perechorisis (innerpenetration between the persons.
A popular argument from trinity folk on thier so called doctrine of "perechorisis" goes something like this:
Joh 14:11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves
"Here the Son is stating that He is in the Father. How is this possible if the Son is the flesh?
first the son is not just flesh.
The Disciples were in the father and son(John 17:21) As Spirit, God was able to put any human there. they were in the son because he was God manifest in flesh, he was also in heaven but standing before them as Spirit as the spirit of God put his flesh there(John 3:13) I believe the actual right of mankind to have the spirit was yet future(John 7:38-39) as the spirit had not yet been purchased through his slain flesh(1st. Cor.15:21)
I would make a plea to trinitarians to Stop using that argument .
God is spirit we can be in him and he in us, the only difference is the Spirit was given to Jesus without measure. (John 3:34) we have a measure(Eph.4:7)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Echad: multiple persons??
First, it should be noted when Hebrew numbers are learned Echad and not yachid
is the word learned for the number one just like uno would be the Spanish word
for one. One of course, would be the English word for the number one.
Shenayim is the word for two and shalosh is three, arba is four. Any Hebrew book
of Contemporary Hebrew writings or biblical writings would demonstrate that
Echad is the common word used for the numerical one and not yachid. Of course
there is no big deal made about the number three or to change it to something
else like the attempt to do with the number one, Go figure…
When one looks in the Tanakh(Hebrew name for the Old Testament) it is at the
frequency and usage of the two words - echad and yachid - it is very quickly and
easily seen that echad, not yachid, is in fact the standard Hebrew word for a
simple "one." the very first word a Jewish child uses in in learning to Count.
Echad is used over 900 times about 965 or there about in the Hebrew Bible,
only 65 of those times refers more specifically to compound unity, while the
other 900 deal with a single, numerical one making it the most frequently used
adjective in the Old Testament.
I submit some examples from the internet of its usage where the word "one" is
translated from echad: " "one man" (Gen. 42:13); "one law" (Ex. 12:49); one
place" (Gen. 1:9); "one side" (Ex. 25:12); "one ewe lamb" (Lev. 14:10); "one of
his brethren" (Lev. 25:48); "one rod" (Num. 17:3); "one soul" (Num. 31:28); "one
of these cities" (Deut. 4:42); "one way" (Deut. 28:7); "one ephah" (I Sam.
1:24); "one went out into the field" (II Kings 4:39); "one shepherd" (Ezek.
37:24); "one basket" (Jer. 24:2); "one [thing]" (Ps. 27:4); "Two are better than
one" (Ecc. 4:9); "one day or for two" (Ezra 10:13).
Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad+'asar, one plus
ten), in, for example, Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is well translated by an
indefinite article ("a[n]"): "a new cart" (I Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (I
Kings 19:4, 5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).
Perhaps most importantly, echad clearly has the meaning of "single," "only one,"
or "just one," the idea of a limit of one (Num. 10:4; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11;
Isa. 51:2). In Deuteronomy 17:6, for example, it really isn't precise English to
translate echad merely as "one." For if the "one" witness referred to is the
second or the third witness, then that one witness is enough to convict the
hypothetical person of murder. The meaning is that a person must not be put to
death on the evidence of only one witness (which is the way the NRSV translates
it). Echad means "one" and only one.
is the word learned for the number one just like uno would be the Spanish word
for one. One of course, would be the English word for the number one.
Shenayim is the word for two and shalosh is three, arba is four. Any Hebrew book
of Contemporary Hebrew writings or biblical writings would demonstrate that
Echad is the common word used for the numerical one and not yachid. Of course
there is no big deal made about the number three or to change it to something
else like the attempt to do with the number one, Go figure…
When one looks in the Tanakh(Hebrew name for the Old Testament) it is at the
frequency and usage of the two words - echad and yachid - it is very quickly and
easily seen that echad, not yachid, is in fact the standard Hebrew word for a
simple "one." the very first word a Jewish child uses in in learning to Count.
Echad is used over 900 times about 965 or there about in the Hebrew Bible,
only 65 of those times refers more specifically to compound unity, while the
other 900 deal with a single, numerical one making it the most frequently used
adjective in the Old Testament.
I submit some examples from the internet of its usage where the word "one" is
translated from echad: " "one man" (Gen. 42:13); "one law" (Ex. 12:49); one
place" (Gen. 1:9); "one side" (Ex. 25:12); "one ewe lamb" (Lev. 14:10); "one of
his brethren" (Lev. 25:48); "one rod" (Num. 17:3); "one soul" (Num. 31:28); "one
of these cities" (Deut. 4:42); "one way" (Deut. 28:7); "one ephah" (I Sam.
1:24); "one went out into the field" (II Kings 4:39); "one shepherd" (Ezek.
37:24); "one basket" (Jer. 24:2); "one [thing]" (Ps. 27:4); "Two are better than
one" (Ecc. 4:9); "one day or for two" (Ezra 10:13).
Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad+'asar, one plus
ten), in, for example, Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is well translated by an
indefinite article ("a[n]"): "a new cart" (I Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (I
Kings 19:4, 5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).
Perhaps most importantly, echad clearly has the meaning of "single," "only one,"
or "just one," the idea of a limit of one (Num. 10:4; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11;
Isa. 51:2). In Deuteronomy 17:6, for example, it really isn't precise English to
translate echad merely as "one." For if the "one" witness referred to is the
second or the third witness, then that one witness is enough to convict the
hypothetical person of murder. The meaning is that a person must not be put to
death on the evidence of only one witness (which is the way the NRSV translates
it). Echad means "one" and only one.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
He who sits on the throne and the Lamb>James White
On a recent Dividing line, a radio outreach program and extension of Alpha and Omega Ministries and it's Apologetic speaker and Debater James White; he mentions his dealings with Jehovah's witnesses and his using the passage found in (Rev. 5:6-7) against the witnesses....
James makes a big deal out of the passage because it talks about the Lamb taking the book from the one who sits on the throne (In his mind; equals two persons of God.) Not taking into account that this actual symbolism and metaphoric View of our sacrifice being worthy and that sacrifice is actually his sinless humanity(1st. Cor.15:21) in the incarnation, the proof of that found in verse six having seven Horns(Power Math. 28:18) and seven Eyes being the seven spirits of God.
( seven Spirits: Isa. 11:2, Eyes : 2nd. Chr. 16:9 ) Baring the fact that this power and spirit was given to the son's humanity as the son had a beginning.( John 3:34, 1st. Cor. 15:45-46)
Of course, there are many other metaphors and symbolism's found in the book but in this particular passage he tries to capitalize on what he thinks he sees as two persons.
Certainly as God Jesus would be sitting on the One throne but since it was his humanity that was slain not his deity because as God he cannot be slain, then it was he, as a real sinless man that was worthy to open the book and to sit on the one the throne as God.(Rev. 22:3-4) in judgment (Math.25:31)the symbolism is both of the humanity and the deity of the One person Jesus.
James makes a big deal out of the passage because it talks about the Lamb taking the book from the one who sits on the throne (In his mind; equals two persons of God.) Not taking into account that this actual symbolism and metaphoric View of our sacrifice being worthy and that sacrifice is actually his sinless humanity(1st. Cor.15:21) in the incarnation, the proof of that found in verse six having seven Horns(Power Math. 28:18) and seven Eyes being the seven spirits of God.
( seven Spirits: Isa. 11:2, Eyes : 2nd. Chr. 16:9 ) Baring the fact that this power and spirit was given to the son's humanity as the son had a beginning.( John 3:34, 1st. Cor. 15:45-46)
Of course, there are many other metaphors and symbolism's found in the book but in this particular passage he tries to capitalize on what he thinks he sees as two persons.
Certainly as God Jesus would be sitting on the One throne but since it was his humanity that was slain not his deity because as God he cannot be slain, then it was he, as a real sinless man that was worthy to open the book and to sit on the one the throne as God.(Rev. 22:3-4) in judgment (Math.25:31)the symbolism is both of the humanity and the deity of the One person Jesus.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Here is what a trinitarian wrote on the carm Board which is nonsense because we are not talking about a father and son relationship between homo sapiens:
Someone Named Cassius: "No, this has nothing to do with 'traits' (whatever you mean by that). The parallel has to do with ontology. Human fathers and sons do not have different ontologies - at all. Both are ontologically homo sapiens. In the same sense, the Son of God and God the Father are both ontologically 'God'. Whatever distinction arises between the Father and the Son comes from exactly that - the fact that one is Father and one is Son, and thus they cannot be identical as it relates to Person".
mlculwell: The person above is assuming the: "son of God" means pre-existent God person with the father. God to them would be/ is the father and the son and would be that God thereby being his own daddy.
Someone Named Cassius: "No, this has nothing to do with 'traits' (whatever you mean by that). The parallel has to do with ontology. Human fathers and sons do not have different ontologies - at all. Both are ontologically homo sapiens. In the same sense, the Son of God and God the Father are both ontologically 'God'. Whatever distinction arises between the Father and the Son comes from exactly that - the fact that one is Father and one is Son, and thus they cannot be identical as it relates to Person".
mlculwell: The person above is assuming the: "son of God" means pre-existent God person with the father. God to them would be/ is the father and the son and would be that God thereby being his own daddy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)