Is there ANY sentence that to you, Lula, could POSSIBLY mean that something is NOT a trinity?

If my car were ONE car, not a trinity of three cars, how could I say it so that you would not read the number three into it?

"My car is one" doesn't seem to do it for you.

Rightwinger posts #7

It certainly is true of Christ's first recorded miracle...at the marriage in Cana...He changed the water into the finest wine...

and of the multiplication of loaves and fishes to feed thousands of people...

and how at the Last Supper, He changed the bread into Himself...

and that He popped life into the dead Lazurus...

and that He popped hearing into the deaf and popped sight to the blind

and He also popped things out of existence...like when He spoke and the rough seas and winds were quieted.

Ok. Let's rephrase it:

My god's gift of free will to us is the ultimate proof for his love for us because it required him to give up or suspend his omnipotence.

Your god doesn't love humanity enough for such an act.

We should not ask G-d to do our bidding, because He is not our servant. But G-d's love for us is every reason for Him to do our bidding, should He find us worthy enough.

When the Messiah comes, G-d will provide everything we want. But He will do it because of His love for us.

I don't know if I would call it "justice". Giving us the ability to act against His law is an act of love, not an act of justice.

Death is a very difficult thing to achieve for an immortal, isn't it?

I have never seen anyone walk on water; not a god, not a human, not anyone.

me either but that's where the eyewittness accounts come in.  Either you believe their testimony or you don't. 

If I told you that I singlehandly lifted a car off a young child would you believe me?  You didn't see me do it but would you belive me or would you "have to see to believe?" 

not if he was an immortal cloaked in flesh.  It's the flesh that dies, not the spirit. 

THE PEOPLES PARTY POSTS:

First, God decided by His Will that human being should be here on earth. It's not absolutely necessary for any being to exist except God. God has willed that we should have an opportunity to praise, love and serve Him in this life and be happy with Him forever in the next. Genesis tells us we were created "good" but after the Fall of Adam, we were so mired in sin, that only God could intervene....and He has always intervened, slowly but surely, first by giving His Old Testament law and then by giving Himself when He came to earth as God-Man to redeem us from our sins.

So, a personal God exists. We owe all we have to God who made us and reason demands that we do and render suitable practical acknowledgment, expressed in the duties of religion, starting with Hebraic Judaism now full blossomed into Christianity, which imply reverence and obedience to such instructions as He pleases to issue in our regard.

So you're admitting you didn't read it Lula? 

it's already too late.  This is God's woes (as you said) or judgment on the world at the end.  There is no turning back now.  It's a done deal. 

The answer is quite easy....because he's evil.   To be evil is to destroy anyone in your path for your own good.  It's the opposite of good.   Look at the history of communism and how  even the leaders of this wicked and evil belief system couldn't sleep at night.  Why?  Because they knew that any of their communist comrades could kill them (and did) at any moment to gain power.  Knifing each other in the back was as common as eating breakfast.  You couldn't trust even your own guys.  The mafia did the same. 

Your answer is revealed in v11.  Notice these locusts have a king over them?  His name is Abaddon in the Hebrew and Apollyon in the Greek?  Do you know what that stands for?  Both words mean destruction.  The destroyer is Satan.  Yes, this is God's woe on mankind allowing all this to happen, but these locusts are coming from the pit of Satan which is the abode of the demons,  Luke 8:31, Rev 20:1-3. 

God is allowing these men to drink of their own cup of wrath and evil using the demons they had worshipped all along to do the dirty deed.  What goes around, eventually comes around doesn't it? 

These men will then realize exactly whom they had their faith in all this time.  They had their ladder attached to the wrong wall so they say.   

Since you rely on scripture, doesn't it bother you that your religion is apparently based on a mistranslation of the words "eloheynu" and "echad"?

Lula posts:

KFC POSTS:

The short answer is becasue I, like His apostles and followers of the true Faith, believe Jesus at His word and as His word is written here below.

If there was only one part of the Bible that was to be taken literally, St.John 6 is it....but your belief that it's symbolic or spiritual comes from oral teaching of the Protestant forefathers that's been handed down to those following Protestantism. You are following the Protestant forefathers saying as they said.

Here's St.John 6: 22-72, v. 63 included. Read and see that Jesus is literally saying that we should eat His flesh in the substance of bread and at first the Jews couldn't understand what He was saying, but when they did, some of them left saying it was too hard to take...but KFC, note that Jesus' apostles believed Him literally and didn't leave.

St.John 6:22-24: "The next day the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. But the other ships came from the Tiberias ; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum seeking for Jesus."

V25-26:"and when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said: Amen, Amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves are were filled."

V27:Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you. For Him hath God, the Father sealed."

(He told them to work to earn food which gives eternal life. Jesus had provided them their fill of natural bread, now He began to speak of supernatural bread. Here, meat is referred back by the word "that". "Meat" refers to His Body, His Flesh. "Which the Son of Man will give you." can only refer to Jesus, in this case as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus, the Son of Man, gives us His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. Through the eating of His Body and Blood in the reception of the Holy Eucharist, our divine faith is strengthened by the grace of having God present in us.)

V28: They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" V29: "Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent."

V. 30: “They said therefore to him: what sign dost thou show , that we may see, and may believe in thee? What dost thou work?”

(In verse 30, the colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capharnaum begins. The Jews ask him what signs (miracles) He could perform and as a challenge they noted V. 31.)

V31: "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

V32-33: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say to you. Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my father fiveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world."
V34: "They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread."

V35: "And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." .

V36-37: "But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will not cast out."

(Christ continues to make His point with the Jews getting more explicit.)

V38: "Because I come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me."

V39: "Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day."

V40: " And this is the will of my Father who sent me: that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day."

V41-42: "The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which come down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?"

(Jesus was getting more and more explicit and the Jews started to complain and question, but still understood Him to be speaking metaphorically. Jesus repeated what He said before, then summarized. "I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven." )

V43-44: "Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves." No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him in the last day."

V45: "It is written in the prophets: and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me."

V46-47: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, Amen, I say to you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life."

V48-51: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven."

V52-53: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

(If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And now, what is this bread I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world. Then the Jews ask, incredulously, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Setting aside all respect for Him, they spoke of Him as "this man" and loudly disputed with one another, how it was possible for Jesus to give them His flesh to eat. Our Lord wished them to believe the fact, and leave the how to Him. At last, they understood Him literally and were stupefied.)

V. 54-57: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you; Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

Christ repeats His words with extra ordinary emphasis, so much so that only now does He introduce the statement about drinking His Blood. Here Jesus repeats and explains even further. He tells us we can have no life in ourselves unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood. The man that eats My flesh and drinks My blood enjoys eternal on the last day. My flesh is real food, My blood is real drink. The man who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives continually in Me and I in him.
And there was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings", for there were none. His listeners understood Him quite well. No one of them any longer thought He was speaking metaphorically, or symbolically. If they had, why was there no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was a confusion, Christ explained what He meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, Christ repeated what He said becoming more and more explicit.

KFC, you are keeping company with the disbelieving Jews when you say this isn’t literal. Even the Jews took Jesus literally after He repeated it enough. Many times over He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four (4) times He said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood". John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper--it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

V58-60: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that come down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. These things he said teaching in the synagague, in Capharnaum."


V 61-62: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it said: This saying is hard and who can hear it? But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"

"Who can hear it?"---Or who can believe it? And these were His disciples, people who were already used to His remarkable ways having seen His miracles. They took Him literally and wouldn't believe Him. They would not accept faith and believe in Him, in what He says He is and what He says He will do. Here, "Does this offend or scandalize you?"---But if you see me, the Son of Man, go up to heaven with my glorified body, will you not then believe that I can give my body to you to be your Food?

V 63-64: "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

“If then” Jesus made one more attempt to win them to faith.
“Son of man ascend” means but if you see me, the Son of man, go up to Heaven with my glorified Body, will you not then believe that I can give My Body to you to be your food?

Christ by mentioning His Ascension, would confirm the truth of His power and divinity that he had before asserted. As on other occasions, Jesus speaks about future events to help His disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. St.John 14:29. And, at the same time, He warns them not to think of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a gross, carnal manner and receive His words badly.

“the flesh profiteth nothing” Flesh, as flesh cannot give life, but you must not think of the dead flesh, for it is a question of the Flesh of the Son of man, in which dwells the Spirit of God, gloryifying it, and filling it with divine power. My Flesh, united to the Spirit of God, has life-giving power.
"spirit and life" For the Flesh which I mean (that you eat) is penetrated by the Holy Spirit and united to the living God.

V65-66: "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given it be given him by my Father."

Judas betrayed Him and he was one of the Twelve. Christ knew that some would not believe, including the one "who he was that would betray Him". It is here in the rejection of the Holy Eucharist that Judas fell away.

V67: "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked with him no more."

They went back to their ordinary way of living and to their various occupations. Their chief object in following Our Lord had been the hope which they built on an earthly Messias and they cared nothing for our Lord's spiritual and supernatural promises. They now formed a part of the unbelieving mass of Jews. However, besides the 12 Apostles, there still remained the 72 disciples whose sending forth by Our Lord is later in the chapter 41, as well as some other disciples and some holy women. Thus His disciples were sifted. Those whose vocations were real and whose faith was firm, remained with Jesus. Whereas many of the weak and wavering could not stand the test to which their faith was put and left Him.

(This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking Him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews and the disciples who had accepted everything up to this point would have remained had He told them He meant no more than a symbol. But He did not correct these first protesters, He let them go.)

V68: "Then Jesus said to the Twelve: Will you also go away?"

"will you also go away?" Jesus made no further attempt to keep back those who wished to leave Him. On the contrary, He searchingly asked the Apostles: "Will you also go away?" He left it to their free will to forsake them if they chose, and forced them to make a clear and open declaration of their intentions.

V69-72: " And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray Him, whereas he was one of the twelve."

Becasue of what Jesus said in verses 53-57, "if you do not eat this flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is  food indeed and my blood is drink indeed."

 And although we don't know how Jesus does it, Catholics believe that it's literally just as He said that the bread and wine are changed at consecration and become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It is certain that His Apostles took Jesus’ words literally as well as those He spoke during the Last Supper.  There Our Lord took bread, blessed and broke it, saying, "This is My Body". He who is the Way, the Truth and the Life did not say, "This represents My Body." What part of "is" don't you understand?

So you're 100% in agreement with the disbelieving Jews, KFC?  Telling me that taking Jesus literally at His word, giving Himself in the consecrated Bread and Wine...Eating His flesh is paganism!  Congratulations! Once again you side with our Lord's detractors.

Answer this...if the Jews misunderstood Jesus then why didn't He call them back? Why didn't He tell them He really didn't want them to eat His flesh? Why didn't He tell them He was just spiritual or symbolic?

You are trying to convince that by believing Jesus literally, the Chruch and I am pagan. But I think it's interesting that those who wouldn't take Jesus at His word about eating His flesh left Him in chapter 6, verse 66. In other words, 666. The devil made them do it?

But if they don't know the original language, why do they (Lula) insist that their beliefs are based on such an understanding?

Yes.

Singular is "eloah", plural is "elohim", plural construct is "elohi", plural construct 1st person plural ("our") posessive is "eloheynu". However, "elohim" when used for G-d is a grammatical singular, hence the use of singular verbs with it. "Eloheynu" is the construct form 1st person plural possesive of "elohim", but it remains singular when "elohim" is singular.

If I recall correctly the actual text doesn't really say "adonai" but mentions the name of G-d, and that name is singular in all ways and forms.

Translating the sentence as "G-d (singular) is our gods (plural)" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially when we know that "elohim" is a majestic plural used for a singular with singular verbs.

I don't see the connection to hitpa3el. The root P3L means "do", "hitpa3el" means "to be impressed", it's the reflexive form of the word. It doesn't share any letters with "echad".

"Echad" is the base meaning of the root 1XD (1 = Alef, X = Het), "ichod" is the root with /i/ and /o/ vowels inserted, resulting in a word describing the result of an action, in this case based on this root: "unity".

(Compare with KTB = "ketev" = "script" and KYTVB = kitov = "caption".)

I read it. But you are a bit too spiritual for me. I read "one" when it says "one" and "unity" when it says "unity". Whether it means "one" in the sense of "unity", I don't really care.

Leauki, thank you for reading it and your comments I will get to them if the L-RD wills. Due to the administration change I have a lot of work before I come back to the States and try to find a another job. I have a lot of fun times a head of me.

I encourage to continue to read the Scriptures.  We are cut from the same cloth if you know what I mean. G-D promised that if we seek HIM with all of our heart we will find HIM. Keep seeking HIM. I didn't want to have anything to do with religion back in the day then some heavy stuff happened to me that got me to start thinking that this life is far to short and is there more out there.  I looked at other religions hardcore.  Then I looked and read the Tenach.  The more I read it the more I could see that this was a real true living G-D with kindness and severe HE was/is always good through out all of Scripture.  I didn't want to have anything to do with christians due to cruel and harsh treatment of Jews through out time.

I then came upon a book by a man who was a Jewish lawyer who was one of the founders of Harvard Law school, Simon Greenleaf.  He was sick and tired of christians saying that Yeshua/Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, so he figured he would see if all of the evidence would stand up in court.  A man after my own heart, for I would have done the same thing to smash those silly christians.  After both looking at the evidence and reading that book (the testimony of the evangelists) I came to the same scarey truth that he did.

Baruch Hasem!

what was the scary truth?  What conclusions did he come up with? 

The silly Christians started out Jewish.  The beginning of the church was ALL Jewish.  In fact there was much discussion in the first Jerusalem council if they should accept the Gentiles into the church.  While the Church (all true beievers) are predominately Gentiles today there are still Jews coming to the realization that Jesus is the Messiah afterall. 

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

Scripture is the Holy Bible composed of 73 sacred writings.....46 in the Old and 27 in the New Testament.

And so do I and that's why I quoted from it to make my point that Almighty God revealed something of Himself in it, namely, that He is One and Three at the same time.

Using Deut. 6:4, "Hear O Isreal the Lord our God is One God.", Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in Our image and likeness." and 11:7, "Let us go down and there confuse their language.", we can equate our belief in One God, the ONe Divine Being, having One Divine Nature in a plurality of Persons,  the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with the affirmation of God's oneness in the She-ma.

Lula posts:

Leauki posts #24

And then in #25, you  write:

OK....the plural of persons is implied in the Hebrew name of God...Elohim...which is plural in name though used with a singular adjective and verb. Thus if we were to translate the first paragraph literally according to the plurality and oneness of Elohim, it would appear like this:

"In the beginning the Gods, He created heaven and earth"....

We do find a plurality of persons involved in the name Elohim...Gen. 3:22, "Behold Adam is become as one of us". Is. 6:8, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us".

LEAUKI POSTS:

The Catholic  concept of monotheism --oneness in substance and triuneness in persons---alone can explain the plural sense in which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob  speaks to us through the testament of the Jews.

The belief in but One God and that He functions as three distinct Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is hinted at in the Old Testament and more fully revealed in the New. Isaias said that the "Son" whom the Virgin was to conceive, was to be "the Emmanuel" which means "God with us" 7:14, that He is "the mighty God" 9:5, as Jesus is. This warrants St.Paul's declaration that Jesus is "God manifest in the flesh."

The dogma was revealed by Jesus Christ who alone could teach us concerning the intimate life of God. St.Matt. 11:27. It's clearly mentioned in St.Luke's account of the Incarnation, 1:32-33, in St.Matthew's description of the Baptism of Christ, in our Lord's discourse at the Last Supper, and in His Divine commission to the Apostles. It's set forth in the baptismal formula which all critics acknowledge to be primitive in the early Church in the first centuries and in all the early Father's writings which we still have. The dogma of the Blessed Trinity was handed down by the Chruch's divine Tradition as a doctrine which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.

And what I find puzzling is that the She-ma is the one and only universal profession of faith of Jewry though its interpretation ranges from belief in the Mosaic, eternal, transcendant God to the Spinoza pantheistic concept of God.

leauki posts:

The Blessed Trinity and common sense...

I can appreciate it this way. We can believe that any thing is one from one aspect but at the same time three from another aspect. Electricity for example is one in nature, but 3 in its manifestation...motion, light and heat.

This can apply to any object..like a hat....As an object it is one, a unity....yet to be an object it must have a triunity of dimensions...length, breadth and thickness.