Yorick?

[Fljotsdale]

Here you are, John D!
Stuff on time/eternity later...

Spiritual, physical, mental: could you detail exactly what you mean by these terms and define what you perceive as (a) the difference between them and (b) how each is separate from the other?
Without these definitions it is difficult to fully comprehend or respond to your point.

Fair enough. I can give you some examples. Steven Hawkins (SP?) the noted quantum physist (sp?). While his physical body would be said to be lacking, due to handicaps. His mind is one of the greatest that ever exsited

The spirit thats the hard one, it's intangible sometimes translated as the will, spirit.(IMHO) It is what drives us, makes who we are.
Hebrews 4:12 " For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword, and piercinng as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and the intentions of the heart.
spirit
physical
mental
Side note: I like the quoting of posts it allows me to see how everybody does those fancy colors. Thanks John D.

Um. That doesn’t really help.
I will now seem to be arguing on your side, but I am going to have a go at this myself. All speculative:
‘Physical’ alone is ‘inanimate’ – like rock.
Add ‘life’ and the physical becomes alive – like plants, microbes, viruses, insects, etc.
Add ‘mind’ and you have intelligence - animal and human, though in differing degrees.

The three together make one living, intelligent creature. (Your 3-in-one trinity symbol)
‘Physical’ alone doesn’t make a man.
‘Physical’ and ‘life’ don’t make a man.
‘Physical’, ‘life’ and ‘mind’ make a man (or animal).
Remove physical, and you lose life and mind.
Remove life and you remove physical and mind.
Remove mind and you have a vegetable.

‘Spirit’ adds nothing to physical or mind – unless you equate ‘spirit’ with ‘life’. In which case ‘spirit’ is the animating force of life within the cells of the physical body and mind, sustained by oxygen, that has no existence outside the body and mind it animates.

The thing that you can remove and still retain a living thing is ‘mind’.
‘Mind’, then, can be seen as the thing that equates to the USUAL understanding of the word ‘spirit’ –
But wait! We have left something out here! We are ignoring ‘Emotion’ which is the driving force of all higher animals. Emotion is a product of body and mind working together. Without mind, body has no emotion. Without body, mind has no emotion. So maybe ‘emotion’ is the spirit…

Can you see what I am driving at? A living creature is one indissoluble item. Trying to divide it into its separate parts destroys it.

OK. I’ve scored an ‘own goal’!

Or have I?

Trying to divide one god into three destroys the god just as thoroughly as dividing a living creature will destroy it. Ponder that point.

The bible says quite clearly and quite often that ‘YHWH your God is ONE YHWH’.
Don’t you think he would have mentioned it, otherwise?
He, and the bible made an issue of his ONENESS.
Look at this scripture:
‘God proceeded to create man in his image, in God’s image he created him; MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM’ (Genesis 1:27). I think few people would say that this scripture was saying that god was 2 people, a man and woman. But that is what the scripture APPEARS to indicate, and there is nothing at all to indicate that that is NOT what it was saying. In the same way, many of the scriptures that you are using to ‘prove’ the trinity doctrine are equally ambiguous – they neither prove nor disprove. Most of the scriptures that I have used to show the singularity of god do just that – they prove that he is just ONE person not a triad.

Let me now call in my army: external ‘authorities’!

TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
“Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible (OT) does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia of Religion)
“The OT… tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit… There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a (trinity) within the Godhead… Even to see in it (the OT) suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.” (‘The Triune God’ by Jesuit Edmund Fortman)
“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia)

NEW TESTAMENT TRINITY
“”Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.” (Fortman. See ref. above)
“Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the NT.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica)
“To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the Trinity was apparantly unknown… they say nothing about it.” (‘Origin and Evolution of Religion’ E Washburn Hopkins, professor of Yale University)
“Jesus never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the NT does the word Trinity appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.” (‘The Paganism in Our Christianity’ Arthur Weignall, historian)

Those 6 will do for now. I have lots more!

Since Jesus, the angels and the universe had already been created by the time God got to the creation of man, he could have been talking to ANY of the spirit creation. However, since Jesus in his pre-human existence was the one through whom god created all other things it stands to reason he was talking to Jesus.
As for man being ‘in god’s image’ as the bible says - are you saying that god has a physical form? I was under the impression from the scriptures that ‘God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship in spirit and truth’ (John 4:24)

Yes that is what I am saying in a sense. If I remeber correctly doesn't "Emanuel" translate into "God is with us". Jesus was called "Emanuel" (sorry I can't recall the verse right now but I will try to get it to you. Maybe one of the others may know it off the top of their heads)
Hebrews 4&5 are writen about how Christ was phsyical (paraphased by me)

Let me give you, in brief, the JW’s explanation of this: Immanuel – with us is god. First mentioned by Isaiah (ch 7:14, 8:8). Only other ref is at Matthew 1:23 where the name/title is applied to Jesus. As the rightful heir to the throne of David his forefather via Mary, Jesus was indeed, as the foremost representative of God, rightly to be called ‘god is with us’. There is a LOT of stuff in explanation (and it makes sense, I think), but that is what it boils down to.

I am not sure I go along with this explanation, but I don’t have a better one.

Yes, god’s ways ‘are higher than our ways’ (Isaiah 55:8) but if you look at the context you will see he was talking about moral superiority (Isaiah 55: 6-9) not about his complexity of being, be it solo, duo or trio.
Since His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways not our ways. I am not sure it is limited to only moral superiority.

Didn’t say it was! Just that THIS scripture was talking about morals, nothing else, though it is frequently used out of context, and probably quite legitimately.

Eternity? Eternity can only be seen in relation to time. Remove time (which pretty well equates to motion in some form or another) and you have eternity. Before anything (other than the creator) existed there could be neither time nor motion…
I wrote tons on this topic but it is all speculative so I cut most of it out!
Regards
We agree on this point, hey Yorick I got another to back me on "our first debate" Ney, ney, ney, ney, ney, (now's the time to use that "Raiper of Twian"
Fljostdale I'd be willing to read your thoughts on Eternity E-mail me if you don't want to post, But be warned I'll bet the farm we probably will.

------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Leonidas: I'll get back to you later!

Yes it is getting very cumbersome! I think we are going to have to cut previous responses down to absolute minimum for sense when adding in new material. I will see what I can do with your last post, ok? If I cut my old input in it down to the bone, and your old stuff too, we might be able to manage. Also cut anything we are not directly replying to, ok?
Let's see how it works!

Regards

------------------

[Fljotsdale]

First of 2 posts for Leonidas - but anyone can join in!
Apologies for the length of this

F. “YHVH produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, … I came to be beside him as a master worker, (or architect) “
All things were ‘out of’ God ‘through’ Jesus. A conduit of power is not the power itself, nor the originator of that power. Jesus, both as a man, and after his resurrection, called his Father ‘my God’.
--------------
L. (New) Again, the passage quoted does not refer to any agent, tool, or conduit. Alone is alone, and this apparent contradiction can only be resolved if God the Father and Jesus are one entity, and Jesus was 'put forth' as the Word of God. And wisdom is also an intimate part of God, installed does not equate with created. A car is assembled (or repaired) from pre-exsisting parts... For anything to exist before Creation, it by definition is not created.
F. (new) I’m sorry? I don’t follow your reasoning. I do not see your difficulty. GOD existed before creation. And ONLY God. The pre-human form of Jesus was the FIRST creative act of God. There is no contradiction that I can see. He was ‘the beginning of the creation by God’. WHERE is the contradiction? God did not need any pre-existing parts!
‘Installed’ means ‘put into place’ – and the scripture says ‘from the start’. And anyway, this is Wisdom, not Jesus, and I was just using it as an example. The pre-human Jesus, as ‘the beginning of the creation by God’ and as ‘the first-born of creation’ could NOT be there BEFORE the beginning of creation!
----------------
F. (old) How can Jesus call his Father his God, refuse to grasp equality with God, and yet be considered God himself? It makes no sense.
L. (new) Yes, it makes sense, in this way - Jesus was/is/always will be an integral part of God, as shown by the above quote from Matthew. As shown in the quote from Philippians below, he humbled himself, and refused to hold on to (not grab or snatch) his equality, and made himself as a servant to God, and showed deference to God in humility, and continues to show deference to God in heaven in his role as chief priest and mediator for the believers (Hebrews). Furthermore, it is in accordance with the scriptural facts, as I have only used scripture, in context, to come to this conclusion.
F. (new) I will come back to this scripture because it is vitally important. I aim to make it a separate post, ok?
L. (new) Can be, but should be? I think not, as Jesus was the price of redemption in himself, as only one who is pure as God the Father is pure could provide that price. It is the penalty for all sinful men to die as a result of their sin, and the price that was paid could only be paid by sinless God-as-man, not mortal man that represents God. The contradiction I referred to is your contention that Jesus is 'a god - little g' in John 1, but in Isaiah, it clearly states that there are no 'little g' gods exisisting before, or created after, God the Father. Another difficulty in separating a divine Christ from a divine Father.
F. (new) No! no! no! no! no! Look. What did Adam lose for mankind? PERFECT HUMAN LIFE! God required an EQUIVALENT ransom. The equivalent ransom could ONLY be ANOTHER PERFECT HUMAN LIFE. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life - a perfect man for a perfect man. God did not demand something greater for something lesser. He demanded what was EQUAL to what was lost. A person who put out the eye of another person was to lose an eye in return, not an arm or a leg or a life. God demanded exact justice.
Adam lost the right to perfect human life for mankind. Another perfect human life had to be ransomed for it. The perfect human life of Jesus – perfect MAN, not God-made-man!
But that is a different topic – we are talking about the Trinity. We can come back to it later, if you like, when we run out of Trinity stuff!
L. (old) that Son is the EXACT representation of the being of YHWH.
F. (old) A ‘representation’ is NOT the original. Not even an ‘exact representation’ is the original. A clone of you is an ‘exact representation’ as far as it is possible to be exact (origin, birth, life, etc are different) but the clone is not you.
L. (new) But, the point is, only Jesus is stated to be an exact representation of all people to ever have existed on Earth. To look on him is to see the Father on earth.
F. (new) I already went into this, and I think I answered it adequately.
L. (new) I think that this refers to Genesis, when God walked on the Earth and talked with Adam, that it was Jesus in some form that talked to Adam and anywhere else in the scripture that says someone was face-to-face with God. That incarnation repeatedly accepted worship intended for God, and for anyone to receive such worship without being God would be blasphemous. The response of a faithful, created heavenly being to such a mistake was to refuse it, and to tell the offender to redirect it to God. But in the OT, we do see an entity walking the earth multiple times, receiving worship and not refusing it.
F. (new) You are going to have to give me the scriptures for this! I look up enough on my own account, lol!
L. (new) But who does the worshipping? *All* in heaven and earth and below the earth. Jesus is given the Name above all names. I should think that you, as a former JW, know the only Name that is above all other names... YHWH!
F. (new) I have queried this regarding the name too, but I think Revelation itself answers it in part. We are not, however, told what that name IS. Nonetheless, it is obviously different than the name of his father:
Rev 3:12; ‘…I will write on him the NAME of my GOD, and the NAME of the city of my GOD, the New Jerusalem, that is coming down out of the heaven from my GOD; and my NEW NAME.’
So the faithful believer has THREE names written on him/her - JHWH, New Jerusalem, Jesus’ New Name.
Rev 19:12 ‘And his (Jesus’) eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems; having a NAME written which no one knows except himself.’
----------------
L. (new) This gets back to my earlier post, if God has knees and a tongue, then this passage states that He bows to Jesus!!! God bowing to a lesser? God will never give His glory to another, and so I again contend that Jesus Christ is one with God in a way that mortal man finds difficult to accept, and cannot truly understand.
F. (new) I have no recollection of God bowing down to Jesus anywhere in scripture. In the scripture you are citing, it certainly says ‘in the name of JESUS every knee should bend, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those beneath;’ (Philippians 2:9.) But did you go on to read verse 10? ‘and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, FOR THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.’? They were bowing down to Jesus to glorify the father. It is therefore evident that God did not bow down to Jesus. Indeed, how could God bow down to God?
Note this as well: ‘Then the end, when he shall give up the kingdom to the God and Father; when he shall have abrogated All Government and All Authority and Power. … for he has subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that All things are subjected it is manifest that HE is excepted, who HAS SUBJECTED ALL things to him. And when he shall have subdued ALL things to him then the SON himself will be subject to HIM who SUBDUED ALL things to him, that God may be all in ALL'’ (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
F. (old) A Prince is the heir of a King, but not in the same way that Jesus is called an heir. Yes. It would imply that the Father would die, would it not? And since God is eternal Jesus would never inherit the position of his father. Note, though, that an heir is separate from the one he inherits from!
L. (new) Not in the sense that occurred in middle eastern oriental culture - Co-regents took the form of king and prince ruling at the same time.
F. (new) Yes, but in different places.
L. (new) You state that Jesus would never inherit, because his Father would not die. That would mean that the position of heir is empty and false... Just what do you think that he inherits?
F. (new) ‘Tisn’t what I think, Leonidas, it is what the bible says: What Jesus inherits is the Kingdom of David and the Kingdom of the earth, according to the Promise. But this is a different topic. We can go into it later if you wish.
L. (new) The male heads of families could give the portion due to an heir (see the story of the Prodigal Son) before their deaths.
F. (new) Yes. Not quite the same, though, is it?!
L. (new) In this case, it is re-establishment of his former position in heaven upon his return from the realm of the dead, and eventually, at the end of days, as ruler over the recreated and renewed Earth, all of which he gave up willingly. Again, see Hebrews 1:3, he inherited his name, the name above all names. And yes, an Earthly heir is separate, but a heavenly one need not be, and clearly isn't in light of all I have written.
F. (new) I understood he was to be exalted to a higher position than he had before? But I think I answered this somewhere already. ?
F. (old) Hm? JW’s are not misrepresenting anything by saying Jesus was created. The bible said it first, lol! He is ‘the beginning of the creation by God’. Nor have they ever suggested an earthly primogeniture! I should know! I was one for 25 years!
L. (new) But, the whole argument for Christ being a creature is the title 'Firstborn of all Creation'.
F. (new) Erm… I think I must be a bit dim: what is your argument here? Are you saying there is some contradiction between Jesus being the ‘firstborn of creation’ and his being created?
L. (new) This is the scripture that you refer to, right?
F. (old) Revelation 3:14 bears this out. Rev 1:1 says of itself that it is ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ…’

and in Ch. 3:14 Jesus, in heaven, years after his resurrection, says this:
‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God…’
Duay, AV, AS.

So, the Word, theos, Jesus, was a creation – the FIRST creation of God.
L. (new) But, the NIV has it this way... 14 ...These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. The corresponding Greek interlinear has that same passage as: 14 ...These things says the Amen, the witness - faithful and true, the chief of the creation of God.
In context, then, the proper understanding is not one of temporal order or sequence, but of authority, so that chief in the greek is best understood as ruler, in the same way, as I contended above, that the title Firstborn of all Creation is one of position of authority, not temporal order, time sequence, or indicative of primogeniture - rulership by right of position of birth (first created).
F. (new) The word in the text translated ‘chief, ruler, beginning’ (depending on translation), is ‘ARCHE’.

THIS NEXT BIT IS IMPORTANT:

I just looked up ‘ARCHE’ in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Under the heading BEGIN, BEGINNING, BEGINNER it say this, in part (too much to quote it all):
ARCHE means a beginning. The root arch – primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence, the word archo meant ‘to be first’ and archon denoted a ruler. So also rose the idea of a beginning, the origin, the active cause, whether a person or thing.
Under the heading RULER it says:
Archon, a ruler, chief, prince…
Arche, a rule, sovereignty, … (see BEGINNING)
There follow more specific words for rulers
So I think we can see that arche usually denotes ‘beginning’ rather than ‘rule’, though it CAN be used as ‘rulership’, ‘sovereignty’, which do not really fit this context – (it makes a very clumsy sentence). This is born out in the use of the word at other locations, for example: Colossians 1:18 ‘os estin arche – who is a beginning’. Hebrews 2:3 ‘etis archen – which a beginning’. John 1:1 ‘En arche en o Logos…’ – ‘In the beginning was the Word…’

L. (new) Jesus Immanuel is to be treated as an authority equal to God. I believe that this also shows a weakness in the JW interpretation of John (note the little g god in Isaiah 43:10).
F. (new) I only have two versions of the OT: The Good News Bible and the New World Bible. The second reference to god (small g) is about pagan gods as the context shows. Did you not know that the bible also refers to the Devil as God – with a capital G?
Jesus/Immanuel has ALL authority, yes, GIVEN to him by his father. (Daniel 7: 13,14)
F. (old) All authority has been GIVEN to Jesus. GIVEN. By his Father. It was not his originally, it was GIVEN.
L. (new) Given, or given back? He (Jesus) *made himself nothing*, see my quote of Philippians below.
F. (new) Well, it could be. But it does not alter the fact that it was GIVEN in the first place. (See script from Daniel above). And the name above all other names was also ‘kindly given’ (Phil 2:9) to him. It is most probably the name mentioned in Revelation (see above).

(Cut a lot that was repeat of Phil 2 above)

F. (old)The only places you may find the Divine Name in the NT are in quotes from the OT. You will notice throughout the bible that the word LORD in capital letters denotes the places where YHVH (or YHWH) occurred in the text.
L. (new) I would like to have the titles of your references, please, on the removal of God's name, as I am not a formal theology student, and have no information on this...
F. (new)Neither am I! I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t know where to find the info I was referring to. I remember reading it somewhere, but I don’t know where. It was not JW literature, because I have checked that out on the theme ‘Jehovah’s name in the bible’ and can’t find what I was looking for. I KNOW I have read about the removal of the name, though, even the details about all the purification ceremonies they had to go through before writing the name, and having to use special ink and pens (or whatever). I will keep looking. However, I have found SOME info for you, though I do not know what the reference given applies to; maybe you can find out?
Gins. (Mas [Masoretic? Massorah?]), Vol IV, p 28,& 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonai in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonai as if it were written (here follow 4 Hebrew letters) instead of (4 Hebrew letters YHWH). Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.”

L. (new) But blasphemy against the Spirit of God will not be forgiven, and it cannot be blasphemy unless it is God being blasphemed. This doesn't mean that Christ is not God, because blasphemy against him is forgivable, as Jesus was sent to be reviled, persecuted, and sacrificed.
F. (new) The spirit revealed that Jesus was the son of God. I think, but have not checked, since it is off topic, that it was denial of this fact that was blasphemy against the spirit.
L. (new) Furthermore, when you compare it to scripture that states that God dwells in the heart of the believer, Christ dwells in the heart of the believer, and the Spirit also dwells in the heart of the believer, then it seems to me that one has a bit of a problem if they don't accept the concept of the Trinity.
F. (new) Not at all! You can have the love of more than one person in your heart. ‘Heart’ is in any case figurative, not literal. Your literal heart is a blood pump.
L. (new) The doctrine of the Trinity is expressly stated in scripture, it is just stated in context, not verbatim with the title Trinity, just as you will not see the term 'spiritual Jew',
F. (new) P’raps you should read the ‘authorities’ in my post to John D Harris above.
Actually, the scripture says ‘but the Jew is hidden within, … spiritual not literal’ (Romans 3:29), which is virtually the same thing.
L. (new) Again, the only way to resolve the apparent contradictions in scripture about seeing God and dying, and those who were said to have seen God face-to-face is to accept that there is a representation of God that has the authority of God, and is worthy of the worship, glory, and honor of God, and therefore, is God, as God gives His Glory to no other being, nor will He allow others to give worship to any other being guiltlessly.
F. (new) The other thing to do is to acknowledge that the scripture is speaking the truth. John, who wrote John 1:18 knew Jesus personally but felt well able to say ‘no man has seen God at any time.’! I think we can take his word for it!
--------
L. (new) But, I believe, with interpretations that are not warranted in context, and not with the full weight of the entirety of the scripture.
F. (new) I have no worries at all about context of the scriptures I use, since such contexts bear out what I am saying.
Which brings me back to Philippians. See the post below, since this one is long enough (!!) and Philippians 2 is better dealt with separately.
Regards



------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-09-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Leonidas:
Re problems with colour - it is very easy to miss out a /font in such long posts! Don't worry about it too much, just be careful!

Re: Philippians 2

This is what you wrote, in part:
As shown in the quote from Philippians below, he humbled himself, and refused to hold on to (not grab or snatch) his equality, and made himself as a servant to God, and showed deference to God in humility, and continues to show deference to God in heaven in his role as chief priest and mediator for the believers (Hebrews). Furthermore, it is in accordance with the scriptural facts, as I have only used scripture, in context, to come to this conclusion.
Ok. I have mentioned that I only have 2 Greek interlinear texts. But I have some references to other readings of this scripture in a footnote of Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott, so I will quote them after this, in Anglicised Greek and English.
Benjamin Wilson Diaglott
“Touto (gar) phroneistho en umin o kai en Christ Iesou, os en morphe Theou uparchon, ouch arpagmon egesato to einai isa Theos…”
“This (for) be desired by you which also in Anointed Jesus, who in a form of God being not a usurpation meditated the to be like God…”
Westcott & Hort
“Touto phroneite en umin o kai en Christo Iesou, os en morphe Theou uparchon ouch arpagmon egesato to einai isa Theo…”
“This be you minding in you which also in Christ Jesus, who in form of God Existing not snatching he considered the to be equal (things) to God…”
We have some important words here: ouch, arpagmon, isa
Souters Lexicon:
Ouch = not; no, not so
Isos = equal, equivalent, identical: isa, on an equality (Phil 2:6 [if the text be sound])
Vine’s
Arpage= robbery, robbing.
Arpagmos= (a) snatching, robbery, the action of plundering, rapacity, self-aggrandizement (b) a thing to be snatched, plunder, prey, booty, a prize, spoil.
The footnote readings given in The B Wilson Diaglott are as follows:
‘who… did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired..’ Clarke. ‘did not earnestly affect..’ Cyprian. ‘did not think of eagerly retaining..’ Wakefield. ‘did not regard… as an object of solicitous desire..’ Stuart. ‘thought not… a thing to be seized..’ Sharpe. ‘did not eagerly grasp..’ Kneeland. ‘did not violently strive..’ Dickinson. ‘did not meditate a usurpation..’ Turnbull
Notice that only ONE of these implied it was something he already had.
Lets move on a little. While checking this out, I found something in Vine that first made me laugh and feel a little triumphant, and then enraged me to the point that I felt physically sick. I HATE lies and deception. That is not to say I never lie – I am not so strong as that – but I strive for honesty in all my dealings. So when I found this my blood boiled as it sunk in:
HARPAGMOS (arpagmos), akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force, is found in Phil 2:6 “(counted it not) a prize,” RV. (marg., “a thing to be grasped), AV “(thought it not) robbery;”…..
Vine then quotes from The Incarnation by Gifford, pp 28, 36
“In order to express the meaning of the clause quite clearly, a slight alteration is requires in the RV…. The form ‘to be’ … easily lends itself to the erroneous notion that to be on equality with god was something to be acquired in the future…. Asuming, as we now may, that the equality was something which Christ possessed prior to his Incarnation, and then resigned….”
Can you see what is going on here? In order to fit in with the pre-conception of a Trinity they are making a ‘slight alteration’ in the text of the scripture!
Notice, too, in the quotes from the AV & RV the added words in brackets (which are not in the Greek text, as you can see above) used to alter the meaning of the text – rather more than Giffords’ ‘slight alteration’ of the form ‘to be’!
How CAN they so corrupt the bible! Hell – it makes me so mad I wonder if I am really an atheist at all. No, I am. I just hate lies, deception, and inaccuracy. Gosh, I feel sick again.
D’you know – I’ve only just realised that all the stomach problems I’ve had in my life were probably repressed anger. Hm. You find out something new about yourself all the time!
Sorry for the rant.
Anyway, now for some quotes from ‘authorities’ that you might like to see:

‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it… From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.’ (Will Durant, historian. Don’t know the book)

‘If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians… was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealised by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.’ (preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity).

‘The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.’ (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity).

‘The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation… it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures… it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonising Fathers.’ (Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries).

‘We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy… The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.’ (Andrews Norton, A Statement of Reasons).

That will do for now. I have LOTS more!

Regards.


------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-09-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-09-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

bump

------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Hey! Where are you? Yorick? John D? Leonidas? Are you lost for words? Not like you to stay quiet!! Or are you scheming something...

------------------

[Reeka]

Fljotsdale: You probably have not heard from Yorrick because he is in Nashville doing some recording. I spoke with him on the phone Saturday morning and he had e-mailed me and said that he was having some computer difficulties with e-mail. He has been very busy and I don't think has really been on line any if at all. He also said that the board was loading very slowly for him. He will be here for about a month.

------------------
Order of the Holy Flame
Member of Clan HADB

[Fljotsdale]

Thank you, Reeka. I thought he had been a bit in short supply lately! If you mail him again, give him my best wishes, ok? He's a really nice guy.


------------------

[Reeka]

Sure thing, Fljotsdale! I will probably be speaking to him again and will deliver the message. Like I said, I don't really know if he is able to be on-line much right now or not.

He'll be back.

------------------
Order of the Holy Flame
Member of Clan HADB

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Hey! Where are you? Yorick? John D? Leonidas? Are you lost for words? Not like you to stay quiet!! Or are you scheming something...

Flojostdale, I've been busy working. For brevities sake I'll not quote your last post (post are getting so long they are getting hard to follow )
I see where you're going with the Phsyical, Mental, and Spiritual examples I would offer these instead:
Phsyical: Rock, Plant, Animal, Man
Mental: Instinc, Emotion, Thought, Intent, Reason, Logic
Spiritual: That which resides in us (humans) that is imortal, again I would say that it is intangeble (sp?). God has set enternity in man heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning to the end. Ecc 3:11. In Jeremiah God tells Jeremiah that He has put enternity in the mind of man but doesn't allow him to grasp it.(Paraphased by me). My dad is going to kill me it's one of his favorite verses and I can't recall the exact verse. I have it underlined in my bible but can't locate it. (I need a spooky smilie.)
I would not call it life, as we think of life ie: plants, animals. That kind of life is purely chemical, and comes about because the right elements combined in the right amounts and order. That is not to say: That God is not responsible for that coming about. Gen 1:1 clearly states that He is.
Hebrews 4:12 clearly states the word of God is able to seperate the three (see earlier post) How it does it I don't have a clue, and I'll leave that to God. Way above my pay scale.
You're right the "term" trinity is not used in the bible. I think the concept comes from Matt. 28:16-20. Matt. 28:19 in particular. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (side note it is interesting that even in the ancient greek there are not any comas between the entities)
It does not say " in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the cherubim and the serubim (sp?)and the avartar and any other spirits that are in heaven". So, there must be a cut off point, and the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit all made the cut.
I see no problem with:"with us is god" although Thayer's Greek English Lexicon says that the word for God used in the verse (I'd spell it out but I don't know how the make the niffty greek font. On my MAC I'd just highlight the word and change the type NO:or/> NONE OF THAT HIDDEN PC CODE stuff). Can be used sometimes as a small "g" or a "G", so I guess the fight is just going to have to be on.

------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"