Do We Believe in "Three Gods" as the Rabbis Claim?!

[e v e]

And vice versa-certain Christians "faking" their profession-yes?
Johann.

there are superficial believers

Kierkegaard called these philistine christians

judaism however rejects Christ
and its rabbis are not in the same situation of believers

... literally its rabbis work against Him

 

[synergy]

You haven't seen the rebuttals against Jay?

Jay said nothing against the Bible so all rebuttals failed.

Brother-I don't "follow" man-but the Lord Christ Jesus and A.T. Robertson gives a thorough refutation in the "divine, literal, perpetual offering of the Eucharist"
If you go on YouTube it is rife with my church debunks your church-if you don't believe as I do the deuterocanonical "curses" be up upon you-and the 7 anathemas! The Protestants against the Orthodox-the Orthodox against the Protestants.
And Jesus Christ lies "buried" under the writings of the Church fathers and Sages.
Something is wrong here-right?

The Apostles left us with Apostolic writings and an Apostolic church structure that we should basically follow. We should focus on that.

How do you eat the body of Christ in a LITERAL sense? Christ is no more here on planet earth-remember?

I already told you that Christ dispelled any cannibalism with the following saying:

(John 6:63) It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life.

1Co 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, and not with meat: for ye were not as yet strong enough, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet fleshy: for whereas there is among you jealousy, and wrangling,..., are ye not men, and walk according to a man ?
1Co 3:4 For whenever one saith, I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos ; are ye not men ?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but servants through whom ye believed, even as the Lord appointed to each one ?
1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered; but God was causing it to grow.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God That was causing it to grow.

I am not baptized eis/into Paul, Apollos, Calvin, Orthodoxy-but EIS the Messiah.

Nobody said you were.

@civic just posted an excellent article-I suggest you read it brother.
J.

I'm sure he did.

 

[synergy]

Yet you hold the Eucharist is literal-again, my question is very simple-Christ ascended to heaven, and we are sealed with the Holy Spirit-is that not enough?
I'll refer you to the council in Jerusalem.
Shalom.
J.

The Eucharist is a union of bread and Spirit. In a similar way that Baptism is a union of water and Spirit (John 3:5), the Eucharist is a union of bread and Spirit.

What do you say about the Burning Bush?

 

[Frank Russell]

I am not here to "offer" red herring's-so let's continue.

The concept I was discussing was not taking heed to Jewish Fables. You seemed to be trying to indirectly discuss something else. The idea that Christians believe in Three Gods as invented by Rabbis, is a fable. There is no need to listen to fables but to progress in Godliness instead.

They can say what they want, I'll do my thing over here.

 

[Johann]

The concept I was discussing was not taking heed to Jewish Fables. You seemed to be trying to indirectly discuss something else. The idea that Christians believe in Three Gods as invented by Rabbis, is a fable. There is no need to listen to fables but to progress in Godliness instead.

They can say what they want, I'll do my thing over here.

Thing is-I am on topic as per the OP-which is mine.
You dismiss rabbinical writings, that's fine brother, I don't hold a sword over your head and force you to read what I have been reading most of my life.
You might want to reconsider that Christians invented the idea of a "Trinitas"-I have writings and podcasts that says otherwise, but you are not interested.
Stalemate?
Johann.

 

[Johann]

The Eucharist is a union of bread and Spirit. In a similar way that Baptism is a union of water and Spirit (John 3:5), the Eucharist is a union of bread and Spirit.

What do you say about the Burning Bush?

What is there about "literal" that you don't understand? I have listened to Jay's podcast, Jay says literal, and here you are spiritualizing "literal"

First, while I recognize that Trent relies on the Aristotelian categories of essence/substance and accidents/species, they do insist that this is a physical change. That is to say, they insist that Christ is physically present in the "host" after the consecration. This can be seen, for example, from the explanation provided at CCC 1374, where it is stated of the "real presence that "... it is presence in the fullest sense ... ."

So which is it? Literal, or spiritual?
Want to listen to Jay again? We can make this long or short.

Is water spiritual-or literal?
Since we are talking about literal water, how do you want now to spiritualize the Eucharist and the writings of the Church fathers that Jay quotes as "literal" To be physically present is to be literally present-yes?

J.

 

[Frank Russell]

Thing is-I am on topic as per the OP-which is mine.
You dismiss rabbinical writings, that's fine brother, I don't hold a sword over your head and force you to read what I have been reading most of my life.
You might want to reconsider that Christians invented the idea of a "Trinitas"-I have writings and podcasts that says otherwise, but you are not interested.
Stalemate?
Johann.

It appears to be a dueling monologue situation. I was discussing an application of scripture, but you started talking about something else unrelated to my post. In the above post, you continue in a manner that does not appear to require my participation.

 

[e v e]

trent is vatican sorcery.

 

[synergy]

What is there about "literal" that you don't understand? I have listened to Jay's podcast, Jay says literal, and here you are spiritualizing "literal"

The bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual and they are both real.

First, while I recognize that Trent relies on the Aristotelian categories of essence/substance and accidents/species, they do insist that this is a physical change. That is to say, they insist that Christ is physically present in the "host" after the consecration. This can be seen, for example, from the explanation provided at CCC 1374, where it is stated of the "real presence that "... it is presence in the fullest sense ... ."

Again, I do not believe in the application of Aristotelian categories to the Eucharist.

So which is it? Literal, or spiritual?
Want to listen to Jay again? We can make this long or short.

Is water spiritual-or literal?

You know the answer to that.

Since we are talking about literal water, how do you want now to spiritualize the Eucharist and the writings of the Church fathers that Jay quotes as "literal" To be physically present is to be literally present-yes?

J.

The bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual and they are both real.

 

[Johann]

The bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual and they are both real.

Biblical Disharmony

When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible.

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.

Produces Dilemma

It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma.

What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?"

This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

Figurative In Old Testament

The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8,3:1)

Jesus Confirmed

Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself -- "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).

Words Were Spiritual

Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.

Clear enough @synergy?

 

[synergy]

Biblical Disharmony

When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible.

Again, the bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual. What is it about that statement that you do not understand?

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.

Produces Dilemma

John 6:53 only produces a dilemma for those who do not understand the Bible.

It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma.

What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?"

Only those who truly believe actually partake of salvation during the Lord's Supper.

This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

You have to ask a Catholic.

Figurative In Old Testament

The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8,3:1)

I live in NT times where John 6:53 is real but not cannibalistic. If you prefer you can live in OT times then suit yourself.

Jesus Confirmed

Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself -- "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).

They were spiritual words. That's how the Spirit works, spiritually.

Words Were Spiritual

Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

Now do you understand? The bread is literal/physical and the Spirit is spiritual.

As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

Again, The bread is literal/physical and the Spirit is spiritual. What part of my sentence do you not understand?

When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.

Clear enough @synergy?

Jesus said to receive him spiritually through physical bread via communion. (1Cor 10:16)

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Is this verse clear enough for you?

 

[Johann]

Again, the bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual. What is it about that statement that you do not understand?

John 6:53 only produces a dilemma for those who do not understand the Bible.

Only those who truly believe actually partake of salvation during the Lord's Supper.

You have to ask a Catholic.

I live in NT times where John 6:53 is real but not cannibalistic. If you prefer you can live in OT times then suit yourself.

They were spiritual words. That's how the Spirit works, spiritually.

Now do you understand? The bread is literal/physical and the Spirit is spiritual.

Again, The bread is literal/physical and the Spirit is spiritual. What part of my sentence do you not understand?

Jesus said to receive him spiritually through physical bread via communion. (1Cor 10:16)

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Is this verse clear enough for you?

Crystal.
J.

 

[101G]

The truth is, that the Jewish book of The Zohar goes in great depth into the subject it calls “Haraz de Shlosha” – “The Mystery of the Three”, about the nature of One God with three dimensions\persons.

please explain this .... three dimensions\persons?

101G.

 

[101G]

Again, the bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual. What is it about that statement that you do not understand

John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:48 "I am that bread of life." John 6:49 "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." John 6:50 "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:52 "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" John 6:53 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:55 "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6:56 "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man". is not the Son of man Spiritual, as well as the Spirit itself, Spiritual?

101G.

 

[e v e]

please explain this .... three dimensions\persons?

101G.

the zohar does not contain God's words.

 

[synergy]

John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:48 "I am that bread of life." John 6:49 "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." John 6:50 "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:52 "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" John 6:53 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:55 "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6:56 "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man". is not the Son of man Spiritual, as well as the Spirit itself, Spiritual?

101G.

Keep reading until verse 63. The words that Christ speaks are spiritual. It all makes sense when you view it from that point of views.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

 

[101G]

Keep reading until verse 63. The words that Christ speaks are spiritual. It all makes sense when you view it from that point of views.

I know that, because his words are Life, but I asked in respond to your answer, "Again, the bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual. What is it about that statement that you do not understand?" but now you say, "The words that Christ speaks are spiritual"
correct, so how is the bread literal? words are abstract, 101G can agree with you to a POINT, as the Word of God Spoken is rhema, and manifested ... Logos. here in MANAFESTATION, YES LITERAL. but the Logos is not for consumption in a manifested form. but for belief and faith which is not concrete. there 101G agrees. but not the bread in literal form which is his spoken word

or maybe you have another line of reasoning that 101G is not aware of.

101G.

 

[101G]

To all my trinitarians out there.
scriptures cannot be IGNORED, and only scriptures can answer scripture. as 101G asked afore, "Why did the Lord Jesus disciples state that GOD raised up the Lord Jesus body, when in actuality the Lord Jesus himself raised up his own body". the evidence is escapable ... the Lord Jesus is God in Flesh because of a ECHAD of being diverse, NOT IN PERSONS, NO, BUT IN NATURE. the scroptures OT as well as NT confirms this.

101G seriously ask any bible reader with the Holy Spirit to really examine the ECHAD of God in Isaiah chapter 53 which answer this Godhead question, as well as Genesis 1:26, to Matthews 19:4, and back to Genesis 1:27. the OT is full of examples of God in an ECHAD of Diversity. over and over the OT is yelling God our God, who is LORD is a "DIVERSITY"/OFFSPRING of himself in flesh bone and blood that was to come. yes "WAS" to come as John 1:1 clearly states.

if one gets the basic structure down of an ECHAD in a EQUAL Share of oneself, then all of these hard to answer question about the trinity will be dissolved.... no more.

101G is asking, ...... that's all, just ASKING that one resolve the ECHAD definition of ONE. a compound Unity or an Ordinal First and Last in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK.? your choice, your work of salvation.

101G.

 

[synergy]

I know that, because his words are Life, but I asked in respond to your answer, "Again, the bread is literal and the Spirit is spiritual. What is it about that statement that you do not understand?" but now you say, "The words that Christ speaks are spiritual"
correct, so how is the bread literal? words are abstract, 101G can agree with you to a POINT, as the Word of God Spoken is rhema, and manifested ... Logos. here in MANAFESTATION, YES LITERAL. but the Logos is not for consumption in a manifested form. but for belief and faith which is not concrete. there 101G agrees. but not the bread in literal form which is his spoken word

or maybe you have another line of reasoning that 101G is not aware of.

101G.

Just like the water that you were baptized in is physical/literal the same way the bread and wine of Lord's Supper is physical/literal. I'm not sure what it is you do not understand.

 

[Anja]

DO WE BELIEVE IN "THREE GODS" AS THE RABBIS CLAIM?!
ONE FOR ISRAEL
But wait, there is more….

I do not believe in three Gods. Real Christians do not believe in three gods. Christians believe in the Trinity, which is God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity does not teach that there are three separate gods, but rather that God is a three-in-one being. Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers.

I'm not waiting because there is no more.