Hoe leg ik de Drie-Eenheid uit aan een moslim?

[Aragorn]

En is Jezus volgens jou goddelijk/Zoon van God of niet?

[Smurffie]

Wat begrijpt hij er precies niet van eigenlijk?

Hij beweert dat het een profeet is, en we begrepen er beiden geen bal van eigenlijk Daarom geef ik zelf ook geen inhoudelijk commentaar.

Anyway, het is blijkbaar niet uit te leggen, maar simpel een kwestie van geloven Dan houdt het gewoon op.

[Aragorn]

Ok, maar dan is het meer een kwestie van ongeloof dan onbegrip toch? Hij gelooft gewoon niet dat Jezus de Zoon van God is, maar dat het enkel een profeet is. Dat wil niet zeggen dat hij het dogma van de Drie-eenheid an sich niet zou begrijpen lijkt me - ook al gelooft hij het niet.

[Ener]

En is Jezus volgens jou goddelijk/Zoon van God of niet?

Hij is de Zoon van God, en dus goddelijk. Maar niet God zelf.

[Aragorn]

En dan volgt natuurlijk de onvermijdelijke vraag: wat is het verschil tussen goddelijk zijn en God zijn?

[Smurffie]

En dan volgt natuurlijk de onvermijdelijke vraag: wat is het verschil tussen goddelijk zijn en God zijn?

Ja idd, er is tenslotte maar 1 God

[Yael]

Ja dat klopt dat is denk ik nu tegenwoordig denk ik wel de meerderheid van de naam christenen:.......
"eej je gaat me toch niet vertelen dat je echt denkt dat Jezus God is ".....
en ook dat is een te simpele uitspraak.mensen realiseren niet wat dit inhoudt.
Maar door Zijn Woord heeft Hij zich wel als drieeenheid bekendgemaakt.

Jawel, maar we moeten wel Zijn eenheid benadrukken.
Vader, Zoon en Heilige Geest is 1.

[salty]

Aragorn zegt:"Maar de Drie-eenheid is naar mijn gevoel een minder cruciaal dogma dan de goddelijkheid van Jezus."
En is Jezus volgens jou goddelijk/Zoon van God of niet?"


Jongens vanwege tijdgebrek al deze samenraapsels toch in het engels voor de mensen die echt geinterresseerd zijn , misschien kunnen jullie er wat mee.

Allereerst een paar passages
om over na te denken
Spreuken 30.....
2Ik schiet tegenover iedereen tekort en het ontbreekt mij aan verstand.

3Ik heb geen wijsheid verkregen en begrijp ook niets van alles wat heilig is."

4Wie ging er naar de hemel en kwam weer terug? Wie houdt de wind stevig vast? Wie heeft al het water in een mantel gebonden? Wie gaf de aarde haar vorm en omtrek? Hoe heet Hij en hoe heet Zijn Zoon? Zeg het mij als u het weet.

5Gods woorden zijn puur en zuiver; Hij beschermt ieder, die op Hem vertrouwt.

6Voeg niets aan Zijn woorden toe, want dan straft Hij u, omdat u een leugenaar bent.

7God, ik heb twee dingen aan U gevraagd en geef mij die alstublieft voordat ik sterf:

8Houd ongeloof en leugens bij mij weg; geef mij armoe noch rijkdom, maar alleen wat ik nodig heb.


"And God [Elohim] said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... (Genesis 1:26)
Isaiah 6:8,
"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us...."

Genesis 48:15-16, "And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads..."

Isaiah 48:12-17, "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."

Here, the LORD God, the Redeemer of Israel, is speaking, identifies Himself as "the first and the last" (a title for God, Isaiah 44:6), and yet refers to "the Lord God" and "his Spirit" as seemingly separate beings which have "sent" Him (i.e. interacted with Him in a personal way). Thus, He is the Lord God, and yet, the Lord God and His Spirit, have both sent Him. Again, we note that this construction of third person God apparently interacting with third person God is extremely unusual in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is not a typical way in which God is referenced.
Isaiah 63:7-11, "I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses. For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"


Genesis 16:7-13, "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?"
Hagar is visited by the angel of the LORD, and is given a promise for her son Ishmael similar to that which God gave to Abraham for Isaac. In v. 12, she calls upon "the name of the LORD that spake unto her", suggesting that this angel is a hypostasis of the LORD Himself. Normally in the Hebrew scriptures, when a non-divine messenger is relaying a message from God, it is clearly indicated in the text that the messenger cannot be confused with God (such as when a prophet states, "the word of the LORD came unto me, saying..." or "The LORD spake unto Moses saying...").

Genesis 32:28-30, "And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
In our passage above, after wrestling with the angel all night, Jacob states that he had "seen God face to face". That phrase leaves no doubt that Jacob understood the angel to BE God, for he had seen no other entity BUT that angel "face to face" in that episode. Further, when Jacob asked the angel His name, the angel said, "Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?". This could indicate to us that the angel was emphasising to Jacob that he ALREADY KNEW His name, since the angel had just renamed Jacob "Israel" (meaning "he will rule as God"), and told him that he had power with God as well as with men. Jacob thus inferred from this answer that he was dealing with God then and there, leading to his exclamation in v. 30.
Judges 13:3-22, "And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son....But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God." (v.3, 21-22)


Zechariah 3:1-5, "And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by."
Here, the angel of the LORD appears to Joshua the high priest. The angel performs the act of cleansing Joshua from his iniquities, which is something only God can do (Isaiah 43:25).

[salty]

In these and other places, we see that the Targumim (Aramaic commentarian translations of the Hebrew scriptures made mostly during the intertestamental period) would often interpret these places where God appears to display multiple distinct persons by substituting "the MEMRA of the LORD" (Memra is Aramaic for "word") in place of one of the persons of YHWH. This seems to indicate that the Targumists understood there to be distinct persons of God acting in concert, sharing the same essence of Godhead. Further, the substitution of "Memra of the LORD" would often be made where "angel of the LORD" is found in the Hebrew text, which suggests the understanding that the angel of the LORD was a manifestation of God Himself, with the messenger being so closely associated with the sender of the message as to be considered a divine hypostasis
We see that this interpretation did find some support among the rabbis living before the modern age. Rav Simeon ben Jochai states concerning the Angel of the LORD,
"There is a perfect Man, who is an Angel. This Angel is Metatron, the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is an Emanation from Him; yea, He is Jehovah; of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but He is the Emanation from God. This agrees exactly with what is written, Jeremiah 23:5-6,
David's Branch, that though He shall be a perfect man, yet He is ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’"12
Deuteronomy 6:4 is part of the great Jewish confession of faith known as the Sh'ma. It was a great commitment of faithfulness made on the part of Israel to God, and is often considered to be the foundational statement of Jewish monotheism. As such, this verse is also one which many unitarian apologists, Jewish or otherwise, turn to in their efforts to put a difference between the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures and that of HaBrit HaChadassah.


However, far from opposing the idea of uniplurality in the Godhead, the Sh'ma is actually somewhat supportive of this concept. What must be understood is that the fact that the Sh'ma says that God is one does not have much bearing on the issue of uniplurality versus strict unitarianism. It is referring to God being "one" in the sense of uniqueness, set apart from all others which are called gods. He has no peers, no equals, none who can rightly and justly share the name and preeminence of "God" with Him. It, in its natural context, says nothing about God being "unitarian".
The uniplurality of God is suggested, however, by the use of "echad" in the Sh'ma, which is a word for "one" which is indicative of compounded unity, rather than absolute, monolithic oneness. The consistent use throughout the Hebrew scriptures is of this sort: either describing a "one" which is made up of many (such as a bunch of grapes) or a one which is part of many like to it (such as one sheep among a whole flock of sheep). Given the consistent and vigourous emphasis of the Hebrew scriptures upon the uniqueness and monotheism of God, it is highly unlikely that the latter is meant with "echad" in the Sh'ma. But, the former fits in quite well with the multipersonal data seen above from other passages of Scripture. The word also is used in the strictly ordinal sense, as a number, which in no way detracts from the "compound" overtones of the word as they plainly appear throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Wolf says concerning this word,
"This word occurs 960 times as a noun, adjective, or adverb, as a cardinal or ordinal number, often used in a distributive sense. It is closely identified with yachad "to be united" [ed. note: not the same as yachid, see below] and with ro'sh "first, head," especially in connection with the "first day" of the month (Gen 8:13). It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness.....
"The concept of unity is related to the tabernacle, whose curtains are fastened together to form one unit (Ex 26:6, 11; 36:13). Adam and Eve are described as "one flesh" (Gen 2:24), which includes more than sexual unity. In Gen 34:16 the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become "one people."
"Later, Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks (37:17). Once again Judah and Ephraim would be one nation with one king (37:22). Abraham was viewed as "the one" from whom all the people descended (Isa 51:2; Mal 2:15), the one father of the nation.
"Diversity within unity is also seen from the fact that ehad has a plural form, ahadim. It is translated "a few days" in Gen 27:44; 29:20, and Dan 11:20. In Gen 11:1 the plural modifies "words": "the whole earth used the same language and the same words." Apparently it refers to the same vocabulary, the same set of words spoken by everyone at the tower of Babel. The first "same" in Gen 11:1 is singular, analogous to "the same law" of the Passover applying to native-born and foreigner (Ex 12:49; cf. Num 15:16), or to the "one law" of sure death for approaching the Persian king without invitation (Est 4:11).
"In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4, "Hear, O Israel...the LORD is one," the question of diversity within unity has theological implications. Some scholars have felt that, though "one" is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity. While it is true that this doctrine is foreshadowed in the OT, the verse concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel owes exclusive loyalty to Him (Deut 5:9; 6:5). The NT also is strictly monotheistic while at the same time teaching diversity with the unity (Jas 2:19; I Cor 8:5-6)."14
Several interesting points are thus made. Wolf notes that Sh'ma concentrates upon the uniqueness of God, not upon the unity of God as it relates to diversity-within-unity, a later emphasis which did not arise until the Medieval period. "Echad" in the Sh'ma can engender a oneness drawn from a greater diversity which I mentioned above in that God can be considered as "one" among the many objects of worship that man might choose from, He is "one" from among the "many", the true being separated out from the mass of false gods. This sense would seem to correlate with the emphasis which the context of the Sh'ma passage puts on the LORD being Israel's object of worship, and the fidelity which Israel must give to God, putting away all false idols. However, the converse sense of compound oneness, that of a diversity within God's one, can also certainly be understood from the Sh'ma, as it uses that word "echad" which is so many times elsewhere used with the specific intent of indication compounded unity, coupled with the manifested multipersonality within God's revealed nature which was seen above.

[Aragorn]

Aragorn zegt:"Maar de Drie-eenheid is naar mijn gevoel een minder cruciaal dogma dan de goddelijkheid van Jezus."
En is Jezus volgens jou goddelijk/Zoon van God of niet?"


Jongens vanwege tijdgebrek al deze samenraapsels toch in het engels voor de mensen die echt geinterresseerd zijn , misschien kunnen jullie er wat mee.

Ik weet niet hoe anderen erover denken, maar ik heb pas zin om postings te lezen als ze meer omvatten dan wat engelse samenraapsels. Een samenhangende reactie bijvoorbeeld..

[Gerdien B.]

ik dacht dat dit een nederlandse site was

[salty]

MEMRA----LOGOS ------WORD OF YHWH
The Messiah, the Memra or 'Word' of G*d
When looking at the Proto-Evangel we saw how the serpent of bronze
which Moses raised up in the wilderness was, according to the Wisdom of
Solomon, a "sign of salvation". The Targum Jonathan Ben Uzziel says
here that "He who turns his heart to the L-RD's Memra will be spared".
Professor Gottlieb Klein identified Metatron, used as an epithet for
the Messiah, with Yahweh's Memra or 'Word'. In Klein's opinion it was
precisely this Aramaic word which gave the grounds to the belief that
Christ is "the Word or Logos of God become flesh".
The Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived about the same time as
Jesus, considered the Logos to be G*d' s delegate, his emissary and
angel who "prays as High Priest before G*d on behalf of the world". [1]
The Memra concept associated with G*d and his manifestations appear 596
times in the Targums -- but not once in the Talmud. [2] Targum Onqelos
uses the word 179 times, Targum Yerushalmi 99 times, and Targum
Jonathan 321 times. Over half of these references to the Memra approach
it as if it were "personified". [3] The absence of 'Memra' from the
Talmud may be a reaction to the first Christians' interpretation of it
as indicating Jesus. But are there really grounds for understanding
'Memra' to mean the same as the New Testament's 'Logos'?
In answering this question there is good reason to appeal to the
Rabbis' way of grading the old writings according to their source
value: "The Old Testament leads to the Targums, the Targums lead to the
Mishna, the Mishna to the Talmud, and so on." [4] Proceeding in this
way the Targums give earlier information on the Rabbis' exegesis than
even the Mishna, the oldest part of the Talmud. Therefore, from the
point of view of our subject, it is worthwhile familiarizing ourselves
with these roots of our Christian faith which are concealed in the
Targums.
The Memra appears in the Targums in the following contexts, among
others: On the creation of man in Gen. 1:27 the Targum says: "And the
L-RD's Memra created man" (Targum Yerushalmi); in Gen. 16:13 Hagar
speaks with the "angel of the L-RD" and "calls him the L-RD's Memra"
(Yer.); in Gen. 22, where Abraham speaks with the angel of the L-RD,
who is given the name "the L-RD's Memra", and in v.8 "the L-RD's Memra
himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering" (Yer.); in Gen.
28:20 Jacob makes a vow and says, "If the L-RD's Memra will be with
me... then the L-RD's Memra will be my G*d" (Onqelos); Gen. 15:6 in
interpreted by the Targum as follows: "Abraham believed in the L-RD's
Memra, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Onq.); Along with
the giving of the Law in Ex. 20:1 the Targum reads, "And the L-RD's
Memra spoke all these words" (Yer.).....
[1] Gottlieb Klein's Sex foeredrag, p88
[2] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I,
pp46-48
[3] Ibid vol II pp659-664
[4] Sifrei Shoftim, piska 160a

-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-

A Messianic Homily:

As I was on a journey, I was blest by the Holy One - praised
be He! - to hear the sages discuss a Great Mystery:
Of HaShem in Tanakh it is said:
Unto thee is was shown, that thou mightest know that YHVH, He
is Elohim; and there in none beside Him. - Deut. 4:35. There is
none holy as YHVH; for there is none beside Thee; neither is
there any rock like our God. - 1Sam.2:2.
Yet, behold, the Midrashim declare:
...What is the Name of King Messiah? To this answered Rabbi
Abba bar Kahana: HaShem is His Name... - Midrash Echa 1:51.
Not merely a 'form or part' of the Divine Name, but the
very Divine Name - and that followed by His attribute.
Tanakh further declares:
I Am Y-H-V-H, that is My Name; and My Glory will I not give to
another, - Is. 42:8a.
But come and see, the Midrashim tell us:
Rabbi Hann in the name of Rabbi Aha, continues the thought: G*d
will bestow a portion of His supernatural Glory on Messiah....
- Midrash Tehillim on Ps.21:3.
For the Sages declared that this Righteous Branch is
HaMashiach. And as a branch is part of the whole, but not
the totality of the whole - so This Branch is Part of the
Whole, but not the totality of the Whole. And again Tanakh
declares HaShem brought forth Salvation (Yeshua) by His own
Right Arm; and as the Targumim and Midrashim declare: The Arm
of HaShem is HaMashiach. And as the arm of man is part of man,
but not the totality of a man; so the Arm of HaShem is Part of
HaShem, but not the totality of HaShem. And The L-RD sent
forth His Arm as Salvation to mankind - yet the Tanakh declares
that there is Salvation in none other than HaShem?; so we see
that it was as in a glove, to veil the Sh'khinah from the eyes
of men who could not bear it; even as Moshe veiled his face
from the children of Israel.
But how can this be? Thus we continue to read of
El*him Echad:
How can Three be One? Are they verily One because we call them
One? How can Three be One, can only be known through the
revelation of the Holy Spirit. - Zohar, vol.2.p,43, versa,p.22.

B'rasheet haya HaDavar vHaDavar haya et HaEl*him vEl*him haya HaDavar
John 1;1

[salty]

Ener zegt;
"Nee hoor ik ben christen. Maar ik vind de redenering van de drie-eenheid pas een redenering zonder onderbouwing.

Col1:15 Hij is het beeld van
de onzichtbare God,
eerstgeborene van alle schepping,

Hier staat exact wie en wat de Here Jezus is"

Yael zegt:"
Jawel, maar we moeten wel Zijn eenheid benadrukken. "

Het is dus wel te onderbouwen , @Ener!
enne ......
Ja nogmnaals mijn excuses over het engels materiaal
Voor mensen die echt het fijne willen weten kunnen dit lezen als onderbouwing , ik had het hellaas niet in het nederlands onder mijn neus liggen

Omdat het zo complex is kom je er niet met een paar woorden uit
De teksten zou je ook ih Hebreeuws moeten lezen dan wordt het een en ander duidelijker.
[/b]

[Smurffie]

*zucht*

Salty, erg lief van je, maar het was niet de bedoeling om hier een discussie te houden (al begrijp ik dat die er wel van komt), en zéker niet in het engels. Voor velen wellicht interessant, maar mijn engels is dusdanig slecht dat ik hier niets mee kan

Rectificatie; sorry, je had al gereageerd

[Gerdien B.]

als je nu ook de (nederlandse) ondertiteling wil posten van al die lappen tekst!!