Purity: Shema is the Backbone of OT AND NT, Agree?

[nothead]

As such the Shema puts to death more than several mainstream ideals:

1) NT believers are as a whole law-abiding. Shema is still as impossible for non-spirit filled believers as any flesh under the sun. It says to DO an awesomely hard thing, to love God with all we have. ALL means 100% not even Vince Lombardi's 110% yet still beyond the reach of all but a handful in the short term, all but Jesus over your whole life.

Even the Circumcised of the Heart still have the HARD things of Jesus to do.

2) God is a Trinity. God is One in number just as the Shema has always said.

3) Jesus is God. This would make God two in number. God is One.

4) Christians do not have to abide by Law technically since Grace abrogated the Curse of the Law.

Go 'head. Try this one out and see what happens. The German Lutherans did during the Holocaust.

5) We are in the Country Club of Jesus. Whoo hoo. Not. What kind of Country Club has members LOVING God with all they have? Too busy shmoozing and drinking marguiritas for one. And two.

Shema surely IS the backbone of all who live the Judeo-Christian faith. Said by Jesus to be the First Command of your faith in Mark 12. Said to be primal in Luke 10 and Mt 22. Said to be the THING by which all prophets and Law hangs. Related to the first command of the ten, to have no other gods before the One True God, YHWH Elohim.

In context of Shema are almost 11,000 SINGULAR personal pronouns attendant to the One True God, who is named YHWH Elohim. The SON of God is never said to be GOD THE SON, and for good reason. He is not God at all. Elohim over the angels and at the subordinate right hand of God. On the throne, next to the seat of the One God. Amen.

Dissenters have your way. Until Purity puts you down and gives you a new foundation to stand upon, SELAH.

Oooh. It occurs to nothead many here would not even know what Shema is...

Well, Jesus said it was your first command. If you love him, you will follow his commands. So then what excuse have you to not know what is Jesus OWN first command?

Deut 6:

[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.
[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]Hear, O Israel: YHWH Elohim, YHWH one:
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]And thou shalt love YHWH Elohim with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
[SIZE=.75em]7 [/SIZE]And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
[SIZE=.75em]8 [/SIZE]And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]Then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]Thou shalt fear the YHWH Elohim, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
[SIZE=.75em]15 [/SIZE](For the YHWH Elohim is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

NO OTHER command is given this emphasis in Bible, not by Jesus or any other author or sage. Again, Mark 12 has Jesus EMPHASIZING this command over all others. Recited minimum of twice daily. To put upon your foreheads as orthodox Jews still do today while in prayer. To TEACH your children which no proto-orthodox denomination of Christianity does today.

Now, in order to preclude the general dissenting theological first level refutes from the git-go:

1) the ECHAD of the Adonai is just the counting number one, no more and no less

2) the Law of laws is STILL The Shema since the Bible never said it was overturned, replaced or abrogated

3) The Circumcision of the Heart fulfills Shema, and gives the believer the YONTOO to do it, which means to engage in, to run Paul's race, to live for Jesus and die to self.

4) Salvation is of the Jews, said to the Samaritan woman and to all newbie Christian Gentiles never taught Mosaic law. This probably means you. So then the argument that goes along the lines of "I am not a Jew" does not apply. Acts 15:

[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

But then:

[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

So then the "Law of Moses" and the "law of Moses" is not therefore the same thing.

The "men of circumcision" were teaching the SUBLAWS of men, the traditions, the add-ons and the ceremonial/sabbath/extenuating '613 laws'....

...whereas the Law of Moses in essence can be readily seen in Deuteronomy as originally the Ten and the Shema which the latter Law became primal by the red letter words of Jesus in Mark 12.

As such the Shema puts to death more than several mainstream ideals:

1) NT believers are as a whole law-abiding. Shema is still as impossible for non-spirit filled believers as any flesh under the sun. It says to DO an awesomely hard thing, to love God with all we have. ALL means 100% not even Vince Lombardi's 110% yet still beyond the reach of all but a handful in the short term, all but Jesus over your whole life.

Even the Circumcised of the Heart still have the HARD things of Jesus to do.

2) God is a Trinity. God is One in number just as the Shema has always said.

3) Jesus is God. This would make God two in number. God is One.

4) Christians do not have to abide by Law technically since Grace abrogated the Curse of the Law.

Go 'head. Try this one out and see what happens. The German Lutherans did during the Holocaust.

5) We are in the Country Club of Jesus. Whoo hoo. Not. What kind of Country Club has members LOVING God with all they have? Too busy shmoozing and drinking marguiritas for one. And two.

Shema surely IS the backbone of all who live the Judeo-Christian faith. Said by Jesus to be the First Command of your faith in Mark 12. Said to be primal in Luke 10 and Mt 22. Said to be the THING by which all prophets and Law hangs. Related to the first command of the ten, to have no other gods before the One True God, YHWH Elohim.

In context of Shema are almost 11,000 SINGULAR personal pronouns attendant to the One True God, who is named YHWH Elohim. The SON of God is never said to be GOD THE SON, and for good reason. He is not God at all. Elohim over the angels and at the subordinate right hand of God. On the throne, next to the seat of the One God. Amen.

Dissenters have your way. Until Purity puts you down and gives you a new foundation to stand upon, SELAH.

Oooh. It occurs to nothead many here would not even know what Shema is...

Well, Jesus said it was your first command. If you love him, you will follow his commands. So then what excuse have you to not know what is Jesus OWN first command?

Deut 6:

[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.
[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]Hear, O Israel: YHWH Elohim, YHWH one:
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]And thou shalt love YHWH Elohim with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
[SIZE=.75em]7 [/SIZE]And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
[SIZE=.75em]8 [/SIZE]And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]Then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]Thou shalt fear the YHWH Elohim, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
[SIZE=.75em]15 [/SIZE](For the YHWH Elohim is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

NO OTHER command is given this emphasis in Bible, not by Jesus or any other author or sage. Again, Mark 12 has Jesus EMPHASIZING this command over all others. Recited minimum of twice daily. To put upon your foreheads as orthodox Jews still do today while in prayer. To TEACH your children which no proto-orthodox denomination of Christianity does today.

Now, in order to preclude the general dissenting theological first level refutes from the git-go:

1) the ECHAD of the Adonai is just the counting number one, no more and no less

2) the Law of laws is STILL The Shema since the Bible never said it was overturned, replaced or abrogated

3) The Circumcision of the Heart fulfills Shema, and gives the believer the YONTOO to do it, which means to engage in, to run Paul's race, to live for Jesus and die to self.

4) Salvation is of the Jews, said to the Samaritan woman and to all newbie Christian Gentiles never taught Mosaic law. This probably means you. So then the argument that goes along the lines of "I am not a Jew" does not apply. Acts 15:

[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

But then:

[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

So then the "Law of Moses" and the "law of Moses" is not therefore the same thing.

The "men of circumcision" were teaching the SUBLAWS of men, the traditions, the add-ons and the ceremonial/sabbath/extenuating '613 laws'....

...whereas the Law of Moses in essence can be readily seen in Deuteronomy as originally the Ten and the Shema which the latter Law became primal by the red letter words of Jesus in Mark 12.

30 views and no one wants to take Purity on? OR nothead?

Notheads are not hard to defeat. Unless they spot on right that is...then it might liken to be a mite harder...


No pro-trin debaters here? If you can't defeat the Shema with your vaunted TRINITY then maybe possibly the paradigm itself is on shaky foundation? Would it be possible?

COULD it be possible? No one smarter than nothead? Purity, well maybe no one right on as him. NOTHEAD now....he a little punch drunk. Go ahead, give it the old college try. You know the theology you learned in seminary?

 

[justaname]

The Law of Moses was given to the Hebrews not the Gentiles. Romans 2:14

We (Christians) are not under the Law we are under grace, or the Royal Law, or the Law of Christ, or the Law of liberty. (Romans 6:14, James 1:25, 2:8, Galatians 6:2)

The Shema speaks nothing against the doctrine of the Trinity.
Shalom

 

[nothead]

The Law of Moses was given to the Hebrews not the Gentiles. Romans 2:14

Well then, genius you won't be needing to read the OT at all if you ain't one. I was a NT only X for decades myself. Then God gave me another lump to go by...

[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Smooth move, saying you ain't UNDER the written law if you by nature DO the law which you know in your blessed heart is true...

...still being UNDER the law which God gave you conscience of, verdad oh dad? True?

We (Christians) are not under the Law we are under grace, or the Royal Law, or the Law of Christ, or the Law of liberty. (Romans 6:14, James 1:25, 2:8, Galatians 6:2)

Rom 6:
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

This grace is the Circumcision of the Heart, given by Spirit to believers who believe and for most who receive the laying on of hands and prayer by themselves just for this Baptism of Spirit and prayer to by the elders who lay on hands thereof...

To do the Law by Grace therefore is not saying you are still not beholden to Law in general. You are naturally inclined to do Law with this Circumcision. What Christians have done is say that they are not BEHOLDEN to Law anymore, when all this verse says is that the GRACE which comes is the YONTOO to do Law by nature.

James 1:25

[SIZE=.75em]25 [/SIZE]But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

This too is the faith handed down from above. As faith seeds more faith, more is given and more is required. My paradigm still holds.

James 2:

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

The remainder of the passage supports me not you, sir.

Gal 6

[SIZE=.75em]2 [/SIZE]Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Yes this is the second command of Mark 12. Treat thy neighbor as thyself. So sayeth Christ too. My paradigm still stands.

Got any others? If you think your paradigm of Theology is better'n mine say why. Good try but not worthy to debate otherwise, so far.

The Shema speaks nothing against the doctrine of the Trinity.

Oh and you could not be more wrong about this.

1) God is numerically one. This means one God-being, one God-Person, one will, one mind and one set of God-characteristics. Your God has three sets of each. Wrong. God is one, once again. I SINGULAR am the ONE NUMERICALLY who brought you out of Egypt. Ye shalt have no OTHER SINGULAR OTHER before me as Equal.

First command of the Ten, sir. You are still beholden to it and BROKE it when you made two others God.

 

[justaname]

Well then, genius you won't be needing to read the OT at all if you ain't one. I was a NT only X for decades myself. Then God gave me another lump to go by...

[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Smooth move, saying you ain't UNDER the written law if you by nature DO the law which you know in your blessed heart is true...

...still being UNDER the law which God gave you conscience of, verdad oh dad? True?






Rom 6:
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

This grace is the Circumcision of the Heart, given by Spirit to believers who believe and for most who receive the laying on of hands and prayer by themselves just for this Baptism of Spirit and prayer to by the elders who lay on hands thereof...

To do the Law by Grace therefore is not saying you are still not beholden to Law in general. You are naturally inclined to do Law with this Circumcision. What Christians have done is say that they are not BEHOLDEN to Law anymore, when all this verse says is that the GRACE which comes is the YONTOO to do Law by nature.

James 1:25

[SIZE=.75em]25 [/SIZE]But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

This too is the faith handed down from above. As faith seeds more faith, more is given and more is required. My paradigm still holds.

James 2:

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

The remainder of the passage supports me not you, sir.

Gal 6

[SIZE=.75em]2 [/SIZE]Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Yes this is the second command of Mark 12. Treat thy neighbor as thyself. So sayeth Christ too. My paradigm still stands.

Got any others? If you think your paradigm of Theology is better'n mine say why. Good try but not worthy to debate otherwise, so far.



Oh and you could not be more wrong about this.

1) God is numerically one. This means one God-being, one God-Person, one will, one mind and one set of God-characteristics. Your God has three sets of each. Wrong. God is one, once again. I SINGULAR am the ONE NUMERICALLY who brought you out of Egypt. Ye shalt have no OTHER SINGULAR OTHER before me as Equal.

First command of the Ten, sir. You are still beholden to it and BROKE it when you made two others God.

God is One, revealed in three persons. Father, Son, HolySpirit.

Let Us make him in Our image...One God speaking of the plurality of Himself.
I and the Father are One... your entire logic breaks down in close examination of the holy scriptures...unless you deny the scriptures...

I worship One God...

Simply because you are confused makes no difference to the true revelation of God.

The Romans passage speaks to the image of God in all created humans...not that the gentiles were ever under the Law...

I do agree the Spirit directs in the Shema, yet not by the letter...

As to your OT comment I disagree...1Timothy 3:16

 

[shturt678]

Mk.12:29-31, "...The Lord, our God, is one Lord..." Source, me off the top: This name is the sum and substance of the Gospel. In YHWH we hav the covenant of grace, and in Elohenu with its possessive "our" we have another expression of grace, the Omnipotent in association with Israel as His own people of course. Now my old notes. "Is one Lord" most decidedly delcares the oneness of God: He is the only one, the absolute, the one absolute Lord God of course. And all Judaism and all Christianity have found this Oneness declared here over against all polytheism or any duality of gods. My point:

Yet this Oneness in no way conflicts with the Trinity of God since it's the Oneness of being and not of Person. The one God has revealed Himself as three Persons.

One cannot help but to agape those old Lutherans, and the Trinity, correct?

Old agaping Jack

 

[Angelina]

Purity: Shema is the Backbone of OT AND NT, Agree?

Shema is an affirmation of the basic tenets of the Judaic Jewish faith, The NT principle of belief is in Jesus and his work on the cross. This is what we believe and what we adhere to as NT born-again believers... :huh:
Shalom!

 

[nothead]

God is One, revealed in three persons. Father, Son, HolySpirit.

This is latter day revelation sir, as cockeyed as any Mormon tenet including the idea you can be an old ---- and still marry that sweet young thing. What about the boys you just took their God-destiny away from? True love is the gal you loved as a youth. She is sweet as honey and gets better with age...but I digress.

Let Us make him in Our image...One God speaking of the plurality of Himself.

Odd you would say this when God emphatically stated his numerical oneness, and then made this THE VERY FIRST TENET OF YOUR FAITH.

I and the Father are One... your entire logic breaks down in close examination of the holy scriptures...unless you deny the scriptures...

Not hardly. The HEN in Greek is a neuter often compound 'one.' The EIS in Greek corresponds as masculine cardinal 'one' to the Echad of the Adonai.

And Jn 17 has Jesus saying this same HEN for believers. So then you deny the meaning of Jesus in the scriptures.

[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[SIZE=.75em]23 [/SIZE]I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

I worship One God...

You worship one God with three heads, just as the earliest paintings depicted your God. Obviously pagan. No wonder Jews were disgusted en whole. I would be. Jesus never said he was God. So how you got one head of God him?

This is the wrong fork in the road. And your fathers took it.

Simply because you are confused makes no difference to the true revelation of God.

What confused me to no end was the lack of any Bridge of Understanding from the One True God of the monotheistic Jews to the Three-in-one God of the new Christians.
When did this occur? Did Jesus himself condone it? By what paradigm can you say this?

1) Father is God
2) Son is God
3) HS is God

Therefore all three are God, but and yet God is one God numerically? Something don't add up, and a child could tell you. OR a nothead. If all three are God, then God is Three just as the beginning of your paradigm says.

....and yet God is still one incomprehensible being, the after-caveat of the Athanasian Creed. Wonder. How can this be? Like I said, don't add up.

The Romans passage speaks to the image of God in all created humans...not that the gentiles were ever under the Law...

This sentence needs to be expounded on. So that I can take it down.

I do agree the Spirit directs in the Shema, yet not by the letter...

Problem: the manifestation of the Baptism in Spirit is a trickled down version of the ideal. In me and in you, from your writings I would guess. Although no one receives this Spirit the same way or intensity of, in my experience NONE are immediately willing to give their lives up in martyrdom. This was true at the beginning, for the 3000 and the 5000. Including all twelve disciples, only John not murdered.

As to your OT comment I disagree...1Timothy 3:16

"He appeared in a body" (NIV)
"He who was manifested in the flesh" (ASV)
"He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB)
"He was manifested in the flesh" (RSV)
"Which was manifested in the flesh" (Douey-Rheims)
"Who was manifested in the flesh" (NAB)"

Your KJV version is almost entirely considered by trins to be wrong.

Mk.12:29-31, "...The Lord, our God, is one Lord..." Source, me off the top: This name is the sum and substance of the Gospel. In YHWH we hav the covenant of grace, and in Elohenu with its possessive "our" we have another expression of grace, the Omnipotent in association with Israel as His own people of course. Now my old notes. "Is one Lord" most decidedly delcares the oneness of God: He is the only one, the absolute, the one absolute Lord God of course. And all Judaism and all Christianity have found this Oneness declared here over against all polytheism or any duality of gods. My point:

Yet this Oneness in no way conflicts with the Trinity of God since it's the Oneness of being and not of Person. The one God has revealed Himself as three Persons.

Your old notes stink. "The Lord" is "YHWH ELOHIM" in the Hebrew text. It is translated "the Lord" since this is how they recited the text, NOT saying the sacred name of God.

YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the actual verse and part of trin-confusion is the idea that there is only One Lord in heaven and so then this text is saying the same thing. One Lord in heaven although all three Persons are up there when they ain't roaming, as my cell phone is wont to do.

And since this name, YHWH Elohim has totally SINGULAR pronouns and verbs attendant, it has always been seen rightly as the singular defintive name of a singular God.
That is, until latter day fathers in the faith mucked it up.

One cannot help but to agape those old Lutherans, and the Trinity, correct?

I don't know any of 'em. But even Deitrich Bonhoeffer didn't know how to fix his own theology. His actions spoke louder than his theology so I will bow to him in heaven, if I ever make it that is...

As far as loving the trinity goes, I have to be careful not to get swiped off this forum like grey poupon. If'n I told you what I really think of it as it were.

Old agaping Jack

Don't love the lie. God never told you to do so.

Shema is an affirmation of the basic tenets of the Judaic Jewish faith, The NT principle of belief is in Jesus and his work on the cross. This is what we believe and what we adhere to as NT born-again believers... :huh:

The Shema is rather modified to include the Son upon our foreheads in Rev 14. It was the backbone of the NECESSITY of gospel and Jesus-propitiation since no man except Jesus ever did it. Since none of us can, we BROKE Law and needed propitiation.

And now it is in right order. We worship the Son who is a glorified man, elohim. This man worships the God of us all just as we do, only difference is because HE fulfilled Shema, HE sits at the subordinate right hand of God.

Jn 20
[SIZE=.75em]17 [/SIZE]Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[shturt678]

Shema is an affirmation of the basic tenets of the Judaic Jewish faith, The NT principle of belief is in Jesus and his work on the cross. This is what we believe and what we adhere to as NT born-again believers... :huh:

Thank you for caring!

Only a head's up. Moses puts the gospel first for his people (Deut.6:4) where the God-man Jesus also puts the gospel first (Mk.12:29). Your Rom.10:17 nailed it!

Old Jack

 

[RANDOR]

WOW!!! that's pretty deep. Jesus and I are kickin back on the couch reading all this. Jesus sayz...."That is some pretty interesting stuff"

Me personally, I couldn't debate my way out of a paper bag

Anyway,I will leave that up to the pros.

Hey Jesus........Pass the chips.......

 

[shturt678]

This is latter day revelation sir, as cockeyed as any Mormon tenet including the idea you can be an old ---- and still marry that sweet young thing. What about the boys you just took their God-destiny away from? True love is the gal you loved as a youth. She is sweet as honey and gets better with age...but I digress.







Odd you would say this when God emphatically stated his numerical oneness, and then made this THE VERY FIRST TENET OF YOUR FAITH.




Not hardly. The HEN in Greek is a neuter often compound 'one.' The EIS in Greek corresponds as masculine cardinal 'one' to the Echad of the Adonai.

And Jn 17 has Jesus saying this same HEN for believers. So then you deny the meaning of Jesus in the scriptures.

[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[SIZE=.75em]23 [/SIZE]I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.



You worship one God with three heads, just as the earliest paintings depicted your God. Obviously pagan. No wonder Jews were disgusted en whole. I would be. Jesus never said he was God. So how you got one head of God him?

This is the wrong fork in the road. And your fathers took it.




What confused me to no end was the lack of any Bridge of Understanding from the One True God of the monotheistic Jews to the Three-in-one God of the new Christians.
When did this occur? Did Jesus himself condone it? By what paradigm can you say this?

1) Father is God
2) Son is God
3) HS is God

Therefore all three are God, but and yet God is one God numerically? Something don't add up, and a child could tell you. OR a nothead. If all three are God, then God is Three just as the beginning of your paradigm says.

....and yet God is still one incomprehensible being, the after-caveat of the Athanasian Creed. Wonder. How can this be? Like I said, don't add up.


This sentence needs to be expounded on. So that I can take it down.




Problem: the manifestation of the Baptism in Spirit is a trickled down version of the ideal. In me and in you, from your writings I would guess. Although no one receives this Spirit the same way or intensity of, in my experience NONE are immediately willing to give their lives up in martyrdom. This was true at the beginning, for the 3000 and the 5000. Including all twelve disciples, only John not murdered.





"He appeared in a body" (NIV)
"He who was manifested in the flesh" (ASV)
"He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB)
"He was manifested in the flesh" (RSV)
"Which was manifested in the flesh" (Douey-Rheims)
"Who was manifested in the flesh" (NAB)"

Your KJV version is almost entirely considered by trins to be wrong.



Your old notes stink. "The Lord" is "YHWH ELOHIM" in the Hebrew text. It is translated "the Lord" since this is how they recited the text, NOT saying the sacred name of God.

YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This is the actual verse and part of trin-confusion is the idea that there is only One Lord in heaven and so then this text is saying the same thing. One Lord in heaven although all three Persons are up there when they ain't roaming, as my cell phone is wont to do.

And since this name, YHWH Elohim has totally SINGULAR pronouns and verbs attendant, it has always been seen rightly as the singular defintive name of a singular God.
That is, until latter day fathers in the faith mucked it up.



I don't know any of 'em. But even Deitrich Bonhoeffer didn't know how to fix his own theology. His actions spoke louder than his theology so I will bow to him in heaven, if I ever make it that is...

As far as loving the trinity goes, I have to be careful not to get swiped off this forum like grey poupon. If'n I told you what I really think of it as it were.







Don't love the lie. God never told you to do so.



The Shema is rather modified to include the Son upon our foreheads in Rev 14. It was the backbone of the NECESSITY of gospel and Jesus-propitiation since no man except Jesus ever did it. Since none of us can, we BROKE Law and needed propitiation.

And now it is in right order. We worship the Son who is a glorified man, elohim. This man worships the God of us all just as we do, only difference is because HE fulfilled Shema, HE sits at the subordinate right hand of God.

Jn 20
[SIZE=.75em]17 [/SIZE]Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Thank you for caring again!

Contextualy Mk.12:29, "is one Lord" (Kurios eis estin) grammatically is placed in the predicate, and contextually Jesus did not say "is one," but "is one Lord," ie, one YHWH.

Again this Oneness in no way conflicts with the Trinity of God since it's the Oneness of being and not of Persons.

Old Jack

 

[nothead]

Thank you for caring again!

Contextualy Mk.12:29, "is one Lord" (Kurios eis estin) grammatically is placed in the predicate, and contextually Jesus did not say "is one," but "is one Lord," ie, one YHWH.

Again this Oneness in no way conflicts with the Trinity of God since it's the Oneness of being and not of Persons.

Old Jack

For your info, and for the sake of this convo, the word PERSONS and the word BEING(s) are the same. Look it up if you have to...trins have to get beyond normal word meanings in order to smoke and mirror the masses...

One Lord of Lords, one YHWH, what's the diff? Plz to edumacate nothead who cannot figure out what this would be...same difference: one elohim, YHWH Elohim.

 

[shturt678]

For your info, and for the sake of this convo, the word PERSONS and the word BEING(s) are the same. Look it up if you have to...trins have to get beyond normal word meanings in order to smoke and mirror the masses...

One Lord of Lords, one YHWH, what's the diff? Plz to edumacate nothead who cannot figure out what this would be...same difference: one elohim, YHWH Elohim.

Thank you again for your response, and caring!

Finally down to my lower paygrade, ie, great! My decades ago ol' Bible 101 teacher use to repeadedly state (from him, not me): "Always look at the Biblical words in the sense of the ancient languages' sense, and not from the English language's sense." From my Bible 101's edumacated understanding of Biblical interpretation in light of IIPet.1:20, 21:

All should interpret the Scriptures going from the ancient languages forward to the English, and not backwards.

Trinity: The union of the three divine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) - PERSONS - in one Godhead (state of BEING God) wehre all three are "co-equal," "co-eternal," and "co-substantial."

Hope this helps?

Old Jack

 

[nothead]

Thank you again for your response, and caring!

Finally down to my lower paygrade, ie, great! My decades ago ol' Bible 101 teacher use to repeadedly state (from him, not me): "Always look at the Biblical words in the sense of the ancient languages' sense, and not from the English language's sense." From my Bible 101's edumacated understanding of Biblical interpretation in light of IIPet.1:20, 21:

All should interpret the Scriptures going from the ancient languages forward to the English, and not backwards.

Trinity: The union of the three divine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) - PERSONS - in one Godhead (state of BEING God) wehre all three are "co-equal," "co-eternal," and "co-substantial."

Hope this helps?

Old Jack

Wall, sir that is exactly what Gordon Fee says is the first exegetical principle: consider the historical context overall...

...trouble is, they had then just as much or MORE trouble with their own terms being synonym and not differentiated, just as our present day terms Being and Person are synonyms...

...ousia and hypostasis were then meaning essence and substance philosophically, since these then were of course philosophical terms. IN GREEK. They then made some attempt to differentiate the two terms and were only a smidgen successful. Since of course OUSIA and HYPOSTASIS were then synonym.

I don't know what you mean by 'pay grade.' What grade does nada dinero entail? Who pays us to post online anyhow? God?

 

[shturt678]

Wall, sir that is exactly what Gordon Fee says is the first exegetical principle: consider the historical context overall...

...trouble is, they had then just as much or MORE trouble with their own terms being synonym and not differentiated, just as our present day terms Being and Person are synonyms...

...ousia and hypostasis were then meaning essence and substance philosophically, since these then were of course philosophical terms. IN GREEK. They then made some attempt to differentiate the two terms and were only a smidgen successful. Since of course OUSIA and HYPOSTASIS were then synonym.

I don't know what you mean by 'pay grade.' What grade does nada dinero entail? Who pays us to post online anyhow? God?

Thank you for your response again.

For example the "lowest paygrade" denotes foolish and weak Christians in light of ICor.1:27 for example. "Top paygrades" are the Christian think-tankers and scholars of today. Our Lord fully controls "paygrades" in light of Eph.1:10 or 11, ie, in there somewhere.

Glad you brought up the concept of "hypostasis." Derived from Heb.1:3 of course where I rendered long ago, "his being" where till today I use realiter, and not hypostasis (exist in God by itself), ie, my lower paygrade take on it.

Only a head's up, ie, I use the Creeds only as a yardstick, secondary to the Scriptures.

Old Jackster

btw the "historical context" works for a little over 95% of the time regarding interpretations, however sometimes the "grammar" rules the interpretation from my limited experience.

 

[justaname]

Nothead,

1x1x1=1

No wonder things don't "add up" for you. You have been using the wrong equation.

Jesus says "I and the Father are One," your math equals two, yet the language is simple...even in greek. As noted with Purity, Jesus' prayer (John 17) is for all the believers to be one, as in one church...

As for the Genesis verse, it is God that is doing the speaking...to bad thou art not listening...

As for the 1Timothy passage, it speaks of the revelation of the Logos in the flesh. We both know the Logos is divine...but I posted the wrong passage (sorry for any confusion)

I disagree with your OT comment 2Timothy 3:16

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your response again.

For example the "lowest paygrade" denotes foolish and weak Christians in light of ICor.1:27 for example. "Top paygrades" are the Christian think-tankers and scholars of today. Our Lord fully controls "paygrades" in light of Eph.1:10 or 11, ie, in there somewhere.

Wall, thanks for the uptick, now I know it's YOU gonna pay me to make you look bad.

Glad you brought up the concept of "hypostasis." Derived from Heb.1:3 of course where I rendered long ago, "his being" where till today I use realiter, and not hypostasis (exist in God by itself), ie, my lower paygrade take on it.

Hypostasis means Realiter, means Being, eh? I knew my broker would someday come in handy. HE GOD. Whoo hoo.

Oh, RealitER. One who realizes all? Funny, Jews still use the word BEING just as they always did. A living nephesh. God/nephesh is God-being.

You curmudgeoned yourself with your own Greek philosophy, man.

Only a head's up, ie, I use the Creeds only as a yardstick, secondary to the Scriptures.

Wise move since the first 3 known Creeds have Jesus not mentioned as God at all. However they do indicate general theological trends:

Ireneus Rule of Faith 3rd Century

. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .


****************************************************************************************************************

Third Century Old Roman Symbol


I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,

on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;

and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting).[7]

*******************************************************************************************************************


Fourth Century Apostolic's Creed
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
Amen.

btw the "historical context" works for a little over 95% of the time regarding interpretations, however sometimes the "grammar" rules the interpretation from my limited experience.

No, the historical context, works 87.276% of the time regarding interpretations, SIR. Where do you come up with your stats sir? Pluck them from the air? See how you are?

Nothead,

1x1x1=1

No wonder things don't "add up" for you. You have been using the wrong equation.

Nice try. 1 x 1 x 1 is Oneness Pentecostal modalism. This is what happens when you make God an equation. You and your fathers in the faith ADDED both Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the God so-called HEAD, and THEN said this Godhead is 'one.'

Three don't add up to one. See my three first Creeds above. IF Jesus weren't God until 325 A.D. then in fact you did, you did, you did ADD Jesus to God.

Jesus says "I and the Father are One," your math equals two, yet the language is simple...even in greek. As noted with Purity, Jesus' prayer (John 17) is for all the believers to be one, as in one church...

Jesus' reasoning in Jn 10 in fact necessitates Elohim Theology to interpret, there is no other way to see the 'gods' from Psalm 82. He includes himself among the Judges of Torah as 'elohim' ...those who were also 'sons of elohim.'

Thus you see he claims NO ONTOLOGY shared with the Father, only that he is FROM GOD being one 'to whom the Word of God came.'


.

As for the Genesis verse, it is God that is doing the speaking...to bad thou art not listening..

You defy thousands of years of rabbinical terp. Nice terping, terpster. Not.

As for the 1Timothy passage, it speaks of the revelation of the Logos in the flesh. We both know the Logos is divine...but I posted the wrong passage (sorry for any confusion)

----- .

I disagree with your OT comment 2Timothy 3:16

Say why or we go nowhere. "Nowhere...under the rainbow, c'est la vie...."

 

[shturt678]

Wall, thanks for the uptick, now I know it's YOU gonna pay me to make you look bad.


Hypostasis means Realiter, means Being, eh? I knew my broker would someday come in handy. HE GOD. Whoo hoo.

Oh, RealitER. One who realizes all? Funny, Jews still use the word BEING just as they always did. A living nephesh. God/nephesh is God-being.

You curmudgeoned yourself with your own Greek philosophy, man.




Wise move since the first 3 known Creeds have Jesus not mentioned as God at all. However they do indicate general theological trends:

Ireneus Rule of Faith 3rd Century

. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .


****************************************************************************************************************

Third Century Old Roman Symbol


I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,

on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;

and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting).[7]

*******************************************************************************************************************


Fourth Century Apostolic's Creed
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
Amen.








No, the historical context, works 87.276% of the time regarding interpretations, SIR. Where do you come up with your stats sir? Pluck them from the air? See how you are?



Nice try. 1 x 1 x 1 is Oneness Pentecostal modalism. This is what happens when you make God an equation. You and your fathers in the faith ADDED both Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the God so-called HEAD, and THEN said this Godhead is 'one.'

Three don't add up to one. See my three first Creeds above. IF Jesus weren't God until 325 A.D. then in fact you did, you did, you did ADD Jesus to God.



Jesus' reasoning in Jn 10 in fact necessitates Elohim Theology to interpret, there is no other way to see the 'gods' from Psalm 82. He includes himself among the Judges of Torah as 'elohim' ...those who were also 'sons of elohim.'

Thus you see he claims NO ONTOLOGY shared with the Father, only that he is FROM GOD being one 'to whom the Word of God came.'

.

You defy thousands of years of rabbinical terp. Nice terping, terpster. Not.




----- .





Say why or we go nowhere. "Nowhere...under the rainbow, c'est la vie...."

Thank you for your response and caring!

Let's not rob from Peter to pay Paul settling our accounts in the end - lol with you.

"Hypostasis" (exist in God by itself) (Heb.1:3) = / = "Realiter" (realized union of God and man at conception).

Even the Jews then knew and believed in the "Trinity," Lk.1:15 with a valid interpretation of course, yet non-Trinitarians don't believe in the "Trinity"? Stunning, the Jews today believe differently regarding the "Trinity"?

btw the main reason my daughters till today still agape thier old old dad is I'm not 'grumpy' like my peers even when the going gets 'rough' - lol with you!


Athunasius Creed (6th): "God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ, One, and by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ." (Concordia Triglotta, 32 and 35).

Old Jackster

btw I also deny the Rabbinic's 613 mitzvot (Halakah)

You took a beating on this one, ie, let me know when you want me to toss you a 'life line'?

 

[Angelina]

[quote]Purity: Shema is the Backbone of OT AND NT, Agree?[/quote]

Shema is an affirmation of the basic tenets of the Judaic Jewish faith, The NT principle of belief is in Jesus and his work on the cross. This is what we believe and what we adhere to as NT born-again believers... :huh:
Shalom!

Please note; the Judaic Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and they await a coming one. Without Jesus in their life they are no better than any other religious body, without any hope because they reject the hope that was presented to them. That is why God commissioned Paul to go to the Gentiles because they did not believe the word that was given to them by the Apostles...There has always been contention between Christians and Judaic Jews because of this...

Shalom!

 

[nothead]

Please note; the Judaic Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and they await a coming one. Without Jesus in their life they are no better than any other religious body, without any hope because they reject the hope that was presented to them. That is why God commissioned Paul to go to the Gentiles because they did not believe the word that was given to them by the Apostles...There has always been contention between Christians and Judaic Jews because of this...

Shalom!

What does this have to do with the OP? Stay on track dear. Eat your Wheaties. Put some bananas in. Maybe a strawberry.

Jesus was a Jew and said Shema is still the 1st Command. Mark 12. Read it. Thank you, nothead.

 

[Angelina]

It has everything to do with it. Why would any NT believer follow Judaic Jewish theology when they have no link to the one we have been saved through??? How many times have they erred in Judgment yet you happily accept their beliefs...

PS; Your arrogance is showing through your blatant show of disrespect. Please try to keep to the subject and off the personal insults thanks.