tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post6821029484196595929..comments2015-01-18T10:09:55.760-07:00Comments on WarriorSoul Ministries: Not In The Bible? - Three Witnesses In HeavenAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09008766442336226738noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-36885093254358547882012-07-30T17:00:44.071-06:002012-07-30T17:00:44.071-06:00Glad to hear it, Joy! Thanks for commenting!Glad to hear it, Joy! Thanks for commenting!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008766442336226738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-58967000877431802032012-07-28T17:30:42.690-06:002012-07-28T17:30:42.690-06:00Andrew, I have to catch back up with you man. I l...Andrew, I have to catch back up with you man. I love your postings.Joyhttp://www.ijahjoycreations.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-29621854559068265592012-04-21T13:27:51.921-06:002012-04-21T13:27:51.921-06:00What amazes me about that was how close we came to...What amazes me about that was how close we came to not having the book of Revelation!<br /><br />I am of the opinion that, while authorship was seemingly one of the most important piece of the puzzle to them, if any book of the Apocrypha lines up with the Word of God as a whole, it should be studied. I do not counsel people swallow it without several grains of salt, but there is, as you said, a wealth of information in those books. <br /><br />Two of my favorites, to this very day, are the Shepherd and Judith. I'm also of the opinion that Clement should have been included among the letters, though I understand why it was not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008766442336226738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-27626287307860611962012-04-21T13:18:17.675-06:002012-04-21T13:18:17.675-06:00Hello, Bhodi!
First, let me say this: I am not at...Hello, Bhodi!<br /><br />First, let me say this: I am not attempting apologetics here, nor is that my aim.<br /><br />Regarding Christ being the "Word": I personally view His statement "before Abraham, I AM," as such. Moreover, John 17:5 - "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Again, in verse 24 - "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."<br />These do not use "Word" specifically, yet they do point out Christ's presence before the world was formed. Go back to Genesis 1. There is God the Father, Eloheim; there is the Spirit of God, Pneuma; and there is God's word spoken- The creative force of His Word. (As bad as this may sound, given your education, please know I mean nothing personal by it: Do a study on the relation between Logos and Davar HaChaim)<br /><br />As for history, I've educated myself through the study of the ancient rabbis, the Torah; the early church fathers; and several other areas. My personal area of focus is NOT apologetics, but church history; the formation of theologies; and Biblical history itself- Where what is written in the Bible intersects with secular history, and what is shown in parallel to other works of ancient cultures.<br />Speaking of early church fathers, several of those also back my statements: Justin Martyr, for instance, referred to Christ as the Word Incarnate. (1 Apol 10 & 63) Diognetus referred to Christ as the force through which the world was created in Diognetus 7:2. Tertullian, in Apology 21, also makes the same claim- And in the circles I've traveled, he is considered one of the founders of modern Trinitarian theology.<br /><br />As for homoousios, I tend to reject most Gnostic teachings, as the majority of them do not ascribe divinity to Christ. One cannot be a Christian and claim that Christ was not God- Indeed, it is tantamount to claiming to be Muslim, but Muhammad was not Allah's prophet; or claiming to be Buddhist, but claiming Buddha did not show the path to enlightenment.<br /><br />As for my personal study, I have over 300 books on early church history and Jewish history and teachings in my personal library alone. I have ready access to a few thousand more.<br /><br />You may be mistaking this as an attempt at apologetics because this is an open blog, and because of the material I am taking each claim from. However, the goal here with this series is NOT the unsaved, but rather those already believing. I am not here to argue with people whose minds are already made up; I am here to reassure those who have decided to follow Jesus that these claims are not only bogus, but a tool of the devil.<br /><br />Thanks for your continued interaction, and I apologize that it took me this long to get back to you!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008766442336226738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-78676273264892250002012-04-14T11:35:31.034-06:002012-04-14T11:35:31.034-06:00Something else I was thinking about. The Codex Si...Something else I was thinking about. The Codex Sinaiticus is interesting in that it contains books not considered Canon today. There is a wealth of interesting studies included in the books that did not make it into the present Bible, as much as there is those that did. Even Martin Luther was fairly critical of the Epistle of James, so what is, and what is not, scripture is a very interesting subject.Bhodihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03875162007491724188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-30582295884706595842012-04-12T17:30:28.534-06:002012-04-12T17:30:28.534-06:00I would be interested in the article, if you have ...I would be interested in the article, if you have a link. <br /><br />I think you have a lot of passion, and you seem to enjoy apologetics, but there are a LOT of holes in your comments. If you are interested in pursuing this vocation, even as an amateur, I would really encourage you to start with the basics and then work up the ladder, so to speak. <br /><br />For example:<br /><br />Christ never called himself the "Word" and only used the actual word "Word" occasionally, nothing close that would support the statement you made. When speaking of scripture, Christ referred to the Law, which is expected as a Jew. At the time, Jews were actually divided on what was, and was not scripture, so to speak of the "Word of God" in a 20th century sense would be completely incorrect. <br /><br />There is no name of God in Hebrew that means "Word". I don't know where you got that idea, but it is really inaccurate. The whole "Word" concept emerged from a LOT of Greek influence. The term is in John, but John itself is a very metaphorical and picturesque book, the modern interpretations of it would be completely out of character with the culture of Judaism at the time. This would hint at a Greek origin, but that is currently under debate. Nevertheless I would caution restraint in using the term to widely, because of these issues. <br /><br />I'm interested in what you're reading in terms of historical works. Rather than rely on an interlinear, I would instead get a good history book, an interlinear only translates what is already translated. It has significant utility, but only after a little work, and Greek linguistics training.<br /><br />By Trinitarian position, I am referring to the debates around the "homoousios"<br /><br />As I said, you certainly have passion, but I would caution some moderation. Evangelical Christianity has been greatly harmed by a huge number of amateur apologists who have plenty of passion but far too little study on the requisite material. A lot of what you say is wrong, or has the wrong idea behind it, and I do not think it is intentional. <br /><br />I've been studying Christianity academically since I was 14 or so, and have two decades plus of serious academic study under my belt, so I would be happy to recommend some books if you are interested. Thanks to Amazon's used book program, you could probably get many of the books I paid college prices for, for pennies on the dollar. Like I said, I thought passion is too valuable a resource to waste.Bhodihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03875162007491724188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-71759906370035480352012-04-12T17:01:02.498-06:002012-04-12T17:01:02.498-06:00It was an article in a local paper, Op-Ed section....It was an article in a local paper, Op-Ed section. I've read something similar, somewhere, but couldn't remember the title of the actual book.<br /><br />As far as Jewish writings, take any of the ancient collected teachings and start reading. I wish I could give you exact reference numbers so you could see for yourself, but today I'M crunched for time; plus, I do not have it in front of me at the moment. <br /><br />Christ WAS the Word of God, made a living, breathing person. Christ did speak of it, though it is often overlooked as such.<br /><br />I'll have to get back to you on the actual name I mentioned, because as I stated, I don't have my reference material in front of me at the moment.<br /><br />As far as the Trinitarian position, I've studied it from the Catholic church stance all the way into the Gnostic arguments against it. What, specifically, are you referring to?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008766442336226738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-85122302456903020522012-04-11T18:40:46.640-06:002012-04-11T18:40:46.640-06:00I am crunched for time, but a few thoughts. I apo...I am crunched for time, but a few thoughts. I apologize, this is not an interrogation, but I think there are some flaws in what you said and the questions are the best way to explain, by seeking to understand first. <br /><br />What was the article you were reading?<br /><br />What Jewish readings would make you think Jewish theology would support Trinitarian theology? <br /><br />What do you think the Word of God is? Do you think Christ spoke of this? <br /><br />What name of God in Hebrew means Word?<br /><br />Have you ever studied the development of the Trinitarian position?Bhodihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03875162007491724188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-55050018395956935772012-04-10T21:36:19.675-06:002012-04-10T21:36:19.675-06:00Hello, Bhodi! Thanks for stopping by!
Firstly, m...Hello, Bhodi! Thanks for stopping by!<br /><br />Firstly, my appeal to the Codex Sinaiticus was done for a very specific reason, namely, it was directly referenced in the write-up I've been reading from. This particular article stated that this was not found in the Sinaiticus, which to me suggests a failing on the part of the writer.<br /><br />As to the Trinitarian theology, I am a firm believer in it. You state that it is not supported even in Judaism, but it actually is, and in startling fashion.<br /><br />Let's go back to Genesis.<br /><br />Genesis specifically notes three very specific forms of God in the beginning. There is God (Father, from Christ's words); the Spirit of God, (Holy Spirit, from Christ's words and the following books of the Bible, as well as Psalms, Samuel 1&2, and many other Old Testament writings); and the Word of God. <br />For centuries prior to Christ, Jews taught that the Word of God was just as unique as God Himself, and as His Spirit. They believed, and wrote about, the LIVING WORD being the aspect, for lack of better terminology, that was given to prophets, priests and some kings. It is so firmly entrenched in their theology that one of the many names of God in Hebrew literally means "Word."<br /><br />Thus, we have a supremely Trinitarian theology within Judaism itself. But this does not speak to Christ; at least, not directly without further study.<br /><br />Several prophecies were made regarding the coming of Christ Himself, though for lack of space I cannot list them. Several speak to Him as a person, while others very specifically give a personhood to God's Word; within the language of the text, the Word is treated as a person who is disdained, ridiculed and abhorred.<br /><br />That brings us to the coming of Christ, Whom John stated in the beginning of his Gospel as the Word Made Flesh. Time and again, we see proof of this, not only through John, but the other Gospels as well. The creative Word of God which formed the Earth and all of creation was made a living, breathing human being- Evidenced by the fact that dead were raised, sick recovered, blind eyes given sight, lame made to walk, etc... All at His WORD.<br /><br />The simple fact that there was not a specific statement "there is a Trinity" does not discount the fact that God is, in fact, Triune. That is the point of this entry.<br /><br /><br />Thanks for the comment, Bhodi! It really makes me glad to see that there are people reading this, and who are engaged enough to actually respond.<br /><br />God bless!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09008766442336226738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5763230460929518643.post-2190447955990363832012-04-10T20:19:16.710-06:002012-04-10T20:19:16.710-06:00I think there are some holes in your position. You...I think there are some holes in your position. You are essentially arguing that there should be an a priori assumption of Trinitarian theology, which is certainly a common position, but it is completely ahistorical. There is no real support for the noe-Platonic Trinitarian position in Judaism, and even in the early period of Christian history. It was not until several centuries after Christ that this theological bent started to gain its full position that one finds today.<br /><br />Your appeal to the Codex Sinaiticus actually undermines your position, I am not sure why you are using it.Bhodihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03875162007491724188noreply@blogger.com