Post by Admin on Jul 27, 2024 19:51:09 GMT
web.media.mit.edu/~picard/personal/Newton.php
Comments on Issac Newton and his faith in God
In fact, I believe, Newton rejected the Trinity for a very fideistic type of reason: it isn't found in the Bible! (or so he thought) Newton believed that reason, rather than leading to true doctrine, actually had led to heresies such as the Trinity and the Papacy: turning Sam's view on its head. The plain meaning of the biblical text could be trusted, but not the deductions of reason..
Author of article" And yet Newton's faith is what I wish to focus on -- not his great scientific accomplishments, but the basic question of this series: How did the Christian faith, which Newton professed, influence his scientific thinking, and how did his science affect his faith?
Author of article "Today we hear of many people who shun the church because of the unloving and otherwise incongruous behavior they occasionally observe or hear about church-goers and evangelists. Nevertheless, we find that Newton is able to move beyond this, to dig deeply into scripture, and to emerge with not only great theological knowledge, but also with great faith.
Newton wrote that it was ``contrary to God's purposes that the truth of his religion should be as obvious and perspicuous to all men as a mathematical demonstration.''
He recognized that the punishments in his day for publishing antitrinitarian views could be harsh.
Author of article" I would like to interject a few comments, proposing that Newton's arguments are highly relevant to science today. On multiple occasions, I have heard people claim that because they have a mechanistic explanation of something, therefore they have the explanation of how it came to be. If they have a mathematical model of how something works, then they think they know how it works. I have even heard some commit an egregious error, and declare that this mechanism therefore obviates the need for God. Newton saw the fallacy in this thinking. To Newton, and to basic Christian thinking, the existence of simple orderly mechanisms are not only consistent with God's nature, they are a reflection of it.
Newton wrote, ``Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to ye consideration of my readers.''
The word ``miracle'' derives from the Latin verb ``mirari'' to create wonder or astonishment. My understanding (from Davis, 1991) is that Newton believed that God does ALL things in nature, whether usual or unusual. The ones done by God's established laws tend to be usual, and we consider these natural. The ones done seldom, without laws, tend to arouse wonder in us, and thus are termed ``miracles.''
ROB” Question: When faith is exercised, is this flow a miracle or a natural order of things from GOD? Because the flow is supernatural in the natural order of our world, it is a Q question?
The same could be asked for gravity? Is this force a supernatural flow or a natural flow from God? Another Q question.
I don't know what I may seem to the world, but, as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
I will close by reading from Newton's own religious credo, so that you might hear his own words of faith:
We must believe that there is one God or supreme Monarch that we may fear and obey him and keep his laws and give him honour and glory. We must beleive that he is the father of whom are all things, and that he loves his people as his children that they may mutually love him and obey him as their father. We must believe that he is PANTOCRATOR (greek) Lord of all things with an irresistible and boundless power and dominion that we may not hope to escape if we rebell and set up other Gods or transgress the laws of his monarchy, and that we may expect great rewards if we do his will. We must beleive that he is the God of the Jews who created the heaven and earth all things therein as is exprest in the ten commandments that we may thank him for our being and for all the blessings of this life, and forbear to take his name in vain or worship images or other Gods. We are not forbidden to give the name of Gods to Angels and Kings, but we are forbidden to have them as Gods in our worship. For tho there be that are called God whether in heaven or in earth (as there are Gods many and Lords many) yet to us there is but one God the father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him: that is, but one God and one Lord in our worship.
Comments on Issac Newton and his faith in God
There are some who claim Isaac Newton should not have discovered gravity. My point in the commentary here is to show readers, Isaac Newton primarily discovered God and wrote more about God than he did about gravity.
In fact, I believe, Newton rejected the Trinity for a very fideistic type of reason: it isn't found in the Bible! (or so he thought) Newton believed that reason, rather than leading to true doctrine, actually had led to heresies such as the Trinity and the Papacy: turning Sam's view on its head. The plain meaning of the biblical text could be trusted, but not the deductions of reason..
ROB: I have to agree with Isaac Newton on this point, The word meaning of trinity comes from the traditions and precepts of men. It is a term invented by human religion and is not a Hebrew word meaning. Therefore we should not use the word meaning in God's religion. If God intended to use an idea like this, God would have inspired writers to write a Hebrew word with this theme, but there is none.
Our English Hebrew translator in modern times does not write such messages either.
This warning now comes to you, and what will you do with it? Will you say, “Have no fear of me?” But beware of that which the old writers called the world’s trinity—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. If you trifle and tamper with these, they will prove your ruin. Unless you are born again, unless your objectionable hereditary tendencies are changed, unless purity and sanctification work a transformation in your lives, your barque will be shipwrecked, your souls lost. {Lt43-1898.}
This is the only time Ellen White wrote "trinity" in a secular sense only.
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.—Special Testimonies, Series B, 7:62, 63. (1905). {Ev 615.1
Here messages include terms like "three great powers" and the "heavenly trio"
What other descriptors does GOD show her to write:
God would have our families symbols of the family in heaven. Let parents and children bear this in mind every day, relating themselves to one another as members of the family of God. Review and Herald 1896
Is this plain for readers? Such a term "family of God" is written over 300 times, but in the latter rains is written once, and in the former rains, not written at all.
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Therefore the correct term to describe Elohiym is "Elohiym Family Power"
Author of article" And yet Newton's faith is what I wish to focus on -- not his great scientific accomplishments, but the basic question of this series: How did the Christian faith, which Newton professed, influence his scientific thinking, and how did his science affect his faith?
ROB: Yes, when you become a supporter of GOD who also discover His work in Nature, which supports the Nature of God as well. There is a Bible verse for this idea:
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
Author of article "Today we hear of many people who shun the church because of the unloving and otherwise incongruous behavior they occasionally observe or hear about church-goers and evangelists. Nevertheless, we find that Newton is able to move beyond this, to dig deeply into scripture, and to emerge with not only great theological knowledge, but also with great faith.
Newton wrote that it was ``contrary to God's purposes that the truth of his religion should be as obvious and perspicuous to all men as a mathematical demonstration.''
ROB: So God refers to hide things in mysteries, we uncover through careful digging in His word.
Newton's view on Christ is often referred to as Arian, since he did not believe that the Son is ``of the same substance'' as the Father, but noted that this wording is not found in scripture.
ROB: So Isaac Newton was unable to verify the identity of the Son of God. Can we identify the Son of God as a Divine Power? Yes plainly from one verse: a whole scroll that is called Yasha , the same Hebrew word for Jesus, but we do not have to question the spelling of words, we need only ask, did the disciples of Christ write of His coming and His messages? If the answer is yes, we have our proof:
Yasha 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.
Here the scroll of Yasha says the YHWH, is the same power who caused the writings of the OT and the NT. Therefore this "He who exists" is Jesus-YHWH.
There are two "He who exists" in the OT and NT referenced often. The "YH" references to Jesus-YHWH and the "WH" refers to the Father-YHWH, in this special descriptive term, Jews honoured and never spoke.
Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the Jesus-YHWH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Father-YHWH out of heaven;
In fact both beings are written in one verse across space, but not time, doing the work of destruction as a single flow of power.
The union of Father and Son was ... an agreement of wills. The same attributes could be applied to the Father and to the Son, but they were different in nature since the Son's attributes were a grant from the Father.''
ROB: Isaac Newton does not understand "faith as a process" and thus investigating the powers of Christ he comes to the conclusion the "Son's attributes were a grant from the Father." is correct, but does NOT make the Son anything less than another member of the Infinity Set.
In Newton's words:
``The heathens made all their Gods of one substance and sometimes called them one God, and yet were polytheists. Nothing can make two persons one God but unity of dominion. And if the Father and Son be united in dominion, the son being subordinate to the father and sitting in his throne, they can no more be called two Gods then a King and his viceroy can be called two kings.''
ROB: I do not understand Newton's logic. If the three members of the Divine Family are independent of the powers of love, than we would have three flows of love and thus three "gods" a term I do not like to use, and thus as Jews claim this is a notion of pagan polytheists. However the Hebrew does NOT describe this notion even to humans who marriage in love. Consider the parallels in poetry that LORD challenges to us from Romans 1:20
Adam was a "finite infinity set" of all the DNA storage of sacred words for living the perfectly functional life of love. But he felt lonely so GOD built a help-meet.
The word meaning for help-meet is masculine, as the word breast is masculine. In the Greek the word for Comforter is also masculine. The Hebrew word for ruwach is feminine, but the Greek word for pneumia is sadly masculine, so not always does the Greek match correctly the grammar case of word meanings.
Now we have two copies of the human infinity set, so the second copy is a genetic clone of the first copy. Now the LORD allows the second copy of finite infinity to express itself differently to the first copy of finite infinity.
Question: Do we have two independent finite infinity sets? No
We have a single finite infinity set called "adam" in Hebrew, a word meaning "mankind" - the Hebrew has exact word meanings for a special purpose.
So why do we consider the woman as a separate creature to the man?
It is true her style of loving is different to the loving of the man, but in Hebrew there are intentionally two different Hebrew word for loving, the abah kind and the abahah kind. Something the English word "love" cannot render.
Now consider this, when the two copies are united in marriage bonds of love, and they become echad, does this word mean "compound unity" or as Jews claim "cardinally one" or is the word meaning similes of both ideas?
We see in the Hebrew, that the two are cardinally one flesh, for the love of the woman is responding love and her responding is because of His providing love, thus the reason why the masculine terms are expressed this way. Her breasts flow with His providing love, but she responds with her milk for her children. In fact this is perhaps a simile of faith shown in the nature of humans?
Now consider the grand infinity set. Inside this set are three styles of love and being loved, the provider love, the responder love and the child like collective love. The flow from this set is always a single flow, not three independent flows.
If love could be generated from a single member of the infinity set, than there would be according the Occam's razor theory, only necessary for the Most High, but this is not possible, hence the three are required to show relational love and relational faith, two concepts from the royal teachings of the Ten Words.
So the correct Hebrew word to describe Elohiym is the term "family power".
Newton refuted the doctrine of consubstantiality, arguing that it did not establish Christ's divinity or his right to be adored -- ``The heathens and Gnosticks supposed not only their Gods but even the souls of men and the starrs to be of one substance with the supreme God and yet were Idolaters for worshipping them.....Tis not consubstantiality but power and dominion which gives a right to be worshipped.'' (Manuel 1974, pp 59-60).
ROB: I agree with Isaac Newton, GOD is not a substance to all the members, as Gnostic religions claim, three expressions of the Most High, as Father expression and his left hand, the Spirit expression and the right hand, the Son expression.
This notion while Jewish as well as Gnostic is false.
Such as notion negates the relational function of love and faith, which requires a provider and a receiver, as well as a sender of the message and a messenger carrying the message. The Hebrew word "BN" is the "home over the nations" refers to the idea of a son carrying the love from the Father's home over the extended family of other created creatures, like humans and angels. Can any Jew deny the plain reading of this Hebrew word?
Pr 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Ps 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Here is poetry fun, a poetry play on the word "BN" meaning both Seed and Son. Notice we put our trust in the Seed / son is a faith process.
He recognized that the punishments in his day for publishing antitrinitarian views could be harsh.
ROB; Yes many Churches align with traditions of men, and their holy description of God as "trinity" whatever this invented term means.
Author of article" I would like to interject a few comments, proposing that Newton's arguments are highly relevant to science today. On multiple occasions, I have heard people claim that because they have a mechanistic explanation of something, therefore they have the explanation of how it came to be. If they have a mathematical model of how something works, then they think they know how it works. I have even heard some commit an egregious error, and declare that this mechanism therefore obviates the need for God. Newton saw the fallacy in this thinking. To Newton, and to basic Christian thinking, the existence of simple orderly mechanisms are not only consistent with God's nature, they are a reflection of it.
Newton wrote, ``Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to ye consideration of my readers.''
ROB: I agree, the Zero Point Energy field, whatever this term means, is the presence of the Father around the earth in our universe, upholds all things by forces that are respectful of mathematical laws and logic. Since it is a Q question, Newton also agrees to leave such things too high for us to fathom.
The word ``miracle'' derives from the Latin verb ``mirari'' to create wonder or astonishment. My understanding (from Davis, 1991) is that Newton believed that God does ALL things in nature, whether usual or unusual. The ones done by God's established laws tend to be usual, and we consider these natural. The ones done seldom, without laws, tend to arouse wonder in us, and thus are termed ``miracles.''
ROB” Question: When faith is exercised, is this flow a miracle or a natural order of things from GOD? Because the flow is supernatural in the natural order of our world, it is a Q question?
The same could be asked for gravity? Is this force a supernatural flow or a natural flow from God? Another Q question.
Sir Isaac Newton was a man of great faith. He was not only learned in science, but, according to John Locke, Newton had few equals in Bible knowledge.
Rob: Interesting
I don't know what I may seem to the world, but, as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
Rob: Interesting
I will close by reading from Newton's own religious credo, so that you might hear his own words of faith:
We must believe that there is one God or supreme Monarch that we may fear and obey him and keep his laws and give him honour and glory. We must beleive that he is the father of whom are all things, and that he loves his people as his children that they may mutually love him and obey him as their father. We must believe that he is PANTOCRATOR (greek) Lord of all things with an irresistible and boundless power and dominion that we may not hope to escape if we rebell and set up other Gods or transgress the laws of his monarchy, and that we may expect great rewards if we do his will. We must beleive that he is the God of the Jews who created the heaven and earth all things therein as is exprest in the ten commandments that we may thank him for our being and for all the blessings of this life, and forbear to take his name in vain or worship images or other Gods. We are not forbidden to give the name of Gods to Angels and Kings, but we are forbidden to have them as Gods in our worship. For tho there be that are called God whether in heaven or in earth (as there are Gods many and Lords many) yet to us there is but one God the father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him: that is, but one God and one Lord in our worship.
ROB: I notice Newton failed to understand the PANTOCRATOR (greek) is a reference to the SHADDAY (Hebrew) and a functional descriptor of the administration of the Holy Spirit as a grand medium by a third co-eternal being of the Infinity Set of Family Divine Power. Shalom
