Shema Yisrael

[Jill]

.

[Pierac]

Pierac, is this a piece you wrote as a result of your research, or something you found in the process of your research? There is no author stated. Are you wishing us to critique your position? Or that of another? If another, is there a particular point you find interesting about this piece that you want us to focus on? It helps to have some context before I invest in such a read.

I hate to be a broken record, but there is a lot of material on the net and while I'm happy to review something germane to a discussion, if it's just thrown up in the abstract, I'm not very interested and doubt others are either.

You will not find this on the web, unless of course you find one of my post at another site. I completely understand if your not very interested, as the book of Revelations does little for me at this time, so I see no reason my studies should be exciting to you. The question remains however, what do you find incorrect in my post? Remember, I did not ask you to believe it, I just ask for you to show me any error you may see.

You are confusing me with trying to be a teacher, I only ask questions that no one wants to answer, and then I am forced seek the answers alone. So what do you find non-scriptural about my last 3 post?
Paul

Ok. But what does "Pierac" stand for, and do you use Paul as just a power name.

Paul is my first name, Pierac are the first 6 letters of my last name. I'm Italian, and have 10 letters in my last name. I was born in 1963 and my mom named me after the Pope. Although I'm no longer Catholic, I kept the name.

[Pierac]

BTW, My middle name is Umberto. My twin brother was named Peter, Go figure! Pope Paul, having his coronation at St. Peters if I remember correctly!

[Pierac]

Back to my research...
"Christ" God or title?

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word 'Christ' become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title 'Messiah' was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated."

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: "One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word 'Christ,' which simply means 'Messiah', as though it was a 'divine' title." Who was Jesus? p.57.

According to its OT usage, the term Messiah, the Anointed One, indicates a call to office. Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus' Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. "Christianity ignored the 'Messiah' and theologically worked the 'Christ' up into the 'God-Man.' Jesus as the 'Messiah' is a human being; Jesus as the 'Christ' is something entirely different."

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22;1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--- 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father. The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for "God-Man" (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning 'of equal substance,' "did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems." Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel. The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea." Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel.


Pope Paul

[darinhouston]

You will not find this on the web, unless of course you find one of my post at another site. I completely understand if your not very interested, as the book of Revelations does little for me at this time, so I see no reason my studies should be exciting to you. The question remains however, what do you find incorrect in my post? Remember, I did not ask you to believe it, I just ask for you to show me any error you may see.

I have no idea if it is correct or incorrect -- I'm not sure what the point of it is. I don't have a problem believing any of the points I read, but I haven't read it all as I fail to see any particular context within which to consider it.

You are confusing me with trying to be a teacher, I only ask questions that no one wants to answer, and then I am forced seek the answers alone. So what do you find non-scriptural about my last 3 post?
Paul

No, I just don't see what your questions are -- we're not editors around here to review a piece in the abstract. I think many here would be happy to answer specific questions or respond to specific points you might want to make. But, you'll need to do more than post essays to elicit that feedback.

[RND]

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word 'Christ' become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title 'Messiah' was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated."

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: "One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word 'Christ,' which simply means 'Messiah', as though it was a 'divine' title." Who was Jesus? p.57.

Not to be hyper-critical or anything but the words Messiah and Christ mean "anointed." Messiah doesn't mean Christ and Christ doesn't mean Messiah. Messiah means anointed and Christ means anointed.

mashiyach = from 'mashach' (4886); anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah:--anointed, Messiah.

Christos = from criw - chrio 5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:--Christ.

[Pierac]

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word 'Christ' become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title 'Messiah' was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated."

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: "One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word 'Christ,' which simply means 'Messiah', as though it was a 'divine' title." Who was Jesus? p.57.

Not to be hyper-critical or anything but the words Messiah and Christ mean "anointed." Messiah doesn't mean Christ and Christ doesn't mean Messiah. Messiah means anointed and Christ means anointed.

mashiyach = from 'mashach' (4886); anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah:--anointed, Messiah.

Christos = from criw - chrio 5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:--Christ.

Well, yes and no. As you stated Christ = Anointed one and Messiah = Anointed one.

So one can easily say Messiah = Christ, as the both mean the same. One word is Hebrew and the other is Greek for "anointed one." They are essentially the same word but in different languages, would you not agree?

[Pierac]

Paidion, this post is for you...

John 1:1

Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, "the Word" (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning "the word" that "he" was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning "the word" that "it" was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use "he" to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make "the word" a "he" here?

The English translations of the Greek text before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now "It").

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), "question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an "it."

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an "it" not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh. There is even strong evidence suggest the John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a "who" he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". It is not as some would have you believe Jesus' middle name. Jesus is not called Jesus Logos of Nazareth. This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God."

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (NAB & VED).

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"

"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:

"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.

You decide which definition is correct, Greek philosophy's or John's Jewish definition.

It was the 1611 Kings James bible that began to change the way the world read John 1. Tradition is a hard thing to overcome, at least it was for me! Just go back and read my Augustine post!

Paul

[Pierac]

You will not find this on the web, unless of course you find one of my post at another site. I completely understand if your not very interested, as the book of Revelations does little for me at this time, so I see no reason my studies should be exciting to you. The question remains however, what do you find incorrect in my post? Remember, I did not ask you to believe it, I just ask for you to show me any error you may see.

I have no idea if it is correct or incorrect -- I'm not sure what the point of it is. I don't have a problem believing any of the points I read, but I haven't read it all as I fail to see any particular context within which to consider it.

You are confusing me with trying to be a teacher, I only ask questions that no one wants to answer, and then I am forced seek the answers alone. So what do you find non-scriptural about my last 3 post?
Paul

No, I just don't see what your questions are -- we're not editors around here to review a piece in the abstract. I think many here would be happy to answer specific questions or respond to specific points you might want to make. But, you'll need to do more than post essays to elicit that feedback.

Your playing games Darin, Why?

[SteveF]

Your playing games Darin, Why?

Hi Paul, I don’t think Darrin is playing games. I’m actually having a hard time understanding where you’re coming from as well. I think Darrin and others would like to interact with you but we are not sure how to respond. Let me give you an example:

Let’s say I want to raise a point about whether the book of Jude should be included in the Canon. I could post in various ways….for example:

A. “I have come across some material that raises issues with the canonicity of Jude. Here’s the point being raised……what do you think?

Or

B. I don’t think Jude should be included in the Canon for the following reasons…..I want to get some feedback….any thoughts?

Or

C. Some people have raised these issues challenging the canonicity of Jude….. I think they’re wrong. What do you think?

On the other hand, your style is to post an essay on the book of Jude but not even explain to us that is what you’re doing. We need to “read between the lines” to try and figure out that you're talking about the canonicity of Jude. Rather, I think you should clearly point out the issue you would like to discuss. I think many here would genuinely like to interact with you but we don’t know what to say other than provide a review for an essay (which it not the format of this forum).

Please understand, I’m not trying to be critical; I really want to hear what you’re trying to say!! That’s why I’m raising this.

Blessings
SteveF