, for 500
metres all around me, it was Tuesday... "
W-a-y-n-e
>Hullo again everybody...
well, hullo right back at ya JoeWallack, with no spaces in yer
name....golly, is that yer first name, or yer last name?
anyways, here's another good one fer ya....
Place and time: somewhere in the Soviet Union in 1930s.
The phone rings at KGB headquarters.
"Hello? Hello, is this KGB?"
"Yes. What do you want?"
"I'm calling to report my neighbor Yankel Rabinovitz as an enemy of the
State. He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his firewood."
"This will be noted."
Next day, the KGB goons come over to Rabinovitz's house. They search the
shed where the firewood is kept, break every piece of wood, find no
diamonds, swear at Yankel Rabinovitz and leave. The phone rings at
Rabinovitz's house.
"Hello, Yankel! Did the KGB come?"
"Yes."
"Did they chop your firewood?"
"Yes, they did."
"Okay, now its your turn to call. I need my vegetable patch plowed."
W-a-y-n-e
golly, I'm on a roll right now, so let my just add another one to my list
for my good friend Mr. JoeWallack ______....er, ummm, what did you say yer
last name is, buddy?
President Clinton was very curious about how the Jewish people knew
everything before him. So he called the CIA and FBI and asked them to figure
it out.
One week later they came back and said, "Mr. President, the Jews have
something called shabbat, and they meet each other at the synagogue, and
there is a code. They sit, they pray, and there is a word that is the key to
this secret: 'Nu?' When one says to other, 'Nu?' the other tells him
everything, every bit of news."
This Clinton wanted to see for himself. The secret service dressed him like
a Hassid, and taught him to read from the right to the left of the siddur.
Clinton arrived at a synagogue on shabbat, and sat beside another religious
man. He waited for an moment, and said, "Nu?"
The man answered, "Shh, Clinton is coming!"
JoeWallack
"JoeWallack wrote in message
<19990606124127...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>Hullo again everybody.
Well I guess you DO have to be Jewish to be funny. This joke would have been
funnier before the scandal at the top of United Way (always seems to happen to
the Christian charities, huh W-A-Y-N-E? Henry Lieons-look out!) a few years ago
which reduced their take and temporarily allowed United Jewish Appeal (funded
almost entirely be Jews) to take over the title of the World's top grossing
charity.
Joseph
Mike NIGHT
JoeWallack wrote in message >Ronald Reagan explains the Trinity
That's funny but what about the old portion of the pie that's 2000 years old
and is no longer edible, then the holy spirit would use a new portion of Pie
to "bake" under (reference to "baptising in the fire" of the holy spirit)
with a new name, say Pumpkin, now we have four pieces of the pie. Now the
trinity is no longer valid. What's it called with four involved in it now?
CERTAINLY not a trinity.
And why are they still waiting on that stale Pecan Pie when they can have
their fresh Pumpkin pie and eat it too?
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bicycle/69/trinity.html
W_a_y_n_e
JoeWallack wrote in message
<19990608104813...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
>From: "W-a-y-n-e" <soul...@airmail.net>
>
>"JoeWallack wrote in message
><19990606124127...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>
>almost entirely be Jews) to take over the title of the World's top grossing
>charity.
now joseph, there you go getting serious on us...
oh well, thanks for highlighting the generous nature of christian charities,
despite
the occasional crook which we catch in our midst ( and deal with very
effectively...see
Acts 5:1-11
=========
1
BUT a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,
2
and *kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife's [113]full
knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he *laid it at the apostles' feet.
3
But Peter said, «Ananias, why has *Satan filled your heart to lie *to the
Holy Spirit and to *keep back some of the price of the land?
4
«While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was
sold, was it not [114]under your control? Why is it that you have
[115]conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but *to
God.»
5
And as he heard these words, Ananias *fell down and breathed his last; and
*great fear came over all who heard of it.
6
The young men got up and *covered him up, and after carrying him out, they
buried him.
7
Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in,
not knowing what had happened.
8
And Peter responded to her, «Tell me whether you sold the land [116]*for
such and such a price?» And she said, «Yes, [116]that was the price.»
9
Then Peter said to her, «Why is it that you have agreed together to *put
*the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have
buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.»
10
And immediately she *fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young
men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her
beside her husband.
11
And *great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these
things.
JoeWallack
Mike, I don't know what the answer is (probably three answers in one) but you
are asking all the right questions. While we are exchanging recipes here is an
old family recipe I just discovered in the attic. Enjoy!
JoeWallack family "Old World" recipe for Sadducee Stew
Old Step 1
Ingredients-
Seven million Jews
One million lbs. sage
One million oz. holy oil
613 cloves
Place Jews in large melting pot along with cloves. Simmer in holy
oil, stir up frequently, and add sage gradually. Let stand for four
thousand years.
New Step 2
Ingredients-
One Jew
One million lbs. rosemary
One million lbs. holy water
-0- cloves
Take Jews out of pot and run through deflavorizing machine. Remove
all cloves and place Jews back in pot. Filet one Jew and sprinkle over
seven million. Add rosemary and holy water. Allow rosemary to bead
and holy oil to rise to top. Skim off all holy oil and boil rapidly for two
thousand years. Your heavenly entree is ready.
(Serves approximately one)
Joseph
JoeWallack
Thanks W-A-Y-N-E, that's your funniest story yet. It's a good thing it's just a
story because if that type of punishment followed shady real estate dealings in
real life we'd have a different President every week. Sounds like you're
getting tired of funny posts so here's a serious one:
"Subject: Re: TRINITY
Date: 7/19/98 8:44 PM Central Daylight Time
From: A23434
Message-id: <199807200144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
The Trinitarian belief that God is Unity, subsisting in three persons: The
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--all three are one God, equal in power and
glory--represents one of the most incredible, albeit crucial conceptions in all
of Christendom. Many observers throughout history have stressed the irrational
involved.
•"One may say with one's lips: 'I believe that God is one, and also three'--but
no one can believe it, because the words have no sense." (What is Religion by
Leo Tolstoy). •"When we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon
of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three;...."
(Jefferson's Works, Vol. 7, p. 210 by H.A. Washington). •"It is too late in the
day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic
mysticism that three are one, and one is three; yet that the one is not three,
and the three are not one;...." (Jefferson's Works, Vol. 6, p. 192 by H.A.
Washington).
In discussions with biblicists I've often asked the question, "When Jesus said
on the Cross, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke
23:34), to whom was he speaking?" To which they usually replied, "God." To this
I responded, "But I thought he was God." To which they usually reply, "No, he
is the son God." "In other words, we have two Gods," I said. "No," they
replied, "just one God but three persons." Now let's pause and think,
my friend, " I said, "we have one being, one source of
intelligence--God--speaking to another being, another source of intelligence,
which is also God; and yet, we are to believe there is only one God." This
simple dialogue highlights quite well the incongruity of the problem.Clearly,
logic and reason have nothing to do with understanding the Trinity. There is
little rhyme or reason involved and, indeed many apologists will admit as much,
since any
other approach would border on naivete. Many don't even attempt a rational
defense. They merely assert that, although opposed to sensible thought, it's
true, nevertheless. "It's a mystery." That's the common refrain.
Apologetic beliefs that violate the rules on logic and common sense are often
described as mysteries, unfathonable by the human mind. Faith, which H.L.
Mencken defined as "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable",
is mandatory. As one defender candidly stated, "The Trinity, that is three
persons in one, is a mystery which is revealed by Bible, but cannot be
understood by the human mind....this is one of those things which must be
accepted by faith, even though it cannot be reasoned out. The Trinity cannot be
explained but it must be believed." (508 Answers to Bible Questions, p. 168 by
M. R. DeHaan). Thomas Jefferson summarized the situation quite well by stating,
"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God,
pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity;.... The
hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three
heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousand and thousands of
martyrs.... In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but
one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say
he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who
thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once
surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most
montrous,... With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the
helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." (Jefferson's
Works, Vol. 7, p. 269-70 by H.A. Washington).
NO doubt many apologists agreed with Ingersoll when he said, "In order to be
saved it is necessary to believe this. What a blessing that we do not have to
understand it. (Ingersoll's Works, Vol.1, p. 496) Or to quote Thomas Paine,
"Where is the evidence that the person called Jesus Christ is the begotten Son
of God? The case admits not of evidence either to our senses or our mental
faculties; neither has God given to man any talent by which such a
thing is comprehensible." (The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9, p. 294).
Opposition to the Trinity comes not only from outside the Cb but from within as
well. One only need not rely upon external critics alone. The Cb is replete
with statements to the effect that God is a Unity; he is one: there is none
like him. The following are a few that could be mentioned: "...the Lord he is
God; there is none else beside him" (Deut. 4:35); "...for there is none like
thee, neither is there any god beside thee" (2 Sam. 7:22); "I am
God and there is none like me" (Isa. 46:9). Apparently Jesus and the Holy Ghost
are like him, since they are God also. (See also: Deut. 4:39, 6:4, Mark 12:29,
Isa. 45:5-6, 1 Chron. 17:20, 1 Sam. 2:2 and Kings 8:60). Despite these verses
and many others, apologists continue to rely upon four major verses to justify
their beliefs in the Trinity: 1 Peter 1:2, the forged 1 John 5:7(...for there
are three that bear record in heaven), 2 Cor.13:14, and
Matt. 28:19 (baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and of the Holy
Ghost). If these four verses justify belief in the Trinity, then they
contradict many other comments that do not. If they do not justify belief in
the Trinity, then there is little else of real substance to rely upon, and the
issue becomes moot. Incidentally, the word "Trinity" appears nowhere in the Cb.
Besides numerous statements asserting the unity, the indivisibility of God, the
Torah and the Cb also provide additional information in opposition to the
Trinity. First, Gen. 6:3 states God would never become flesh. Jews interpret
the verse as saying, "My spirit shall never more abide in man, since he too is
flesh." But, if Jesus was God and man simultaneously, then divinity would have
rested in a man, i.e., flesh. Second, 2 Chron. 6:18 and 1 Kings
8:27 state God (i.e. Jesus) would never dwell on earth. Third, although called
God by others, Jesus never directly said he was God. According to one Christian
denomination called a cult, Satan, too, was called God (2 Cor. 4:4). Fourth, if
the Holy Ghost was a person, as Trinitarians allege, then how could he have
filled 120 people simultaneously (acts 2)? Fifth, how could the Son, who is God
eternal, be equal in age to the Father who is God Eternal?
By definition, a son must be younger than the father; in which case they can't
be equal. Sixth, how could Jesus be God, i.e. eternal, when several verses show
he was created at a particular point in time: Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-23 RSV,
Col. 1:15 RSV. And lastly, if Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God, if the Trinity
is valid, then Jesus' relationship to Mary is utterly paradoxical:
•(1) If he was born of Mary, she was his mother; •(2) She "being with child by
the Holy Ghost," and Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one, she was his wife;
•(3) God, being the Father of all mankind, and God and Christ being one, she
was his daughter; •(4) She, being the daughter of God, and Jesus being the Son
of God, she was his sister.
Ingersoll probably summarized the Trinitarian enigma as well as anyone when he
said,
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father
being the first and the Holy Ghost third. Each of these persons is God. Christ
is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son,
but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was
begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father,
and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded
from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he
proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the
other two. So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy
Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial
multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and
according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left.
The
addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one
equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be
more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity." (Ingersoll's
Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67).
Why, then, in light of the above, do biblicists cling so stubbornly to a belief
that is so irrational as to all but destroy their intellectual credibility? Why
do they insist that Jesus is both fully man in every sense of the word and
fully God in every sense of the word? Why? Because the alternative is even
worse. They are trapped between a wall and a cliff. Unless Jesus is God and man
simultaneously, all of the following problems have no solutions.
To begin with the Torah repeatedly says that only God can be mankind's savior:
"I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11). (Also
Hosea 3:4, Psalm 3:8, and Isa. 43:3). Obviously Jesus must be God if he is to
save mankind, since no mere mortal can fulfill that role. If Jesus is not God
and man simultaneously, then he is no more divine than Mohammed or any other
religious figure. His death could not be the stepping stone to
salvation for everyone.
But even more importantly, the Trinity provides the only escape available for
the tremendously large number of contradicting statements made by Jesus himself
with respect to his nature and capabilities. The trinity is Christianity's
"Great Backdoor". On several occasions Jesus equated himself with God, although
he never directly said he was God:
•(a) "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30); •(b) "...he that hath seen me
hath seen the Father" (John 17:22); •(c) "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1). (See also: John 10:38,
14:9-11, 17:11, 21-23, Col. 2:9)
Yet, a far larger number of statements clearly shows Jesus did not equate
himself with God, in which case he couldn't be mankind's savior:
•(a) "Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" Matt.
19:17); •(b) "for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28);•(c) "My doctrine
is not mine, but his that sent me" (John 7:16); •(d) "My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46); •(e) "Who has gone into heaven, and is on the
right hand of God" (1 Peter 3:22); (See also: Mark 13:32, 1 cor. 11:3, John
5:19, 20:17, Matt. 26:39 and many others).
Cb supporters use the escape mechanism rather freely by alleging the former
comments were made by Jesus-the-God; while the latter were made by
Jesus-the-man. So, depending on the dictates of expediency, the inconsistent
comments by Jesus can be reconciled.Without the Trinity, Jesus would appear to
be a hopelessly confused young man, more sick than savior. The Trinity also
provides the only means of escape from such imbroglios as Ingersoll's earlier
comment on celestial arithmetic and Mary's confusing relationship to Jesus.
But even if the Trinity existed, and even if it provided a satisfactory
resolution to a myriad of dilemmas, there are several problems that lie beyond
even its purview. First, the question would remain of who or what died on the
cross. Was it Jesus-the-man or Jesus-the-God? If Jesus-the-man died, then no
one was saved, since the death of a man could not rescue anyone. If, on the
other hand, Jesus-the-God died, then we have an impossibility. God can't
die. He is eternal, as many verses show. So the question remains: Who died on
the cross? Who or What made the sacrifice? As One Christian group correctly
stated, "If Jesus were God, then during Jesus' death God was dead in the
grave." But it had to be God or Jesus God that died, since only God can save
mankind. Second, "Orthodoxy has always held that Jesus Christ was fully God and
perfect man, and that these two natures were united in one person...."
(Answering Christianity's Most Puzzling Questions, Vol. 2, p. 14 by Richard
Sisson). But how could Jesus-the-man be sinless, since all men have sinned and
come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)? If Jesus is sinless, as many verses
show (1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:3, 5, 7, 2 Cor. 5:12, Heb. 4:15, 7:26), then he
wasn't human, for all have sinned; he was only God. And if he was only God, how
could he say, "My Father is greater than I"? On the other
hand, if these "sinless" verses only refer to Jesus-the-God, while
Jesus-the-man did sin, then he needs salvation as much as anyone. Who died on
the Cross to save him? And lastly, having an innocent individual suffer
punishment on a cross in order to atone for acts of mankind makes no more sense
than having all mankind suffer for the acts of one man--Adam. To use a simple
example: If I robbed a bank and my father volunteered to serve my sentence,
justice would not exist, even though he agreed. Punishing the innocent for the
deeds of the guilty or accepting punishment of the innocent as atonement for
the guilty's behavior, has nothing to do with justice, regardless of who
agrees. It isn't even revenge, since the guilty are unscathed. It's wanting
blood merely for the sake of blood. It's as if someone took my wife's life
during the night and I immediately went out and shot the first passer-by.
"The absurdity of the doctrine known as 'The Fall of Man,' gave birth to that
other absurdity known as 'The Atonement.' So that now it is insisted that, as
we are rightfully charged with sin of someone else, we can rightfully be
credited with the virtues of another." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, p. 370)
Rabbi Anthony Sorenson"
W_a_y_n_e
JoeWallack wrote in message
<19990609091150...@ng-fm1.aol.com>...
Yes, the mysteries of God, why He chooses to delay His justice sometimes
while in other cases
striking the transgressor immediately....such a mystery!
>"Subject: Re: TRINITY
>Date: 7/19/98 8:44 PM Central Daylight Time
>From: A23434
>Message-id: <199807200144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>The Trinitarian belief that God is Unity, subsisting in three persons: The
>Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--all three are one God, equal in power
and
>glory--represents one of the most incredible, albeit crucial conceptions in
all
>of Christendom. Many observers throughout history have stressed the
irrational
>involved.
>
Actually, you have already screwed up by showing that you dont understand
the concept.
>Apologetic beliefs that violate the rules on logic and common sense are
often
>described as mysteries, unfathonable by the human mind.
Since no man understands the depths of God, it is arrogance to suggest
otherwise.
You might take heed of this advice.
Faith, which H.L.
>Mencken defined as ( snip irrelevant comments plagerized from a dimestore
book)
Obvious good ol' H.L. Mencken doesnt understand the biblical definition of
Faith.
>NO doubt many apologists agreed with Ingersoll
yes, and they are also checked into hell for a rather extended stay
eternity )...
http://sxws.com/VHELL/
:=)
Since you enjoy topic hoping in hopes of bogging down any serious discussion
of a single
topic for any length of time, I will not take bait.
We will stay on the topic of Mark vs. Matthew until it is settled, then we
will go on to your
next so-called objection.
Wayne
Mordecai
I am really curious. Trinity is such a controversial issue. Are you after a
controversy? Are you after straightening them out? The reason I ask is that I got
curious one day and went to a friends house and read their commentary - and the
commentary used started with the assumption that the word "G_d" was not defined.
It reminded me of another argument used when "riches" was the vogue - remember the
song about requiring a BMW? a satire on the movement. Someone explained it to me.
They used the word "love" a lot - I think there were about five or more different
meanings of the word love tied up in it. Talk about straight and crooked thinking
...
If you really want to resolve it - or indeed if you merely want to ridicule the
indefensible, get them to define their words - starting from the word "G_d" and
begin from there.
By the way - keep it up. I want to apply the mathematics of models to this
argument, and the mathematics of "proof by negation" to it. But then I make no
bones about it - I am a nasty bastard. I want people to think!
Mordecai!
W_a_y_n_e
Mordecai wrote in message <375FA388...@strange.land>...
>Shalom Joe,
>
>If you really want to resolve it - or indeed if you merely want to ridicule
the
>indefensible, get them to define their words - starting from the word "G_d"
and
>begin from there.
>
>By the way - keep it up. I want to apply the mathematics of models to this
>argument, and the mathematics of "proof by negation" to it. But then I
make no
>bones about it - I am a nasty bastard. I want people to think!
>
>Mordecai!
>
#1. You sound like the Unibomber.
#2. God cannot be derived from your mathematical reasoning , especially
since you have a warped
premise.
#3. At least you know what kind of a person you are....and now we know, so
why would we want to
by into your Unibomber thesis on God?
Wayne
>
Bela Lantos
>
> Shalom Joe,
>
> I am really curious. Trinity is such a controversial issue. Are you after a
> controversy? Are you after straightening them out? The reason I ask is that I got
> curious one day and went to a friends house and read their commentary - and the
> commentary used started with the assumption that the word "G_d" was not defined.
>
> It reminded me of another argument used when "riches" was the vogue - remember the
> song about requiring a BMW? a satire on the movement. Someone explained it to me.
> They used the word "love" a lot - I think there were about five or more different
> meanings of the word love tied up in it. Talk about straight and crooked thinking
> ...
>
> If you really want to resolve it - or indeed if you merely want to ridicule the
> indefensible, get them to define their words - starting from the word "G_d" and
> begin from there.
>
> By the way - keep it up. I want to apply the mathematics of models to this
> argument, and the mathematics of "proof by negation" to it. But then I make no
> bones about it - I am a nasty bastard. I want people to think!
>
> Mordecai!
>
Let me give you an illustration.
The term "Trinity" was invented to describe what cannot be described.
In the gospels Jesus often indicated that he was YHWH. The Jews wanted
to stone him for that, and eventually he was killed because of this
particular claim. At the same time he also saw himself as the servant of
God. Two different attributes. Let me propose that in reality he was
YHWH, but in his role during his earthly life he was the perfect servant
of God.
Isa. 49 onwards describes Israel as God's servant (others say it is
about Isaiah himself, and I believe this is the more ancient explanation
(Acts 8:34). But Israel never truly became the light to the nations.
Since this was te will of God, this would have been RIGHTEOUSNESS. And
you understand why she didn't. You said earlier, you could relate to
Jonah not wanting to go to the Gentiles. Israel also never truly became
the suffering servant of Isa. 53 either, for during the Babylonian
captivity they suffered because of their idolatry, and after 70 AD
another captivity came. I know your sages tell you that it happened
because of hatred, but if it is so then God is limited. Rome conquered
God then, for God was unable to defend His nation and His land. I
believe the better interpretation is that of Deut. 28 which says that
captivity comes as a curse because of disobedience, and it is God
Himself who brings this desolation on His nation. In the light of this,
through the course of history Israel has not been the INNOCENT servant
of Isa. 53 who suffered because of the sins of the nations (I believe
nothing justifies so-salled Christian involvement in the persecution of
God's nation - I am fully against this shameful, wicked act).
When Jesus came to John the Baptist to be baptised (into the baptism of
repentance) John told him: You don't have to do it (he didn't have to
repent). But Jesus said: Let it be done so to FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.
With the baptism Jesus identified himself with Israel.
Israel was brought out of Egypt, so was Jesus as a babe. Israel was
tested in the wilderness for 40 years, so was Jesus for 40 days. Israel
passed through the Jordan before netering the land and conquering it,
Jesus was baptised in the Jordan before entering into ministry and
fulfilling it. This was he could become the Servant of Isa. 49, who is
the Light to the Gentiles, and the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53.
In order to fulfill his mission, the redemption of mankind he had to
become the servant of Isaiah. Th perfect servant of God. But at the same
time he indicated who he was in reality: YHWH (John 8:21-59).
As a servant he prayed to God; and as a son he prayed to the Father.
Israel was also called God's son. Because of the above-mentioned reason
Jesus also called himself the Son of God. Because he also claimed to be
the Messiah he called himself the son of man (cf. Dan. 7:13-14) to whom
the Kingdom was to be (and was) delivered (Matt. 28:18).
Jesus also made reference to the Spirit of God whom he would send to
convict the world of sin and judgment. He refers to the Spirit as "it"
and "he" (Paul also does the same in 2Thess. 2:6-7). In Acts 5 Ananias
and Sapphira are accused they lied to the Holy Spirit, and a bit later
on it is said they lied to God.
In the same time both the NT and the Tenakh teaches that God is one,
there is only one God, and there is none beside Him.
How can you reconcile these ideas once you accept that both the Teakh
and the NT are the inspired Word of God? They describe something that
cannot be described. In the face of spreading heresy Christians with
their thinking limited to the imigery of this world tried to come up
with a term that described some acceptable way the data found about who
God is in both the Tenakh and the NT. And noone has come up with a
better term since.
Bela
Shmuel Playfair
[Bela to Mordecai]
>In the gospels Jesus often indicated that he was YHWH. The Jews wanted
>to stone him for that, and eventually he was killed because of this
>particular claim. At the same time he also saw himself as the servant of
>God. Two different attributes. Let me propose that in reality he was
>YHWH, but in his role during his earthly life he was the perfect servant
>of God.
[Shmuel] So your man-god was self-serving, right?
How can anyone find anything intelligible with the idea that the god, "Jesus",
was his own servant?
W_a-y_n-e
Shmuel Playfair wrote in message
<19990613071433...@ngol03.aol.com>...
Are you implying that God does not act in ways that are in His own
self-interest?
I always thought that God does all things for His own glory...I guess we
could get into
the question of why God created man in the first place, ect...
Wayne
Shmuel Playfair
>>[Bela to Mordecai]
>>>In the gospels Jesus often indicated that he was YHWH. The Jews wanted
>>>to stone him for that, and eventually he was killed because of this
>>>particular claim. At the same time he also saw himself as the servant of
>>>God. Two different attributes. Let me propose that in reality he was
>>>YHWH, but in his role during his earthly life he was the perfect servant
>>>of God.
>>[Shmuel] So your man-god was self-serving, right?
>>
>>How can anyone find anything intelligible with the idea that the god,
>>"Jesus", was his own servant?
[Wayne asks]
>Are you implying that God does not act in ways that are in His own
>self-interest? I always thought that God does all things for His own glory...
>I guess we could get into the question of why God created man
>in the first place, ect...
[Shmuel] No, I am implying that one who serves or worships only himself
does not serve or worship anyone else and cannot be considered a "servant"
at all. And if this "god" serves or worships another who is greater than he,
he cannot be considered as great as the one he worships or serves.
W_a-y_n-e
Shmuel Playfair wrote in message
He can if His way of serving Himself is to become a servant to Himself, for
His own purposes.
This is just another way of saying that God serves His own interests.
Wayne
Shmuel Playfair
>>[Shmuel] No, I am implying that one who serves or worships only himself
>>does not serve or worship anyone else and cannot be considered a "servant"
>>at all. And if this "god" serves or worships another who is greater than
>>he, he cannot be considered as great as the one he worships or serves.
[Wayne]
>He can if His way of serving Himself is to become a servant to Himself,
>for His own purposes.
>This is just another way of saying that God serves His own interests.
[Shmuel] ?? By definition a "servant" is one who serves another, not himself.
One who is serving himself is not considered to be anyone's"servant".
W_a-y_n-e
Shmuel Playfair wrote in message
Mere semantics. One who serves his own interests is in fact a servant to
himself.
Wayne
Shmuel Playfair
>>[Shmuel] ?? By definition a "servant" is one who serves another,
>>not himself. One who is serving himself is not considered to be
>>anyone's "servant".
[Wayne]
>Mere semantics. One who serves his own interests is in fact a servant to
>himself.
[Shmuel] Oh, that's tricky! I bet those dumb Jews who heard him praying
to God thought he was praying to another, not himself. But, if only those
who believe in the multiple partnership in the divine "pantheon" had been
there, they could have informed these ignorant Jews that they were
dealing with the "mystery" of the Trinity. Everyone should believe
this "god" was actually praying to himself not because this idea has
any rational or intelligible meaning but because it is absurd. No one
needs to be concerned with the ordinary meaning of words when
it comes to this mystery of the faith. It's "mere semantics".
W-a-y_n-e
Shmuel Playfair wrote in message
Especially since His ways are Higher than your ways, and His thoughts are
Higher than your thoughts.
If for His own reasons this is what He chose to do, who are you to question
Him?
Especially when even in Tenach He can see examples of God carrying on a
conversation with Himself,
as all beings with a consciousness are able to do.
Shmuel Playfair
>>[Wayne]
>>>Mere semantics. One who serves his own interests is in fact a servant to
>>>himself.
>>[Shmuel] Oh, that's tricky! I bet those dumb Jews who heard him praying
>>to God thought he was praying to another, not himself. But, if only those
>>who believe in the multiple partnership in the divine "pantheon" had been
>>there, they could have informed these ignorant Jews that they were
>>dealing with the "mystery" of the Trinity. Everyone should believe
>>this "god" was actually praying to himself not because this idea has
>>any rational or intelligible meaning but because it is absurd. No one
>>needs to be concerned with the ordinary meaning of words when
>>it comes to this mystery of the faith. It's "mere semantics".
[Wayne]
>Especially since His ways are Higher than your ways, and His thoughts
>are Higher than your thoughts.
>If for His own reasons this is what He chose to do, who are you
>to question Him?
[Shmuel] I question Wayne's nonsense ways and thoughts. I do
not question God's higher ways and thoughts!
Also, I am *not* questioning what the writers of the TaNaH and
the Renewed Covenant scriptures tell us God chose to do; rather,
I am disputing *your* false assumption or mistaken interpretation
of "what He chose to do". For example, in YoHanan we read:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His specially beloved son
....". [3.16] IOW He chose to give us His specially beloved first-born
"son". Who are you to change this to mean, "He gave Himself"?
Also, Paul taught that, "God was *in* the Messiah...". [2 Cor. 5.19]
Who are you to change this to mean that "God was Christ [Who
prayed to Himself]".
___
[Wayne]
>Especially when even in Tenach He can see examples of God carrying on a
>conversation with Himself, as all beings with a consciousness are able to do.
[Shmuel] While we find examples of God expressing his thoughts out loud
in the TaNaH, the Creator is *never* portrayed as a dependent creature
praying to Himself.