The true Ha’Mashiyach.

[Uriah-]

Here are my beliefs: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=230.topic

Let me start this out very simply and easy: John 17:3 This moreover is the eternal life, that to know You the alone true G.d, and Who sent Yehoshua Mashiyach.

The above is from Greek that is not a bias translation, it's more like a transliteration, anyway, either the Son lied or the Father is alone the true G.d.

[GrayPilgrim]

Welcome to TWEB Uriah-!:yipee: :yipee:

[Socrates]

Like all anti-trinitarian heretics, Uriah and that vile website ignore the very clear statements of Jesus's divinity, including from the same apostle he quotes (e.g. John 1:1-3, 8:58).

[Uriah-]

Like all anti-trinitarian heretics, Uriah and that vile website ignore the very clear statements of Jesus's divinity, including from the same apostle he quotes (e.g. John 1:1-3, 8:58).

Yes, I do not deny being a heretic to a false belief.

But funny how you just ignore what the Son said, no? You play word games with something that is like 50/50 (100% it doesn't support an deity for the Son, but to play fair we'll say it's 50/50) insteand of dealing with something straight from the mouth of the Son that a little child who knows how to speak can understand; yet it seems to either fly over Trinitarians' heads or they just think the Son is a liar.

John 1:1-3 in detail: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eeeshgeebor/bible%20site/Explaining%20John%201.htm

The word made flesh.

John 1:1-3; 14 In a beginning was the word, and the was towards G.d, and G.d was the word. The same in a beginning was towards G.d. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. 14 And the word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

Since it is “in a beginning” and not “in the beginning” we know there was a time when the word was not inside Ha’Mashiyach. The word inside Ha’Mashiyach is towards G.d because Ha’Mashiyach tells others what the only true G.d (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) told Ha’Mashiyach to say to others. We see this in Revelation 1:1 “The revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which G.d gave him to show his servant….” I will show other places further on in this examination. But notice that it also gives us a clue that the word is not literally Ha’Mashiyach since it says “the glory as of” And the other clue that the word is inside Ha’Mashiyach is that it says “the word lived among us”.

Hebrews 1:2 Long ago G.d spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.

What does this mean is what we need to ask ourselves. Let me give you a few examples.

Exodus 5:1 Afterwards Moshe and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “So said Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the G.d of Yisrael, ‘Send out My people that they may celebrate for Me in the wilderness.’”

Here the word of G.d became flesh through Moshe (Moses) and Aaron.

Joshua 24:2 “Yehoshua said to the entire nation, Thus said Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey…”

Here the word of G.d became flesh through Yehoshua (Joshua).

Jeremiah 29:20-21 “So you must listen to the word of Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the entire exile that I have sent out from Jerusalem to Babylonia. Thus said Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey….”

Here the word of G.d became flesh through Jeremiah.

What I am trying to show you is that the word became flesh through all the prophets.

John 3:34 He whom G.d has sent speaks the words of G.d, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

Here we see it says that Ha’Mashiyach speaks the words of Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey. But why does it say “Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey gives the Spirit without measure”? Good question, look carefully at what Ha’Mashiyach says in John 6:63.

John 7:16-17 Yehoshua answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me. If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from G.d or I speak of myself.

Here we see Ha’Mashiyach not only says that the doctrine is not his, but he even denies being the true G.d (whether it is from G.d or I speak of myself).

John 8:26-28 I have much to say about you and much to condemn; but the one who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.’ They did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father. So Yehoshua said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me.

Here we see that Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey (the Father) told Ha’Mashiyach what he should say.

John 12:49-50 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.’

Here we see that Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey (the Father) told Ha’Mashiyach what he should say.

John 14:8-10 Philip said to him, ‘lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ Yehoshua said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Here we see Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey speak through a lower being, a representation, in whom is the word of G.d is in. Ha’Mashiyach confesses that Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey speaks through him.

John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

Here we see Ha’Mashiyach say he is not literally the word (the word that you hear is not mine).

I hope those who were misled to believe that the word of G.d is literally Ha’Mashiyach now see the truth. If you still want to believe that Ha’Mashiyach is literally the word of G.d, then your belief be yours, and my belief be mine.

Thank you for taking some time to read this examination. May you be blessed with understanding.

John 8:58: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=109.topic

Exodus 3:13-15: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=117.topic

The things my Rabbi Yehoshua is:

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Messiah.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Lamb of the true G.d.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The unique Son of the true G.d.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Representation of the true G.d.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Greatest Apostle.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Greatest Prophet.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Greatest High Preist.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The sinless One.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Mediator.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The First of his kind, and The Last of his kind.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Instrument through whom everything was created.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The First to come out of the true G.d, everything else was created through him.

Now how about dealing with John 17:3? Or you going to run away from it like the majority of Trinitarians?

[dizzle]

Jesus is also the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Not very creaturely titles. I have an article here on the site refuting Unitarianism such as you advocate.

[Warcraft3]

Uriah- :

Hey welcome to TWEB. I read your post and the links you provided. You should look in the thread which already discusses the whole trinity issue. There are some good arguments for it. You will also find some good threads about who Jesus was and who He was not. There are many people here who are better equipped than me to discuss these issues with you.


On a side note I read your material and I found it rather unconvincing. Especially the treatment of 1 John.

Anyway welcome to TWEB.


Russ

[Uriah-]

Jesus is also the Alpha and the Omega,

No, he is not.

John 14:8-10, the Father can speak through the Son anytime he wishes. The Son however is the first of his kind, and the last of his kind; the Son is not the Alpha and Omega. How did you come to that conclusion? By reading “red letters”? I can use your logic and say the Son is an angel straight from Revelations 22:8-13; it doesn't give a clue when the angel ever stopped speaking. Two can play loop holes.

I have an article here on the site refuting Unitarianism such as you advocate.

Please provide the link, I will take a look at it and see if you got anything that wasn't already refuted on my board; mainly this thread: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=106.topic

You should look in the thread which already discusses the whole trinity issue.

Please provide the link, and I will take a look at it.

On a side note I read your material and I found it rather unconvincing. Especially the treatment of 1 John.

It is okay, I do use christian threats that if you don't accept it you will burn in hell; if you do not want to believe, then do not believe. Everyone has right to their beliefs.


Can anyone deal with John 17:3 or are all the Trinitarians going to avoid it on this board like everywhere else?

[Warcraft3]

Uriah- :
Here is a thread title off the top of my head............

"Rubia's questions about the trinity"

that dealt a bit with the trinity issue. To be honest with you I am not very active currently in debating this topic, since I long ago resolved the existance of the trinity to be a true one. Im sure there are others who would be more than willing to engage you in an indepth discussion of the issue. In fact you could even issue a challenge to have a debate with a trinitarian in the boxing ring.

If you want more threads do a search on "trinity" or a related topic.


Russ

[Socrates]

Uriah:John 1:1-3; 14 In a beginning was the word, and the was towards G.d, and G.d was the word.What a fruity translation. Where did you dredge this up from? Just about all translations recognise that the grammar of last clause means it should be "The Word was God".The same in a beginning was towards G.d. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. 14 And the word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. Since it is “in a beginning” and not “in the beginning” we know there was a time when the word was not inside Ha’Mashiyach. Again, did the translator pick up his Greek qualifications in a matzo packet? The Greek en archè means "In the beginning". It's the way the LXX translated Genesis 1:1.

This pathetic excuse for an exegete also misrepresents the Trinity by failing to differentiate role and nature -- Jesus submitted to the Father as a role, but is equal by nature.

[Uriah-]

Here is a thread title off the top of my head............

"Rubia's questions about the trinity"

Russ

I'll just look through all the threads that have to do with the so-called deity of the Messiah and the so-called Trinity.

Uriah:
John 1:1-3; 14 In a beginning was the word, and the was towards G.d, and G.d was the word.
What a fruity translation. Where did you dredge this up from?

A place called fluent Greeks who grew up in Greece.

Just about all translations recognise that the grammar of last clause means it should be "The Word was God".

Yes, just about all the bias translations do.

The Greek en archè means "In the beginning". It's the way the LXX translated Genesis 1:1.

No, it does not, it is literally “In beginning” but we do not speak like that like English so it becomes “In [a] beginning.” As for Genesis 1:1, you can go along with the bias translations as “In [the] beginning”, it is literally “In beginning” but since we do not speak like that in English it is “In [a] beginning.”

You don't have to accept the correct translations, you can go along with your bias translations if you choose.


Can some Trinitarian please address John 17:3: This moreover is the eternal life, that to know You the alone (only) true G.d, and Who sent Yehoshua Mashiyach.

Thank you.:smile:

[dizzle]

Uriah:

Here is the Alpha and Omega. We do not argue by weblink here so we please if there are arguments to be made make them here. Here is the thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=62520#post62520

Please though respond to the argument in that thread and this one can stay on the John passage you brought up.

[Uriah-]

I do not see a thread called “Rubia's questions about the trinity.” If you can find it, just quote whatever you thought was a worthy note as backup for the Trinity, and I will try to respond to it.

From the thread “Question concerning the deity of Christ.”

Will_C_Drotar

You must believe in the Trinity, or at least the deity of Christ, for salvation.

I'll like to see a single passage for that bold (and something else) statement.

From the thread “Question concerning the deity of Christ.”

Will_C_Drotar

If Jesus was not God, then whether consentually or not, it would be unjust to impute sin to someone else...But if Jesus was NOT God, it would have been unjust for God to punish Jesus whether He permitted it or not.

Read (I recommend reading the whole chapter to get context) Ezekiel 4:5-6, Ezekiel suffered for Judah and Yisrael. Was the true G.d being unjust for letting Ezekiel suffer for both Judah and Yisrael? His ways are beyond your thoughts.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Just about all translations recognise that the grammar of last clause means it should be "The Word was God".

Uriah:Yes, just about all the bias translations do.Oh, yeah, some great conspiracy, and you are the epitome of objectivity. And it's "biased translations" not "bias translations" :dunce:.

Socrates:

The Greek Greek en archè means "In the beginning". It's the way the LXX translated Genesis 1:1.

Uriah:No, it does not, it is literally “In beginning” but we do not speak like that like English so it becomes “In [a] beginning.” As for Genesis 1:1, you can go along with the bias translations as “In [the] beginning”, it is literally “In beginning” but since we do not speak like that in English it is “In [a] beginning.”Nonsense. The Hebrew bereshit and the Greek en archè convey the same MEANING as the English "in the beginning". One can't simply use a crass word-for-word translation and ignore grammatical context.

It's obvious that you have no idea about definite articles. Even your thread title "The true Ha’Mashiyach" contains a redundancy, because the Hebrew ha is the definite article -- your title translated to "The true the Messiah" :dufus:

Also, if you check Luke's genealogy of Christ, you'll find that all the names except for Jesus's foster father Joseph have the definite article. But you won't find that reflected in English translations, simply because in English we don't use definite articles with proper names. BTW, the absense of the article with Jesus is a clear indication to Luke's original readers that he was intending to trace Mary's line.

Uriah:Can some Trinitarian please address John 17:3: This moreover is the eternal life, that to know You the alone (only) true G.d, and Who sent Yehoshua Mashiyach.Of course -- Jesus was both fully God and fully Man (as amply shown by the texts I provided and Uriah butchered), and in His humanity it was proper for Him to refer to the Father as the only true God, who indeed sent Jesus, the Son.

[Uriah-]

Socrates, it is clear you got false knowledge and you think you got true knowledge, I rather not waste my time with you; it seems all you got is insults.

Ha'Mashiyach = The Messiah.

Bereshiyt = In beginning.

The reason my thread is labelled as "The true TheMessiah" is because there are many Messiahs, I referred to my Rabbi as TheMessiah in English and as Ha'Mashiyach in Hebrew. I don't expect you to understand. :hrm:

It is fine with me if you disagree with these fluent transliterations, it's not like you disagreeing will make it not true.

It doesn't matter what part of your mystical messiah spoke, either the humanity or deity, it was said. So is your messiah a liar? Mine isn't. That is why I accept my TheMessiah's words that the Father is alone the true G.d while you seem to believe your messiah lied so you accept some mystical tri-unity god.

Back to my post: Can another Trinitarian respond to John 17:3? Thanks.:smile:

[dizzle]

Uriah, I look forward to seeing your response to the Alpha and Omega link that I provided you. When I get some time I hope to address your John issue. I apologize that my time is very limited during the weekdays.

[jpholding]

Uriah,

Are you familiar with the idea of Jesus as the Wisdom of God?

Either way, how would you describe a hypostasis of the "true God" in terms of the "true God"? Would it also be "the only true God" or would it not be called by that title?

Finally, does alethinos restrict others from having a similar or derivative property? If so, why?

[Uriah-]

Uriah, I look forward to seeing your response to the Alpha and Omega link that I provided you.

I'll look at it when I have time for it seems to be lenghty; got a lot of things to do right.


Uriah, Are you familiar with the idea of Jesus as the Wisdom of God?

?

Either way, how would you describe a hypostasis of the "true God" in terms of the "true God"? Would it also be "the only true God" or would it not be called by that title?

The true G.d is the heavenly Father of Avraham (and among other others besides Avraham).

The true G.d was never a human, is not a human, and will never be a human.

The true G.d does not have a body.

The true G.d is the First of His kind, the Only Alone One of His kind, and the Last of His kind.

The true G.d is Everlasting from Everlasting to Everlasting.

The true G.d does not given birth to children like a mother to its child.

The true G.d was not formed, is not formed, and will not be formed.

The true G.d was not begotten, is not begotten, and will not be begotten.

The true G.d is Alone; He is Single, there is no one besides Him that is the true G.d.

The true G.d is the Only Creator; He can however use things and beings as “instruments” for creation.

The true G.d is the source of Salvation; He Saves through his servants, and therefore his servants are honored by the title “savior/s” (Obadiah 1:21; Nehemiah 9:27).

The true G.d is the most powerful; He is the source of all power, that is why He is referred to as “E.l.h.m.” A explanation of E.l.h.m: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=228.topic

The true G.d cannot be seen; He is omnipresent.

The true G.d cannot lie.

The true G.d cannot and shall not sleep nor slumber.

The true G.d cannot change.

The true G.d creates good and evil.

[Uriah-]

Dee Dee Warren, I am not sure how accurate the evidence is, but I was told in some kind of Catholics bibles the whole Alpha and Omega doesn't even appear in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which G.d gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

As you can see, Yehoshua was given a Revelation which proves he does not know all things; but that is not my point in quoting the passage, the point is that it was given to him to give to others; in other words, it is very hard to tell with 100% tone who said what, althought some things can be declared as the Father spoke here and there, and TheMessiah spoke here and there, and so on.

John 14:8-10, the Father can speak through TheMessiah whenever He wishes just as he can speak through anyone else at any given time He wishes. I recommand reading Deuteronomy 29:1-6, read it very carefuly, Moshe (Moses) starts out speaking, and all the sudden the words come from Moshe's mouth “that you might know that I am YH.H your G.d.”

I point out that Christ has already taken the title of “First and Last” in Revelation 1:16.

Revelation 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force.

Nothing about first and last in Revelation 1:16.

However, in Revelation 1:17 Christ claims that title for Himself.

Revelation 1:17-18 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.

I got no problem with this, I got two explanations for this:

1st. The Father spoke through TheMessiah (John 14:8-10) as He spoke through Moshe (Deuteronomy 29:1-6).

2nd. TheMessiah is the first of his kind, and the last of his kind.

[jpholding]

Uriah --

You did not answer my questions though from the ? I take it you do not know about Wisdom theology or what a hypostasis is. Correct?

[Uriah-]

You did not answer my questions though from the?

Read this: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eeeshgeebor/chap7firstborn.htm

I take it you do not know about...what a hypostasis is. Correct?

Correct, I don't see that fantsy word in my Bible.

[jpholding]

Uriah,

It's against the rules to post links. If you have something to say from that, please bring it here.

Correct, I don't see that fantsy word in my Bible.

The word "kneecap" isn't in the Bible either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. A hypostasis is exactly what is portrayed in Prov. 8, as well as in the intertestamental lit (Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach) that formed the groundwork for the identity of Jesus in the NT. Shall I explain further or will it be pointless because a word not in the Bible to you means it isn't possible? :smile:

[Uriah-]

jpholding, where does it say no links allowed?

I don't think I can post Hebrew fonts in this forum as are on the link. Anyway, the link goes into Proverbs 8.

[jpholding]

Today @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96304#post96304)
Uriah-:

jpholding, where does it say no links allowed?

I don't think I can post Hebrew fonts in this forum as are on the link. Anyway, the link goes into Proverbs 8.


I have been called on it by mods a couple of times. Don't worry about Hebrew fonts; just transliterate.

[Uriah-]

I have been called on it by mods a couple of times.

Unless it is a rule which I don't see any rules in this forum so far (the link to the rules doesn't even seem to work) I will keep using links.

By the way, what is that in your signature, we being hypocrites?:tongue:

[jpholding]

Today @ 08:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96440#post96440)
Uriah-:



Unless it is a rule which I don't see any rules in this forum so far (the link to the rules doesn't even seem to work) I will keep using links.

By the way, what is that in your signature, we being hypocrites?:tongue:

Well by now I can see you will do anything to avoid bringing arguments here, so knock thyself out. :tongue: Signatures are a place where links are allowed, though. I think cirisme os doing some work on the board so try the rules later.

[Uriah-]

It seems no other Trinitarian is willing to address John 17:3 (I think I know why since it is a powerful blow to the triune god), so I will move to something else.

The Scriptures and Passages mention the term “Son of G.d” and “Spirit of G.d” but why never “Father of G.d”?

[Warcraft3]

jpholding:

The word "kneecap" isn't in the Bible either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

:rofl: Oh man, that was a good one. You really do crack me up sometimes JP.



Russ

[dizzle]

Uriah, I had asked you to respond to my Alpha and Omega arguments in that thread. I will have your post moved to that thread, and I will respond to you there.

[GrayPilgrim]

The Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/show.php?pg=decorum)

Board Etiquette
Please respect the wishes of the thread starter to keep a thread on topic when requested and do not post using all caps, this includes profiles, signatures and screen names. Please do not post using the color red as this color is reserved for moderator notices. Debates (points for your position) made via weblink is not allowed. Weblinks may be used only as a point of reference or for further information regarding your position.



Uriah-
To learn the tedious task :bawl: of typing in Hebrew follow the link in my signature.

[AVmetro]

It seems no other Trinitarian is willing to address John 17:3 (I think I know why since it is a powerful blow to the triune god), so I will move to something else.

It is precisely the intricate nature of the Trinity which allows this to occur without contradiction. Typical of the AT, however, to misunderstand and/or misrepresent our beliefs. Jn17:3 refutes polytheism/Arianism, not Trinitarianism. See for example Jude 4..cf..Acts4:24. Christ is said to be our "only Lord" but obviously not to the exclusion of the Father.

Interestingly enough, I had a Unitarian opponent once deny the Father as being our "Lord" insisting that all references to Him as such were merely "force of habit" on behalf of the people :no:.

Does "only" mean "only" here? Yes! Afterall, I am a monotheist and this is only appropriate. :wink:

-God bless-

[AVmetro]

Random pickings..

Uriah states:

The Scriptures and Passages mention the term “Son of G.d” and “Spirit of G.d” but why never “Father of G.d”?

Rather, this very thing is clearly portrayed in the following:

Heb 1:8 - "..but of the Son He [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God [ho theos], is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

>

Someone mentioned the hypostatic union. Not much experience in this particular area but I'll see how far this takes me:

See Col2:9..cf..1Tim2:5. Christ possesses the fullness i.e. sum-total of those qualities which make a deity what it is. Yet at the same time He is also 'man'. What does this tell us?

>

Uriah - Do you believe in the literal preexistence of Christ?

-God bless-

[Uriah-]

It is precisely the intricate nature of the Trinity which allows this to occur without contradiction.

Apple 1, Apple 2, and Apple 3. -- If I say Apple 2 is the alone (only) red Apple, then Apple 1 and Apple 3 cannot be red Apples as well or my statement is false. Now did your messiah lie or is the Father Alone the true G.d?

Jn17:3 refutes polytheism/Arianism, not Trinitarianism.

Trinitarianism is Polytheism. Triune and Alone is two different things.

See for example Jude 4..cf..Acts4:24.

Jude 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only L.RD G.d and our lord Yehoshua Mashiyach.

I do not have a problem with The Father being the only L.RD (a.k.a. YH.H).

Acts 4:24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are G.d, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them,

The Lord here is not being addressed to TheMessiah as you can read in Acts 4:26 it says Lord and his Messiah.

Christ is said to be our "only Lord" but obviously not to the exclusion of the Father.

Scripture or Passage for the above statement please.

Heb 1:8 - "..but of the Son He [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God [ho theos], is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

I explain this on my board that it does not mean that TheMessiah is being addressed to as the true G.d here. I don't feel like typing everything up to this board, and since the Admin doesn't want links here, you will have to go to my board (the link to it is in my signature; I understand that we can have links in our signatures) into the “The Scriptural Debate Forum” and look for post labeled as “El & El.h.m” and “Tehillim 45:6-7.”

Col2:9 -- the Greek word for deity here is singular deity, not plural deity. TheMessiah was filled to the top with the deity of the Father.

1Tim2:5 For there is one G.d, and there is one mediator between G.d and men, the man Mashiyach Yehoshua,

Galatians 3:20 Now an mediator implies more than one; but G.d is one.

Uriah - Do you believe in the literal preexistence of Christ?

Which Christ?

[Socrates]

Uriah utters:

Correct, I don't see that fantsy word in my Bible.

JPHolding replies:The word "kneecap" isn't in the Bible either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. A hypostasis is exactly what is portrayed in Prov. 8, as well as in the intertestamental lit (Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach) that formed the groundwork for the identity of Jesus in the NT. Shall I explain further or will it be pointless because a word not in the Bible to you means it isn't possible? And hypostasis (‘υποστασις) IS in the Bible, five times, e.g. Hebrews 11:1 . But as JPH points out, even if it were not, it proves nothing. The concept there because of Wisdom theology which forms an interpretive background for so much of the NT christology.

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96501#post96501)
Uriah-:

It seems no other Trinitarian is willing to address John 17:3 (I think I know why since it is a powerful blow to the triune god), so I will move to something else.


I did address it, or rather start, but you seem unwilling to come to terms with the issue of hypostases. Do feel free to comfort yourself with that illusion, though. :thumb:

[AVmetro]

It is precisely the intricate nature of the Trinity which allows this to occur without contradiction.

Apple 1, Apple 2, and Apple 3. -- If I say Apple 2 is the alone (only) red Apple, then Apple 1 and Apple 3 cannot be red Apples as well or my statement is false. Now did your messiah lie or is the Father Alone the true G.d?

Evidently you failed to grasp the "intricate" of my above statement and how this allows an absence of a contradiction. Your analogy is false as it is not god 1, god 2, god 3 we are dealing with here (as your analogy asserts). Simply asserting otherwise will not suffice as an argument either. Trinitarianism teaches one God and therefore an address between members of the Godhead as "the ONLY True God" is appropriate and expected.


Jn17:3 refutes polytheism/Arianism, not Trinitarianism.

Trinitarianism is Polytheism. Triune and Alone is two different things.

Misrepresenting what we believe will not substitute for an argument. Sorry. You either need to grant our view and refute it from that angle or refute the view itself and proceed in that manner.


See for example Jude 4..cf..Acts4:24.

Jude 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only L.RD G.d and our lord Yehoshua Mashiyach.

Read the following:

"..ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. ASV

..and..

"..ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus christ." NASB

The ESV, NRSV, NJB, NLT, JNT, BBE, CEV, DARBY, GNT, GW, ISV, WNT render it likewise.

Now read:

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

denying the only Lord--The oldest manuscripts, versions, and Fathers omit "God," which follows in English Version. Translate as the Greek, "the only Master"; here used of Jesus Christ, who is at once Master and "Lord" (a different Greek word). See on 2Pe_2:1. By virtue of Christ's perfect oneness with the Father, He, as well as the Father, is termed "the ONLY" God and "MASTER." Greek, "Master," implies God's absolute ownership to dispose of His creatures as He likes.

Marvin R. Vincent:

Lord God - God is omitted in the best texts. On Lord (δεσπο?την), see on 2Pe_2:1.

A.T. Robertson:
Our only Master and Lord (ton monon despote¯n kai kurion he¯mo¯n). For the force of the one article for one person see note on 2Pe_1:1. For despote¯n of Christ see 2Pe_2:1.

As you can see, this is considered by the majority to be the most accurate reading. If you want to debate this, give it a thread on the 'exegesis' board.

I do not have a problem with The Father being the only L.RD (a.k.a. YH.H).

Neither do I and I believe that He is. However, evidence points to Christ as being the referent of "Only Lord" in Jude 4. Because I am a Trinitarian, this poses no problem for me. Both are YH-H.

Also..

The Greek word 'kurios', which is often used in the NT as a substitute for the Tetra, is used in reference to Christ in Jude 4. Even if you assert that the KJV rendering is the correct one. The word 'lord' used in reference to the spurious 'theos' is 'despotes'. Additionally, if you insist that 'kurios' here is representative of the divine name (as you have in the above) then you have only served to support our view that both Christ and the Father are YH-H.

On a side note, you can see where the Father refers to the Son as "Lord" (see LXX, most likely sub. of the Tetra) in Heb1:10.


Acts 4:24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are G.d, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them,

The Lord here is not being addressed to TheMessiah as you can read in Acts 4:26 it says Lord and his Messiah.

I know. That was the entire point. In Jude 4, Christ is said to be our "only Master and Lord". Yet here in the above passage we find that the Father, too, is our "Lord" (despotes). Parallel this to Jn17:3. Therefore, when we read Jn 17:3 we know, under the Trinitarian view especially, that Christ is not excluded as being "our God" (E.g. Jn20:28).

As I stated prior, this passage only refutes polytheism. If you can show us (from the creeds etc.) where orthodox Trinitarianism claims to believe in three seperate and distinct "gods" then you can continue to throw this passage around as an attempt to refute Trinitarianism. Otherwise you are wasting time.


Christ is said to be our "only Lord" but obviously not to the exclusion of the Father.

Scripture or Passage for the above statement please.

Jude 4. See above.


Heb 1:8 - "..but of the Son He [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O God [ho theos], is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

I explain this on my board that it does not mean that TheMessiah is being addressed to as the true G.d here. I don't feel like typing everything up to this board, and since the Admin doesn't want links here, you will have to go to my board (the link to it is in my signature; I understand that we can have links in our signatures) into the “The Scriptural Debate Forum” and look for post labeled as “El & El.h.m” and “Tehillim 45:6-7.”

No thank you. If I read your argument there, I would have to address it there. Sum it up here.

Col2:9 -- the Greek word for deity here is singular deity, not plural deity.

And?

We do not believe that the "Trinity" resides within Christ's body. That is not what this passage is stating. Therefore your point is entirely nullified.

TheMessiah was filled to the top with the deity of the Father.

This interpretation cannot even be derived from the text. We are speaking of a "divine quality" residing bodily in Christ. Do you intend to interchange the person of the Father with a 'quality'?

I cited:

1Tim2:5 For there is one G.d, and there is one mediator between G.d and men, the man Mashiyach Yehoshua,

You replied:

Galatians 3:20 Now an mediator implies more than one; but G.d is one.

Evidently you missed my point (emphasis being on "man"). I was comparing the two in order to demonstrate that Christ is both 'man' and 'divine'. I.e., two natures in one being. When I place "cf" between two scriptures you are supposed to compare them. Not address them seperately detached from my point.


Uriah - Do you believe in the literal preexistence of Christ?

Which Christ?

I'm a Trinitarian and it's not clear what I meant? I'll ask again - Do you believe in the literal preexistence of Christ (Jesus)?

-God bless you-

[DBoone]

Uriah -
It sounds to me like you're saying that Jesus was the first creation of God, and that Jesus then created all other things. Is this correct? If so, I would ask that you read the text of John1 again. It says that Jesus (the Word) created all things and that not one thing was created that was not created by Him. So Jesus cannot be included among other created things. When the OT in Genesis is talking about God creating the heavens and the earth, and in Psalms this is elaborated on by saying that all things were created by the word of power, the NT further defines this in giving the pre-carnate Jesus the credit for the act of Creation.

[Uriah-]

Evidently you failed to grasp the "intricate" of my above statement and how this allows an absence of a contradiction.

Use more specific wording if you think I fail to grasp your fantasy.

Trinitarianism teaches one God and therefore an address between members of the Godhead as "the ONLY True God" is appropriate and expected.

Let's try to shine some light on your eyes by using an example.

I call Yaakov od on the phone. Yaakov picks up the phone and answers, "Hello, who is this"? Uriah replies, "This is Uriah. How are you doing"? Yaakov replies, "I am doing great." Uriah asks Yaakov, "Are you married buddy"? Yaakov smiles and replies, "Yes, buddy. Come over and see. I got only one wife." Uriah replies, "Okay, will be there in an hour." Uriah drives to Yaakov's house, and knocks on the door. Yaakov opens the door and greets Uriah. Uriah steps into the house and sees three females. So Uriah asks Yaakov, "Who are these"? Yaakov replies, "This is my only wife." Uriah thinks Yaakov misheard him, so Uriah asks again, "Who are these ladies"? Yaakov replies, "I just told you, this is my only wife."

Misrepresenting what we believe will not substitute for an argument. Sorry. You either need to grant our view and refute it from that angle or refute the view itself and proceed in that manner.

I most likely know the Trinity better than you. But since I see through the lie which you call "truth", I am not afraid to call the Trinity teaching for what it is; that is Polytheism.

Read the following

One version is fine enough for me on the passage that was at hand, and I presented what it said.

Both are YH-H.

No proof for that.

In Jude 4, Christ is said to be our "only Master and Lord".

Sorry, but it says no such thing.

Jn20:28

The lord of me (Messiah), and the God of me (God inside Messiah).

No thank you. If I read your argument there, I would have to address it there. Sum it up here.

No thank you, I don't feel like copying and pasting, since you are lazy to go read it there, I will return the favoir by being too lazy to copy it and paste it here.

We do not believe that the "Trinity" resides within Christ's body.

And by your statement above you show yourself to contradict your Trinitarian church fathers. What do you think the word "Godhead" means to your Trinitarian church fathers?

That is not what this passage is stating. Therefore your point is entirely nullified.

Not exactly, it only proves my point that Messiah is not God since the Father is said to be 'Alone true God (John 17:3)' who is inside the Messiah (John 14:10-11).

“ TheMessiah was filled to the top with the deity of the Father. ”

This interpretation cannot even be derived from the text.

It sure can, but it shows me how much you know.

I was comparing the two in order to demonstrate that Christ is both 'man' and 'divine'.

And I showed you why he isn't part of God, otherwise God becomes more than one.

I.e., two natures in one being. When I place "cf" between two scriptures you are supposed to compare them. Not address them seperately detached from my point.

I do as I please, you might want to take a look around that this board is just that, a board where people in the real world can post however they wish if it isn't breaking the board rules.

I'm a Trinitarian and it's not clear what I meant? I'll ask again - Do you believe in the literal preexistence of Christ (Jesus)?

Your christ and your jesus? No.

It sounds to me like you're saying that Jesus was the first creation of God, and that Jesus then created all other things.

Rabbi Yehoshua didn't create anything just as the earth waters didn't create (Genesis 1:11-12, Genesis 1:20-21). If you can understand these, you should have a better grasp how God created by/through Rabbi Yehoshua.

It says that Jesus (the Word)

Your first misunderstanding, therefore I don't need to address the rest of the sentence. Rabbi Yehoshua is not literally "the word" in John, although it does get complexed when it comes to explanation what John is talking about to those who do not understand that the word became flesh through all the prophets.

[jpholding]

It's about time Uriah got back from his vacation. Still don't think the word "hypostasis" is a Biblical concept in spite of Prov. 8?

[Uriah-]

I don't know what the word "hypostasis" means. So if you can clarify it for me, that would be good.

[jpholding]

06-16-2003 @ 09:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124702#post124702)
Uriah-:

I don't know what the word "hypostasis" means. So if you can clarify it for me, that would be good.

Ah.

A hypostasis is a personified attribute of a deity.

[Uriah-]

Whatever, so is that all you wanted to say?

[OldShepherd]

06-17-2003 @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124702#post124702)
Uriah-:

I don't know what the word "hypostasis" means. So if you can clarify it for me, that would be good.

It is a Greek word found in the N.T.. Usually when people debate a subject they know what they are talking about.

Below is a quote from Strong's Concordance defining the word upostasiV, and two of the five verses where the word appears.

FYI a concordance is a language resource which lists all the occurences of a word in the scriptures and the definition of that word. People who study the Bible find them very helpful, and many are available online,
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, (upostasiV) and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance (upostasiV) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

5287 upostasiV hupostasis hoop-os’-tas-is
from a compound of 5259 and 2476; TDNT - 8:572,1237; n f
AV - confidence 2, confident 1, person 1, substance 1; 5
    1) a setting or placing under
         1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
    2) that which has foundation, is firm
         2a) that which has actual existence
              2a1) a substance, real being
         2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
         2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
              2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance

[OldShepherd]

06-16-2003 @ 04:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124204#post124204)
Uriah-:

I call Yaakov od on the phone. * * *Yaakov replies, "I just told you, this is my only wife."

I most likely know the Trinity better than you. But since I see through the lie which you call "truth", I am not afraid to call the Trinity teaching for what it is; that is Polytheism.


Asinine. I thought you said you know more about the Trinity than Iron Metro? Evidently you do not since you are using this tired old irrelevant analogy. Actually what I think you know is the lie that many phony wanna be Jews believe about the Trinity.

The lord of me (Messiah), and the God of me (God inside Messiah).

Here is that verse perhaps you could show us where the words "(God in Messiah)" appear? This is what they look like, in Greek, qeoV en messiaV
John 20:28 kai apekriqh o qwmaV kai eipen autw o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou

And by your statement above you show yourself to contradict your Trinitarian church fathers. What do you think the word "Godhead" means to your Trinitarian church fathers?

Why don't you tell us what the church fathers said, if you even know what you are talking about.

Your first misunderstanding, therefore I don't need to address the rest of the sentence. Rabbi Yehoshua is not literally "the word" in John, although it does get complexed when it comes to explanation what John is talking about to those who do not understand that the word became flesh through all the prophets.

For Pre-Christian Jews, the Word was God, and that is exactly what John said and why there is absolutely no argument from from any first century Jews.

Notice in this brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, the Aramaic word, “memra” was substituted for YHWH. This quote has over 100 citations where that was done. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The "Memra", i.e."The Word", was God. John wasn’t saying anything new.
-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

[OldShepherd]

Where did the concept of a Trinity come from? Answer, ancient pre-Christian Judaism. Let us refer to the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) again.

But the scoffers scoff, "The Jews reject the Trinity!" Not a good argument, at all, they also reject Jesus and say that the issue, i.e. the child, of a gentile, is as that of a beast, and worse, in the same JE.
In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its [Note, the Zohar. OS] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "ma?ronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Ma??eh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T

[OldShepherd]

The following are a few of many O.T. verses which refer to יהוה that are applied to Jesus in the N.T.
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD יהוה, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Matt 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (Mark 1:3 Luke 3:4 John 1:23)

Ps 8:1 <<To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David.>> O LORD יהוה our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Matt 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected raise?

Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD יהוה of hosts.

Luk 1:76 And thou, child [John], shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD יהוה shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD יהוה hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD יהוה shall call.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Isa 45:23 I [יהוה] have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

[Uriah-]

It is a Greek word found in the N.T.. Usually when people debate a subject they know what they are talking about.

I didn't know that that is the word that is used in Hebrews 1:3, but yes, I am aware of that word. I didn't know how to spell it.

What does this have to do with the subject of Messiah not being the true God?

Actually what I think you know is the lie that many phony wanna be Jews believe about the Trinity.

? You talking about J4J? J4J is the result of what you idolaters turn Jews into. J4J at least plainly state they believe in "gods."

“ The lord of me (Messiah), and the God of me (God inside Messiah). ”

Here is that verse perhaps you could show us where the words "(God in Messiah)" appear? This is what they look like, in Greek, qeoV en messiaV

John 20:28 kai apekriqh o qwmaV kai eipen autw o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou

That was a few letters explanation, the long one I will provide below.

John 20:28 28 Toma answered him, “The master of me, and the God of me!” (U.V.)

Take an apple and a knife. Slice the apple down the center all the way through. Now take one side of the sliced apple and observe how you have the skin of the apple (representing the flesh) the inside of the apple (representing Ha’Mashiyach) and the seeds of the apple (representing the Father side Ha’Mashiyach). The difference between us being an apple and Ha’Mashiyach being an apple is that Ha’Mashiyach has the most seeds as possible and yet be considered an apple still.

Take a glass and some filtered water. Now pour that water into the glass. What do you have? The glass represent the flesh, the water represents Ha’Mashiyach, and the air inside the water represents the only true God who is the Father. The difference between our glass and his glass is that in our glass the oxygen level is lower than in Ha’Mashiyachs’ glass. In Ha’Mashiyachs’ glass, the oxygen level is the highest it can be and yet considered water still.

John 4:24 God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

The true God (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) is not flesh, he is spirit.

2nd Corinthians 5:19 that is, that God was in Mashiyach reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

The true God (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) was in Ha’Mashiyach.

John 14:10-11 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves.

Ha’Mashiyach confirms that the true God (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) is inside him.

1st John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Yehoshua Mashiyach. He is the true God and eternal life.

Ha’Mashiyach came to and told us who is the only true God (John 17:3), even he that is in his Son Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach. And we are in him who is true (John 17:11; John 17:21-23) who is in Ha’Mashiyach (2nd Corinthians 5:19, John 14:10-11).

1st Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one master, Yehoshua Mashiach, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Thomas acknowledged the master of him as Ha’Mashiyach, and the God of him as the Father that dwells inside Ha’Mashiyach.

Why don't you tell us what the church fathers said, if you even know what you are talking about.

The Trinitarian church fathers refer to the word "Godhead" as all three persons.

You can check out the Trinitarian church fathers here: www.newadvent.org/fathers

The link above seems not to be working right now, they must be uploading things.

For Pre-Christian Jews, the Word was God, and that is exactly what John said and why there is absolutely no argument from from any first century Jews.

Of course, they had the Hebraic understanding, not some later on Greek pagan understanding.

John 1 is beautiful Jewish concept of the word becoming flesh.

The word or "logos" if you prefer is not a being. Every rabbi know the word of God became flesh through all the prophets (and those who don't know shouldn't be calling themselves rabbis).

When a prophet says "YHVH says" it is the word becoming flesh. To some level we can say the word became flesh through Moshe as he repeated what God said.

John 1:1-3 In beginning was the word, and the word was towards the God, and God was the word. The same was in beginning towards God. All things were made by it, and without it was not any thing made that was made.

Some might get curious and ask why I didn't word it as "In [the] beginning." The answer is because it does not translate as "in [the] beginning" but rather "in beginning." Same as in Genesis 1, Bereshiyt; in beginning, not in [the] beginning. These are basic facts every one who is fluenlt in Hebrew and in Greek knows.

And then some might think why I worded it as "towards" instead of "with." My response is go ask any Greek that grew up in Greece and knows Greek fluenlty. The word there "pros" does not mean "with" but "towards" not matter how much it seems to be odd in English.

Now that we got that out of the way. It is by the word that God created what we call "earth" and the things in it.

The word is not merely "one word" but it is thoughts that express into "words" or "sayings" if you will. The word or "logos" if you perfer is not a person, and those who claim the logos is a person simply do not understand Hebrew thinking.

John 1:14 And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld its glory, the glory as of the One of a Kind of the Father, full of grace and truth.

How did the word become flesh? Well, it is more simple than one might realize. The word became paper and ink (manuscripts). Does this mean paper and ink is God? No.

Let's expound a little further by adding the word became flesh and dwelt among them. What does this mean? As I stated above, it is more simple thanb one might realize.

John 7:17 Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speak of myself.

Dwell on what is being said above.

John 3:34 He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

Where it be Eliyahu (a.k.a. John the Immerser) speaking of the author of the Book of John informing, this is a good example of "the word becoming flesh."

Great Uriah, but explain how the word "dwelt amonng them." No problem, I will show it to you.

John 14:8-10 Philip said to him, ‘Master, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ Yehoshua said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Look at berse 10 verse carefully, it is the "word becoming flesh" at its very best. The word dwells in the mind of the Messiah because the word is "thoughts" before it is said. So in other words the thoughts (logos) dwelt among them inside the Messiah just as it dwell in Moshe among the Jews.

Many seem to have went the wrong path of understanding of John 1 no thanks to the influence of counterfeit Christainity with its many pagan ideas.

Where did the concept of a Trinity come from?

From pagans hundreds if not thousands of years before Messiah was born of Joseph and Mary.

In the Zohar.

Zohar doesn't teach the Trinity or God being more than one person/being in any shape or form, and unless you believe in the authority of Zohar, you quoting it in vain.

Isa 40:3

Matt 3:3 (Mark 1:3 Luke 3:4 John 1:23)

No problem with my understanding. Read John 14:10-11. YHVH's spirit went upon Ha'Mashiyach. No contradiction my belief, maybe in your mind.

Ps 8:1

Matt 21:15

So you are saying these babes are Gods? They praised for he spoke truth. he spoke the truth of his God, the most high God.

Joel 2:32

Rom 10:13

In Acts 4:12, the context is that that under heaven, meaning on earth is Yehoshua above every name which is somewhere else talked about. YHVH is above Yehoshua in the heavens.

Where does it say "Jesus" in Romans 10:13?

There is not contradiction here in my belief, maybe in your mind.

Philippians 2:10

Context, context, verse 11 to God the Father.

A lot of these misunderstandings you are being up are being dealt with here: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=273.topic

[jpholding]

Uriah,

Most of what I would say has alreadu been said by OS, and I find it significant how much you have ignored, and how contrived your responses are.

1st Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one master, Yehoshua Mashiach, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

You realize that this is the Shema, rewritten and adjusted to include Jesus in the divine identity?

The word or &quot;logos&quot; if you prefer is not a being. Every rabbi know the word of God became flesh through all the prophets (and those who don't know shouldn't be calling themselves rabbis).

Quote some rabbis of the era on that. "Every rabbi knows" isn't telling us anything.

The word or &quot;logos&quot; if you perfer is not a person, and those who claim the logos is a person simply do not understand Hebrew thinking.

Been here, done that, with this sort of trickery. John 1:14 shows that this logos was a person, and you excuse this away with one of the worst contrivances I have ever seen:

How did the word become flesh? Well, it is more simple than one might realize. The word became paper and ink (manuscripts).

GOOD GRIEF! This is a contrivance so painful I had to take aspirin and lay down. Sarx used for paper and ink???? And I'd love to see you explain how that works with 1:15 and verses following.

John 3:34 He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

Where it be Eliyahu (a.k.a. John the Immerser) speaking of the author of the Book of John informing, this is a good example of &quot;the word becoming flesh.&quot;

Badly contrived, showing only the depths you are going to avoid the conclusion you don't want to find. How would John the Baptist at this date know that John the Apostle was going to write a gospel? I know, you'll invent all kinds of excuses; but it is dependent anyway on your peculiar idea that sarx can mean pen and ink!

Look at berse 10 verse carefully, it is the &quot;word becoming flesh&quot; at its very best. The word dwells in the mind of the Messiah because the word is &quot;thoughts&quot; before it is said. So in other words the thoughts (logos) dwelt among them inside the Messiah just as it dwell in Moshe among the Jews.

Another contrived explantion. There is no hint of "in the mind of the Messiah" -- and you ignore or are unaware of the detailed correspodences in the pre-NT Wisdom literature with John's prologue. OS has already listed material about this subject you have ignored, but here is more:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Wisdom of Solomon 9:9 With you (God) is Wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Proverbs 8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (1:11)
1 Enoch 42:2 Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men, and found no dwelling place.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Sirach 24:8 The one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said: 'Make your dwelling in Jerusalem.'
John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.
Wisdom of Solomon 16:26 On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval. So that your children, whom you loved, O Lord, might learn that it is not the production of crops that feeds humankind but that your word sustains those who trust in you.
John 14:15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.
Wisdom of Solomon 16:18 And love of Wisdom is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality.
The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis. 9:9)
The Word was with God (John 1:1)
Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
The Word was cocreator (John 1:1-3)
Wisdom was cocreator (Prov. 3:19, 8:25; Is. 7:21, 9:1-2)
The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir. 4:12)
Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 15:7)
The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir. 15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12)
Wisdom is light (Wis. 7:26-30, 18:3-4)
Christ is the door of the sheep and the good shepherd (John 10:7, 11, 14)
Wisdom is the door and the good shepherd (Prov. 8:34-5, Wis. 7:25-7, 8:2-16; Sir. 24:19-22)
Christ is life (John 11:25)
Wisdom brings life (Prov. 3:16, 8:35, 9:11; Wis. 8:13)
Christ is the way to truth (John 14:6)
Wisdom is the way (Prov. 3:17, 8:32-34; Sir. 6:26)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130046#post130046)
Uriah-:

? You talking about J4J? J4J is the result of what you idolaters turn Jews into. J4J at least plainly state they believe in &quot;gods.&quot;

You are a liar! I don't believe anyone is going out on the streets kidnapping people, forcing them to be Christians. Where does Jews for Jesus state they believe in gods?

The Trinitarian church fathers refer to the word &quot;Godhead&quot; as all three persons.

You can check out the Trinitarian church fathers here: www.newadvent.org/fathers

The link above seems not to be working right now, they must be uploading things.

Now isn't that just too bad once again you cannot back up your mindless, false attacks can you?

Of course, they had the Hebraic understanding, not some later on Greek pagan understanding.

I see you missed my other article about the "memra" they had the beautiful Hebrew concept that the "memra" was God.

Where it be Eliyahu (a.k.a. John the Immerser) speaking of the author of the Book of John informing, this is a good example of &quot;the word becoming flesh.&quot;

John's name in Hebew is NOT Eliyahu, it is Yohannon.

Many seem to have went the wrong path of understanding of John 1 no thanks to the influence of counterfeit Christainity with its many pagan ideas.

More lies. You are the counterfeit Christian with the pagan ideas.

From pagans hundreds if not thousands of years before Messiah was born of Joseph and Mary.

Good now cite some sources which speak of a Trinity, three deities manifesting as one, anywhere, in the any nation or country which could have influenced Christianity.

Zohar doesn't teach the Trinity or God being more than one person/being in any shape or form, and unless you believe in the authority of Zohar, you quoting it in vain.

I wasn't quoting the Zohar, I was quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia, a reference work written by real Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia is the one which states that Jews, in the Zohar, before Christianity, originated a Trinity of Father, son, and Holy Spirit. I don't have to believe in the Zohar to quote what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about it.

A lot of these misunderstandings you are being up are being dealt with here: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=273.topic

I visited this phony wannabe Jew cess pool with nothing but blind hate filled attacks against Christianity.

[Uriah-]

You realize that this is the Shema, rewritten and adjusted to include Jesus in the divine identity?

No it's not, but anything can be ths a Shema to someone who don't know what they are talking about besides the false knowledge they are fed.

? You talking about J4J? J4J is the result of what you idolaters turn Jews into. J4J at least plainly state they believe in "gods." ”

You are a liar! Where does Jews for Jesus state they believe in gods?

No, I am not a liar, and I will show you the directions on how to get to it. God to J4J (may their website be blotted out) main page, you will see "for believers" on the left side, click on it; then scroll down and on the left side you will see "SHARING YOUR FAITH" and under that "Jewish Apologetics", click on it; then click on "Theological Issues" at the bottom; then click on "Jewishness and the Trinity" at the top; then you can scroll down to "Plural Descriptions of God" where they plainly confess to "creators, makers, Gods, and husbands."

Their whole blasphemious page has been refute here: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=106.topic

I visited this phony wannabe Jew cess pool with nothing but blind hate filled attacks against Christianity.

I didn't tell you to accept truth, you can stay in your blasphemious beliefs if you wish.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130218#post130218)
Uriah-:

No, I am not a liar, and I will show you the directions on how to get to it. God to J4J (may their website be blotted out) main page, you will see &quot;for believers&quot; on the left side, click on it; then scroll down and on the left side you will see &quot;SHARING YOUR FAITH&quot; and under that &quot;Jewish Apologetics&quot;, click on it; then click on &quot;Theological Issues&quot; at the bottom; then click on &quot;Jewishness and the Trinity&quot; at the top; then you can scroll down to &quot;Plural Descriptions of God&quot; where they plainly confess to &quot;creators, makers, Gods, and husbands.&quot;

I went to Jews for Jesus and, just as I thought, your accusation was more anti-Bible, anti-Christian, Anti- ישוע (Just FYI that is how the Messiah's name is written in Hebrew) twisting of facts. Instead of finding them stating that they believe in "gods," I find them quoting the T'nakh (FYI that is the Hebrew designation for the O.T.) and showing how the scriptures use plural nouns and adjectives to describe God. It is too bad that phony wanna-be Jews cannot read Hebrew therefore do not know this. I have copied the appropriate section here. From this we can know that you apparently are not capable of speaking the truth as it concerns the belief of anyone.

OBTW I don't need links to your filth filled cess pool. You teach nothing there, it is nothing but mindless hate filled attacks against Christians.
Plural Descriptions of God

One point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:

Ecclesiastes 12:1: "Remember now you creator..." [Literally: creators.]

Psalm 149:2: "Let Israel rejoice in their Maker." [Literally: makers.]

Joshua 24:19: "...holy God..." [Literally: holy Gods.]

Isaiah 54:5: "For your Maker is your husband..." [Literally: makers, husbands.]

Everything we have said so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on the Scriptures alone, we have to say that on the one hand they affirm God's unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a plurality in the Godhead.

http://www.jfjonline.org/pub/issues/01-08/jewish.htm

[Uriah-]

(Just FYI that is how the Messiah's name is written in Hebrew)

Yeshua is Aramaic, but whatever floats your boat.

Instead of finding them stating that they believe in "gods," I find them quoting the T'nakh (FYI that is the Hebrew designation for the O.T.) and showing how the scriptures use plural nouns and adjectives to describe God.

What is the purpose of showing "gods, creators, and makers"? I was not born yesterday.

OBTW I don't need links to your filth filled cess pool.

Who cares what you need? There are others on the board.

[dizzle]

Uriah, you are misrepresenting Trinitarianism and have grossly misrepresented J4J.

This is a passionate subject.... and this thread is getting aggressive on all sides.. let's take a deep breath for one sec. We can debate vigorously, but let's just not let it go over the line. I am all for strenuous debates, especially when the true glory of Christ is concerned, but let's not let it get ugly if at all possible. Thanks!!!

[dizzle]

And that point about the Shema rewritten is spot on!!! Paul purposefuloy included Christ in divinity.

Uriah, I am waiting for you to deal with the A&O thing we talked about before.

[Uriah-]

Uriah, you are misrepresenting Trinitarianism...

There is no right way to present such fantasy of the imagination, although one might say there is.

...and have grossly misrepresented J4J.

How so? What was their point in trying to prove "gods, creators, and makers"? Why would they try to prove paganism?

And that point about the Shema rewritten is spot on!!! Paul purposefuloy included Christ in divinity.

Incorrect. Yehoshua quoted the Shema in Matthew, Luke, and John. 1st Corinthians 8:6 is not the Shema, it doesn't say what the Shema says. But to some level probably is some kind of shema in your mind, but it is not the original.

Uriah, I am waiting for you to deal with the A&O thing we talked about before.

I did.

[dizzle]

Speaking of fantasies of imagination......


I did.

In what? Invisible ink? Care to give me a link?

[Uriah-]

The first and second page of this thread, read.

[dizzle]

That was not a substantive response whatsoever. A substantive response goes point by point and answers them.

[Uriah-]

If you do not like the response, then you do not like it.Hehe.

[dizzle]

Translation: I cannot respond so I will cockily say rubbish, you idolator!!!

[Uriah-]

Translation: I cannot respond so I will cockily say rubbish, you idolator!!!

Whatever floats your boat. :)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130391#post130391)
Dee Dee Warren:

Uriah, you are misrepresenting Trinitarianism and have grossly misrepresented J4J.

This is a passionate subject.... and this thread is getting aggressive on all sides.. let's take a deep breath for one sec. We can debate vigorously, but let's just not let it go over the line. I am all for strenuous debates, especially when the true glory of Christ is concerned, but let's not let it get ugly if at all possible. Thanks!!!

Dee Dee, I apologize to you, Uriah, and the rest of the TW family. There is no excuse for my breaches of forum decorum. It is not necessary to crawl down in the gutter to defend the faith. I will clean my act up.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130407#post130407)
Uriah-:

There is no right way to present such fantasy of the imagination, although one might say there is.

If I am talking about oranges, the right way to respond is NOT to say something about earthworms. If you are going to discuss the Trinity, as believed by the church, then address what they believe, not some distorted blasphemous view that exists only in your mind.

How so? What was their point in trying to prove &quot;gods, creators, and makers&quot;? Why would they try to prove paganism?

How is quoting the T'nakh and the grammar used, in the scriptures, proving paganism or anything, except what the T'nakh very clearly says?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130375#post130375)
Uriah-:

Yeshua is Aramaic, but whatever floats your boat.

You are only partly correct, ישוע, is Aramaic, but it is also the diminuitive of the Hebrew יהושוע and יהושע.

"but whatever floats your boat." An answer you might hear in a preschool!

[Uriah-]

If you are going to discuss the Trinity, as believed by the church, then address what they believe,...blah..blah..blah.

Sure. Let's show what the church fathers say.

Athanasian Creed, “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.”

Against Praxeas 9 [A.D. 216], “Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable from each other.”

Against Praxeas 25 [A.D. 216], “These three [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] are, one essence, not one person.”

Dogmatic Letter on the Trinity 8:2 [A.D. 381], “To those who accuse us of a doctrine of three Gods, let it be stated that we confess one God, not in number but in nature.”

Question; “Is the Father 33.3% [1/3] or is he 100% [3/3]? And is the Son 33.3% [1/3] or is he 100% [3/3]? And is the Holy Spirit 33.3% [1/3] or is he 100% [3/3]? We cannot have three parts who are all 100% since we come up to 300%.”

Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225], “God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind.”

Treasury of the holy Trinity 11 [A.D. 424], “The nature of the Godhead, which is simple and not composite, is never to be divided into two.”

Question; “How do you have three in one?”

The Trinity doctrine is very confusing, for it states that “three are one and one is three” and yet “one is not three and three is not one”.

To force a choice upon us between accepting Yehoshua Ha’Moshiach [ben David] as a ‘lunatic, liar, or the Eternal God himself’ cleverly diverts us from the truth about his real identity.

We do not refuse to accept any doctrine which we cannot fully explain. But “mystery” and “contradiction” are two different things. It will be like saying “1 + 1 = 7, it’s a mystery, so accept it with faith”, and yet this is not a “mystery” but a “contradiction”, such as we have with the Trinity doctrine.

We have found it very odd that no Trinitarian can explain what they mean by “person”, in fact, they get nerves and call one a heretic for questioning the Trinity doctrine. We have been called more than “heretics”, and to just name a few; “Deceiver,” “Satans’ Agent,” “Stupid Idiot,” “Moron,” “Lost Soul,” and many other things we do not want to mention. But let us state that we truly are all of these in the eyes’ of Trinitarians and Modalists, and we do not deny it. But we in the eyes’ of the Eternal God (blessed is he) we are messengers of truth which the scriptures teach. Therefore, we do not get offended by the majority, after all their doctrines are very anti-scriptural.

Singular personal pronouns inform us that the Eternal God who is one is definitely a “who”. To make him into three “who’s” demonstrably violates the consistent testimony of the scriptures. The Tanakh (O.T.) and B’rit Chadashah (N.T.) contain well over twenty thousand singular pronouns and verbs describing the One God who is One. Language has no clearer or more obvious way of providing a testimony to Yisraels’ and Yehoshuas’ unitary monotheism.

Question; “Where in the scriptures is the Eternal God called a “they” or a “them” as Trinitarians do when explaining their Trinity doctrine”?
Question; “If, we repeat, if the scriptures teach of a Trinity doctrine, then why was and is there so many debates against the Trinity doctrine”?
Question; “If, we repeat, if the Trinity doctrine is in the Tanakh, then why for so many thousands of years have the Jewish people been anti-Trinitarian”?

We are sometimes speechless to see Trinitarians go to such extreme limits to try to prove a God (Triune) that does not exist.

Let us quote two examples the Trinitarian use to explain their Trinity doctrine.

1. God is like an egg, which contains “yoke, white, and shell”.
2. God is like H2o, which has forms as “liquid, steam, and ice”.

The egg example is quite an impressive one until examined more closely. An egg is made of three substances [yoke, white, and shell] while in the Trinity doctrine, God is one substance.

The H2o example seems more impressive than the egg example until examined more closely. This is Modalism; “one person taking three roles”.

Question; “Where in the scriptures do we see anyone talking about one God who is three in one”?

We would like to ask the Trinitarians to come up with a logical example that works for their doctrine.

RCC scholar Thomas Hart, “Jesus is called a man in the generic sense, but not a man. He has a human nature but is not a human person. The person in him is the second person of the blessed Trinity. Jesus does not have human personal center. This is how the Council [of Chalcedon] gets around the problem of a split personality.”

Let us ask the Trinitarian believers 21 questions about their doctrine, and we are aware that some of the questions may appear to be the same, but let’s not let it bother us, for these 21 questions are designed to make one think. Before we give the 21 questions we would like to ask the Trinitarian believers that they would not use the “ejection button” they call “mystery”.

1. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one substance?
2. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one substance what makes the Father distinct from the Son, and the Son distinct from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father?
3. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one substance, what makes that one substance to be three persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]?
4. How is it that we have three [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] that are one, and yet one that is not three [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]?
5. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one Spirit, and yet each person is a Spirit?
6. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one Mind, and yet each person thinks for themselves?
7. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [if they are all one substance] all have one Will (Mark 14:36)?
8. Does God have one personality or does he have three personalities [M.P.D.]?
9. When the statement is made by a Trinitarian “three in one”, what is this “one” that they are in? A body [contained]?
10. Is the Father more Mighty than the Son?
11. Can the Son get any less Mighty than the Father?
12. Has the Father and the Son always stated on the same level of Might with each other?
13. Why in Psalms 110:1 did the Father [YHVH, Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey] tell the Son [master] to have “All power of the Eternal God” [Right Hand of God] if the Father and the Son are on the same level of Might and have maintained the same level of Might?
14. Does the Father have more Authority than the Son?
15. Can the Son have less Authority than the Father?
16. Has the Father and the Son always stayed on the same level of Authority with each other?
17. Why in Matthew 28:18 does the Son say that “All Authority” has been ‘given’ to him, and who ‘gave’ it to him?
18. Why in Matthew 20:20-23 does the Son say that “to sit at the right and left hand of him is not his to grant”?
19. Can the Father receive a Revelation?
20. Can the Son receive a Revelation?
21. Why in Revelation 1:1 does Apostle John say “The revelation of Yehoshua Moshiach [Yehoshua Messiah], which God gave him”?

When the very foundation of a religion is changed, some clear explanation is required. Such drastic theological revolutions do not pass unnoticed; witness the volumes written and the sometimes bloody controversy waged by advocates of the Trinity against the protests of the strict Unitarians. A divine revelation to introduce belief in tripersonal God would have been acceptable and reasonable. But where both revelation is lacking and reason assaulted, there is little basis for accepting such an extraordinary idea as the Trinity.

Thomas Jefferson, “The Trinity doctrine is relapse from the true religion Yehoshua founded in the unity of God into unintelligent polytheism.”

Jared Sparks, “The Trinity doctrine is hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus [the three-headed dog in Greek mythology who guarded the gates to Hades], with one body and three heads.”

How is quoting the T'nakh and the grammar used, in the scriptures, proving paganism or anything, except what the T'nakh very clearly says?

Okay, I said this like twice already, but let's try one more time: Why are they showing these Scriptures where it talks about literally "Gods, Creators, and Makers"? What is the purpose of showing these Scriptures?

An answer you might hear in a preschool!

I guess you are the expert on knowing what is preschool, aren't you. Hehe.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130581#post130581)
Uriah-:

We have been called more than “heretics”, and to just name a few; “Deceiver,” “Satans’ Agent,” “Stupid Idiot,” “Moron,” “Lost Soul,” and many other things we do not want to mention.

Oh do you mean like, "liar, pagan, polytheist, and idolator" which you have called people right here on this forum. And I believe you use even worse language at your forum.

Therefore, we do not get offended by the majority, after all their doctrines are very anti-scriptural.

Oh so you think that just because you are a a small group, not accepted by mainstream Christianity, that makes you right? I guess then that David Koresh and Jim Jones were right, their groups were small and they were not accepted by the real church.

The Tanakh (O.T.) and B’rit Chadashah (N.T.) contain well over twenty thousand singular pronouns and verbs describing the One God who is One.

How do you know? You didn't even quote the Jews for Jesus site correctly. Why should anyone believe this?

Question; “Where in the scriptures is the Eternal God called a “they” or a “them” as Trinitarians do when explaining their Trinity doctrine”?

Where does any formal Christian statment call God "they" and "them?"

Question; “If, we repeat, if the scriptures teach of a Trinity doctrine, then why was and is there so many debates against the Trinity doctrine”?

If, and I repeat, if God was clear in His commands to Adam and the woman, why did the serpent question what God said.

Question; “If, we repeat, if the Trinity doctrine is in the Tanakh, then why for so many thousands of years have the Jewish people been anti-Trinitarian”?

Bad question! According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, written by real Jews, which I posted, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit originated within Judaism before the Christian era? Why is it a bad question? If Jesus is the promised Meshiach, why for so many thousand years does most of Judaism reject Him?

Question; “Where in the scriptures do we see anyone talking about one God who is three in one”?

Where do we see Christianity talking about a God that is three in one?

RCC scholar Thomas Hart, “ * *

Who cares? I'm not RCC.

1. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one substance?
2. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one substance what makes the Father distinct from the Son, and the Son distinct from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father?
3. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one substance, what makes that one substance to be three persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]?
4. How is it that we have three [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] that are one, and yet one that is not three [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit]?
5. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one Spirit, and yet each person is a Spirit?
6. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have one Mind, and yet each person thinks for themselves?
7. Does the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [if they are all one substance] all have one Will (Mark 14:36)?
8. Does God have one personality or does he have three personalities [M.P.D.]?
9. When the statement is made by a Trinitarian “three in one”, what is this “one” that they are in? A body [contained]?
10. Is the Father more Mighty than the Son?
11. Can the Son get any less Mighty than the Father?
12. Has the Father and the Son always stated on the same level of Might with each other?
13. Why in Psalms 110:1 did the Father [YHVH, Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey] tell the Son [master] to have “All power of the Eternal God” [Right Hand of God] if the Father and the Son are on the same level of Might and have maintained the same level of Might?
14. Does the Father have more Authority than the Son?
15. Can the Son have less Authority than the Father?
16. Has the Father and the Son always stayed on the same level of Authority with each other?
17. Why in Matthew 28:18 does the Son say that “All Authority” has been ‘given’ to him, and who ‘gave’ it to him?
18. Why in Matthew 20:20-23 does the Son say that “to sit at the right and left hand of him is not his to grant”?
19. Can the Father receive a Revelation?
20. Can the Son receive a Revelation?
21. Why in Revelation 1:1 does Apostle John say “The revelation of Yehoshua Moshiach [Yehoshua Messiah], which God gave him”?

Oh goody, twenty questions. What do I win if I get them all right?

1. Define substance as it relates to God.
2. Define distinct from each other.
3. Define substance as it relates to God.
4. Illogical question. Clarify it.
5. Define spirit?
6. Define mind as it relates to God.
7. Define will as it relates to God.
8. Define personality.
9. Where is any official statement by any real Christian group which states "three in one"?
10. Define "more Mighty."
11. Define "less Mighty."
12. Illogical question.
13. Define "same level of Might" and how you think this Psalm is relevant.
14. Define "authority" as it relates to God.
15. Define "less authority" as it relates to God.
16. Define "same level of authority."
17. Can't answer this question until ALL terms are defined.
18. Re: Matthew 20:20-23 read Philippians 2:1-11
19. Define revelation as it relates to the father
20. See 19.
21. See 19.

Thomas Jefferson, * * *

Irrelevant. Being president does not make a person error free in their religion.

Jared Sparks, * * *

Who? Isn't he a character in the new Henry Potter book, the one with the funny hat, or is it a funny robe?

Okay, I said this like twice already, but let's try one more time: Why are they showing these Scriptures where it talks about literally &quot;Gods, Creators, and Makers&quot;? What is the purpose of showing these Scriptures?

Oh you have finally admitted that the Jews for Jesus correctly quoted the scriptures. Now your problem is why do the inspired scriptures use plural nouns and adjectives to refer to יהוה? What is wrong with quoting scriptures? I believe the people of God were instructed to talk of the scriptures as they walk along the way, as they are going in and coming out. So what is your problem with Jews for Jesus quoting literally what the scriptures say?

I guess you are the expert on knowing what is preschool, aren't you. Hehe.

If you teach pre-school long enough you become expert in children's behavior. Unfortunately this is a forum for adult discussion, not a pre-school. A mature person would recognize that.

[jpholding]

Heh heh,

No it's not, but anything can be ths a Shema to someone who don't know what they are talking about besides the false knowledge they are fed.

Yeeeeeeeeeesssssss it is. :teeth:

The LORD our God is one LORD:...

But 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.

No answer to the rest, Uriah?

[Uriah-]

Oh do you mean like, "liar, pagan, polytheist, and idolator" which you have called people right here on this forum.

Where did I call someone a liar? But now I will since you just lied. You liar.

I have called Christianity to be paganism, this is correct.

I have called Trinity to be Polytheism, this is correct.

And I have called those who worship a fantasy made up jesus who they say is the true God to be idolaters, this is correct.

How do you know? You didn't even quote the Jews for Jesus site correctly. Why should anyone believe this?

I never quoted J4J, I paraphrased the purpose of them quoting those Scriptures. But you wouldn't know the difference, would you.

Where does any formal Christian statment call God "they" and "them?"

Come to Paltalk, you will hear Trinitarians describing your fantasy gods as "they," "them," and "their."

If, and I repeat, if God was clear in His commands to Adam and the woman, why did the serpent question what God said.

This has nothing to do with the subject. If an ant comes up to you and starts talking to you, will you hear what it has to say?

The reason the possessed serpent questioned was to get a conversation started.

Bad question! According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, written by real Jews, which I posted, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit originated within Judaism before the Christian era?

No way, that is not kosher site then.

If Jesus is the promised Meshiach, why for so many thousand years does most of Judaism reject Him?

You present another god to Judaism that was not the God of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.

Where do we see Christianity talking about a God that is three in one?

You seriously need to get out more. Once again, come to Paltalk, you hear it all over the Christianity rooms.

I'm not RCC.

You are a daughter of her. You hold the same teaching as her. Revelation talks about her.

1. Define substance as it relates to God.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

2. Define distinct from each other.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

3. Define substance as it relates to God.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

4. Illogical question. Clarify it.

That's because your trinity is illogical.

Trinitarian say their god is three person who is one. And this one is not three but one. You figure it out, I am presenting all the run aways when I talk to a Trinitarian, with their "mysteries" and their "we don't knows."

5. Define spirit?

Luke 24:39.

6. Define mind as it relates to God.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

7. Define will as it relates to God.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

8. Define personality.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

9. Where is any official statement by any real Christian group which states "three in one"?

So you are calling all those Christians who say "three in one" fake Christians? Hmmm, it seems to me there is little to none unity in this so-called body of Christ.

10. Define "more Mighty."

Check the the dictionary for the word "Mighty."

11. Define "less Mighty."

Check above answer.

12. Illogical question.

That's because your trinity is illogical.

Trinitarians claim the Papa god and the son god are co-equal.

13. Define "same level of Might" and how you think this Psalm is relevant.

Co-equal of Might.

14. Define "authority" as it relates to God.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

15. Define "less authority" as it relates to God.

You do that for your god, they are not mine.

16. Define "same level of authority."

Co-equal authority.

17. Can't answer this question until ALL terms are defined.

Then define them as they apply to your gods.

18. Re: Matthew 20:20-23 read Philippians 2:1-11

Which answer the question how? It doesn't.

19. Define revelation as it relates to the father

You do that for your god, he is not mine.

“ Okay, I said this like twice already, but let's try one more time: Why are they showing these Scriptures where it talks about literally "Gods, Creators, and Makers"? What is the purpose of showing these Scriptures? ”

Oh you have finally admitted that the Jews for Jesus correctly quoted the scriptures.

I never said they didn't quote it correctly. It is now clear you cannot comprehend English that way. Go re-read what I said.

Now your problem is why do the inspired scriptures use plural nouns and adjectives to refer to...?

Please show me where it used plural nouns and adjectives when referred to YHVH.

What is wrong with quoting scriptures?

Nothing. What is the purpose of quoting those places?

If you teach pre-school long enough you become expert in children's behavior.

So how long have you being teaching in pre-school, or is this a lying statement?

Unfortunately this is a forum for adult discussion, not a pre-school. A mature person would recognize that.

This discussion board seems pretty immature to me. No offence DeeDee. Hehe.

The LORD our God is one LORD:...

Now read 1st Corinthians 8:6, it says nothing close to what you just typed above, unless you are trying to say that Apostle Paul is saying that YHVH (LORD) there is the Father alone.

[Uriah-]

Can a Trinitarian who actually understands what is being stated on my post 64 (on page 4 of this thread) to my questions that were asked. Thank you.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130875#post130875)
Uriah-:

Can a Trinitarian who actually understands what is being stated on my post 64 (on page 4 of this thread) to my questions that were asked. Thank you.

I didn't use the terms listed in your asinine questions so when you use them I don't know what you are talking about.

You used words and expressions which some Christians may use in conversation, to explain their understanding of God, but I asked you to show me formal statements which use the terms. I'm not interested in PalTalk.

Why define words? Because different people understand them differently and they even have distinct meanings depending on how they are used. For example, "person." Even in English "person" has several meanings.

One of the meanings is an individual human being. In grammar it means whether or not a statement/question refers to the individual who made it, i.e. first person, an individual the first individual is addressing, i.e. second person, or another individual not present, ie. third person.

"Person", or more correctly "persona," as applied to the nature of God, orginally did NOT mean an individual human being. Therefore the understanding by most English speaking people is not quite correct.

So if you want to know about substance, for example, then explain what you mean.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130874#post130874)
Uriah-:



Where did I call someone a liar? But now I will since you just lied. You liar.

Right here! That's once!

06-16-2003 @ 04:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124204#post124204)
Uriah-:

I most likely know the Trinity better than you. But since I see through the lie which you call &quot;truth&quot;, I am not afraid to call the Trinity teaching for what it is; that is Polytheism.

So how long have you being teaching in pre-school, or is this a lying statement?

Childrens's church over eight years. That's twice!

[Uriah-]

Jewish Enclopedia is basicly stating how people use (or should I say try to use) the Zohar to come to the pagan Trinity. Just like they use (or should I say try to use) the Bible to try to come to the pagan Trinity. All those who read Zohar have to believe that God is only one, or they won't understand what is being talked about; in other words, they will come to stupid conclusions like this "Johann Kemper" and this "Frankists" guy.

Like I said before, unless you believe in the authority of the Zohar, it is quite useless to quote it. And unless you read and study the Zohar, you are basicly quoting things out of context if you try to say the Zohar teaches a Trinity.

I explained what the "Logos" was and how it works on page 3 in my post #46.

You quoting what Jewish Encyclopedia on "Memra" is basicly saying what I said in my post #46 but a little more detailed.

The word of YHVH is YHVH, as I stated in my post #46. YHVH is in everywhere, He has no body since He is omnipresent. His word ("Logos") was and can be spoken through many messangers, but the main one is Yehoshua. I don't know why I am repeating what I already explained, but if this helps you to comprehend the Jewish understanding, then so be it, read carefully.

In this document about "Memra", the guy doesn't say which Targum he is using Jonothans or Onkelos or some other one. Targum is just a Aramaic translation, and very none literal. And I could really care less what someone thought Onkelos believed, he was a orthodox Jew, it is already clear what he believed.

"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

Gods, spirit, word, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, etc, is all God, just as your word, understanding etc is you. In poetic fashion God’s wisdom and other attributes is personified. These attributes are not all persons, if so God is much more than three persons.

In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Genesis 15:1; Numbers 12:6, 23:5; 1st Samuel 3:21; Amos 5:1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Psalms 33:6; 33:9, 147:18, 148:8).

God created the heavens by his power, word, spirit, knowledge, wisdom. None of these attributes are actually persons of God. Again if it be this way, then God is more than three persons, and at least one of them is a female.

In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalms 119:89).

Of course along with his wisdom, understanding, knowledge, spirit, power, etc.

"The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isaiah 9:8, 55:11);

It never says anything about his word being a power apart from God.

Isaiah 9:8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

God sends his wisdom to Solomon, yet wisdom is not a she person of God. God sends his spirit, yet it is not a he person of God.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

A person does not go out of God’s mouth. God however does send his word through prophets, angels, Messiah etc. None of these messengers are God even though the words of God are sent through them.

"He sent his word, and healed them" (Psalms 107:20);

Same as above.

and "his word runneth very swiftly" (Psalms 147:15).

Same as above.

While in the Book of Jubilees, 12:22, the word of God is sent through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a personified agency: "By the word of God exist His works" (Ecclus. [Sirach] 42:15);

Honestly I could care less what an Apocryphal writing says if it contradicts basic truths of Torah. But we shall see what these say anyways. God sends his word through an angel, this is not in contradiction to anything so not a big deal. And every Jew would agree that the world exist by the word of God, which would be his works.

"The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the 'Ma'amar'" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 10, with reference to Psalms 33:6).

Genesis 1, God created the world by his word. God spoke and there was light etc. So this also is in line with as it says Psalms and Torah.

Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, "Thou who hast made the universe with Thy word and ordained man through Thy wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee" (Wisdom 9:1; comp. "Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom"; . . . "who by His speech created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts"; through whose "words all things were created"; see Singer's "Daily Prayer-Book," pp. 96, 290, 292).

If the word is a person in the godhead, then indeed wisdom is a she person in the godhead, however this is not so. God creates by his word, power, knowledge, wisdom etc, as I said before.

So also in 4 Esdras 6:38 ("Lord, Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: 'Let there be heaven and earth,' and Thy word hath accomplished the work").

This is no different than God spoke and there was light.

"Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (Wisdom 16:12); "Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee" (l.c. 16:26).

This is similar to Gods’ Torah brings peace and long life, in proverbs 3. Yet Torah is not a person of God. I honestly think this writing I am responding to is childish but none the less I am responding.

Especially strong is the personification of the word in Wisdom 18:15: "Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of war."

This is not how it is wording in my Apocrypha, not that it really matters. ‘You all powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, a stern warrior, into the midst of the doomed land, carrying for a sharp sword your undisguised command, and stood still, and filled all things with death, and touched heaven but walked upon the earth.

The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (chapter 1.) beginning with "And God said," speaks of the ten "ma'amarot" (= "speeches") by which the world was created (Abot 5:1; comp. Genesis R. 4:2: "The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative Ma'amar").

This again is the same as God created the world by his word. Out of every speech ["dibbur"] which emanated from God an angel was created (haggai 14a).

No problem with God created angels by his word, as he created all things by his word.

"The Word ["dibbur"] called none but Moses" (Lev. R. 1:4, 5).

I do not understand this quote, it seems cut short, so it makes no sense.

"The Word ["dibbur"] went forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel" (Cant. R. 1:13).

I have no idea what this is even a reference of. What is Cant. R 1:13? None the less right hand in bible is the power of God.

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Targum is just an Aramaic translation of the Tanach. Which one this is, it does not say, is this Onkelos? I have no need to comment on any of these for Onkelos was an Orthodox Jew, he did not believe in Trinity or any form there of. Matter of fact does anyone know of a Jewish Targum, that the writer is a Trinitarian? To be Orthodox Jew you cannot believe in Trinity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deuteronomy 1:32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord";

DEUTERONOMY 1:32 But in this thing you did not believe in the Word of the Lord your God, -- This is what Onkelos says in his Targum. Uriah said to a Trinitarian, “You idolater, turn back to the right understanding.” The Trinitarian didn’t believe the word of Uriah and kept on going with his idolatrous beliefs. Is Uriah and his word two persons? No.

The rest seems pretty pointless to respond to (as I already explain quite clearly how the word of YHVH is not another person but speech that can be spoke through any representation of YHVH), but I will respond to this:

It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term "Logos," which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence (see Reizenstein, "Zwei Religionsgeschichtliche Fragen," 1901, pp. 83-111; comp. Aall, "Der Logos," and the Logos literature given by Schürer, "Gesch." 1. 3, 542-544). The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity. The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," 7. 25-26, 34-38, et al.). Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term "Memra." See Logos.

It has never been a Jewish thought that the word is some other person and the Almighty God at the same time. Whoever this guy is, has not shown on reference to this.

Let me remind you once again, I explained what the "Logos" was and how it works on page 3 in my post #46.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130874#post130874)
Uriah-:

“ Okay, I said this like twice already, but let's try one more time: Why are they showing these Scriptures where it talks about literally &quot;Gods, Creators, and Makers&quot;? What is the purpose of showing these Scriptures? ”

Jews for Jesus explain why they quoted the scriptures, at their site. I quoted part of their article.

I never said they didn't quote it correctly. It is now clear you cannot comprehend English that way. Go re-read what I said.

Here are your exact words, "? You talking about J4J? J4J is the result of what you idolaters turn Jews into. J4J at least plainly state they believe in "gods."" They quoted scriptures they did NOT "plainly state they believe in gods." I read English quite well, you can't seem to remember what you say from one post to the next.

Please show me where it used plural nouns and adjectives when referred to YHVH.

I already did, you ignored it. Can you truthfully deny that the Hebrew in these three verses is plural?
Plural Descriptions of God

One point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:

Ecclesiastes 12:1: &quot;Remember now you creator...&quot; [Literally: בוראיך creators.]

Psalm 149:2: &quot;Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.&quot; [Literally: בעשיו makers.]

Isaiah 54:5: &quot;For your Maker is your husband...&quot; [Literally: בעליך עשיך makers, husbands.]

Everything we have said so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on the Scriptures alone, we have to say that on the one hand they affirm God's unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a plurality in the Godhead.

http://www.jfjonline.org/pub/issues/01-08/jewish.htm

[Uriah-]

I already did, you ignored it.

No, you didn't. You (well not you actually) might have shown where it is used for Elohim which was refuted here: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=106.topic

But where to YHVH?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131027#post131027)
Uriah-:

No, you didn't. You (well not you actually) might have shown where it is used for Elohim which was refuted here: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=106.topic

But where to YHVH?

Who is Israel's "Maker" and "Creator". Is there another one beside יהוה?

My discussion is here at this forum, if you want to refute what I say, then stick to the forum rules and post your discussion here. A link, in violation of the rules, is NOT a discussion or refutation!

[Uriah-]

If you don't like my ways, then why bother replying to anything I say, go find another thread to whine in. =)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131209#post131209)
Uriah-:

If you don't like my ways, then why bother replying to anything I say, go find another thread to whine in. =)

בכי ונהי

ככלב עב-קאו כסיל שונה באולתו

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131024#post131024)
Uriah-:

It has never been a Jewish thought that the word is some other person and the Almighty God at the same time. Whoever this guy is, has not shown on reference to this.

Go to any heretical website, WBTS, LDS, WWCG, WAY, UPCI, etc. and they will say the same thing about their beliefs, "What we say is right and what everybody else says is wrong." And just like them you don't offer any proof either. Everyone is just supposed to believe it because you say it. Koolaid anyone?

Let me remind you once again, I explained what the &quot;Logos&quot; was and how it works on page 3 in my post #46.

Just just like all the above comments, you told us what you think. With that and $3.00 I can get a cup of Latté, almost anywhere.

[Uriah-]

I know for there are many members on this board, to those who actually understand the Trinitarian position on the triune god being "three in one" and all those things, please feel free to respond to my post #64 on page 4 of this thread, it would be nice. Thanks. =)

[jpholding]

Pfft,

Now read 1st Corinthians 8:6, it says nothing close to what you just typed above, unless you are trying to say that Apostle Paul is saying that YHVH (LORD) there is the Father alone.

Read it? I copied that directly from a CD-ROM. Now explain why it doesn't say what came right off of that. It says nothing like "that YHVH (LORD) there is the Father alone". How so?

[Uriah-]

Try to go educate yourself what the Shema is. 1st Corinthians 9:8 is not the Shema. Saying "there is one God the Father" is not the Shema. Saying there is "one master Yehoshua Mashiyach" is not the Shema.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one master, Yehoshua, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

This above is not the Shema. Try not to make a fool out of yourself and go ask any rabbi of Judaism what the Shema is, because it is clear you don't know what it is.

[jpholding]

Today @ 06:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132091#post132091)
Uriah-:

Try to go educate yourself what the Shema is. 1st Corinthians 9:8 is not the Shema. Saying &quot;there is one God the Father&quot; is not the Shema. Saying there is &quot;one master Yehoshua Mashiyach&quot; is not the Shema.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one master, Yehoshua, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

This above is not the Shema. Try not to make a fool out of yourself and go ask any rabbi of Judaism what the Shema is, because it is clear you don't know what it is.

I have educated myself fully. Your mere act of denial tells me that you have no actual answer. I have shown how 1 Cor. 8:6 is a modified Shema, meant to include Jesus in the divine identity. Your answer has been nothing but, "Nuh uh!"

I know what the Shema is 2000 times better than you do. :teeth:

[Uriah-]

Dueteronomy 6:4-5 Hear (Listen) Yisrael; YHVH our God is one YHVH. And you shall love YHVH your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your resources.

The two larger Hebrew letters are Ayin and Dalet. Together they spell out a word, which means WITNESS. This stands as OUR witness, that OUR God is ONE, not two, three, or more. Sh’ma means to understand as well as to hear. The end of HEAR and ONE are larger, which implies that we are to closely examine those words and to make them long on our breath. HEAR ONE. UNDERSTAND ONE. We understand, that we would never serve a God who is more than one. Shema includes verse 5.

Going to 1st Corinthians 8:6, this says nothing about living YHVH your God with all your heart, soul, and resources. We basicly see Paul say there is one God for us there Father. Saying there is one God for us there Father is not the Shema. If you want to stay in your fantasy land that 1st Corinthians 8:6 is the Shema then so be it for you. Benny Hinn said Adam was superman, and in like manner you say 1st Corinthians 8:6 is the Shema. What can I do, I already tried to help you to realize your error, but if you wish to stay in it, that is find with me.

There is no further need for me to address this issue, believe what you wish to be the Shema, I already addressed it three times or so.

[jpholding]

In rides Uriah, looking for SOMETHING to prove --

The two larger Hebrew letters are Ayin and Dalet. Together they spell out a word, which means WITNESS. This stands as OUR witness, that OUR God is ONE, not two, three, or more.

One, all right, but one WHAT? One God. You're reading Unitarianism (one ego/person) into the text. The Trinitarian view is that of one being with hypostatic extensions which are part of His ground of being and hence within His divine identity. You merely assume that the nature of an elohim is to have only one ego in its divine identity.

Going to 1st Corinthians 8:6, this says nothing about living YHVH your God with all your heart, soul, and resources. We basicly see Paul say there is one God for us there Father.

And we see Paul alluding to the Shema in so doing. As I clearly showed.

Benny Hinn said Adam was superman, and in like manner you say 1st Corinthians 8:6 is the Shema.

Joseph Smith said God had a human body, and in like manner you say God in unitary. There, what did I just prove? :teeth:

There is no further need for me to address this issue, believe what you wish to be the Shema, I already addressed it three times or so.

I.e., you concede defeat. Thank you.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 09:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132354#post132354)
jpholding:



I have educated myself fully. Your mere act of denial tells me that you have no actual answer. I have shown how 1 Cor. 8:6 is a modified Shema, meant to include Jesus in the divine identity. Your answer has been nothing but, &quot;Nuh uh!&quot;

I know what the Shema is 2000 times better than you do. :teeth:

Dear jp,
If you are looking for a good scholarly source for this passage, consider BDAG page 578. After quoting 1Co 8:5 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)" they say to compare Dt 10:17 which says:

ASV Deuteronomy 10:17 For Jehovah your God, he is
God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty,
and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh
reward.


The then state that the apostle may imply that the KURIOS are of lower rank that the QEOI.

Therefore, this is not allusion to Deut 6:4. If you know the Shema like 2000 times then you know that the Hebrew word for Lord does not even appear at Deut 6:4! The word YHWH and elohim appear, but not Adonay.


Hope this clears things up for you!

Regards,
Cal

[Uriah-]

Cal_Minian, leave the poor lad alone, he wishes to stay in his fantasy. =)

[jpholding]

Pfft,

If you are looking for a good scholarly source for this passage, consider BDAG page 578. After quoting 1Co 8:5 &quot;For

I'd rather consider Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, and other serious commentators who actually make arguments on the subject. 1 Cor. 8:5 isn't even germane to the discussion here. It's 1 Cor. 8:6. What kind of nonsense are you trying to pull?

Therefore, this is not allusion to Deut 6:4. If you know the Shema like 2000 times then you know that the Hebrew word for Lord does not even appear at Deut 6:4! The word YHWH and elohim appear, but not Adonay.

Funny then, isn't it, that YHWH is interpreted as kurios in the NT as in Matt. 22:37. Oops. Forget to check your references and make comparisons? :teeth: It is an allusion, sorry. And just as we would expect it to be.

Hope this clears things up for you!

Like mud. Hope your embarrassment clears up later! Uriah, has Mr Roarke called you yet for your fantasy? :rofl:

[Uriah-]

You cannot be made YHVH, you either are YHVH or you aren't.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let the entire house of Yisrael know with certainty that God has made him both kurios and Messiah, this Yehoshua whom you crucified.’

Yehoshua referred to himself as the second kurios in Psalms 110:1 (Matthew 22:42-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). The second kurios there is "adoni" which means "my master", not "my YHVH." Psalms 110:1 YHVH said to adoni...

Matthew 27:62-63 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, ‘Kurios, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, “After three days I will rise again.”

Acts 16:30 Then he brought them outside and said, ‘Kurios, what must I do to be saved?’

Revelation 7:14 I said to him, ‘Kurios, you are the one that knows.’ Then he said to me, ‘These are they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The arguement that "Kurios" has to mean "YHVH" doesn't hold any water. Hehe.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134350#post134350)
jpholding:

Pfft,

If you are looking for a good scholarly source for this passage, consider BDAG page 578. After quoting 1Co 8:5 &amp;quot;For

I'd rather consider Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, and other serious commentators who actually make arguments on the subject. 1 Cor. 8:5 isn't even germane to the discussion here. It's 1 Cor. 8:6. What kind of nonsense are you trying to pull?

Therefore, this is not allusion to Deut 6:4. If you know the Shema like 2000 times then you know that the Hebrew word for Lord does not even appear at Deut 6:4! The word YHWH and elohim appear, but not Adonay.



Funny then, isn't it, that YHWH is interpreted as kurios in the NT as in Matt. 22:37. Oops. Forget to check your references and make comparisons? :teeth: It is an allusion, sorry. And just as we would expect it to be.

Hope this clears things up for you!

Like mud. Hope your embarrassment clears up later! Uriah, has Mr Roarke called you yet for your fantasy? :rofl:

Dear ph,
BDAG on 1Co 8:5 has a great deal to do with the context of 8:6. You are maintaining that QEOS and KURIOS are parallell and equivalent terms and BDAG says that "Lords" are lower in rank anad in subjection to "gods."

In addition you have not answered WHY you consider this to be a restatement of Deut 6:4 when Deut 6:4 does not contain the word Adonay which is Hebrew for Lord but 1Co 8:6 has the word KURIOS which is Greek for Lord.

Could you please address that.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[jpholding]

To Uriah the Heap:

You cannot be made YHVH, you either are YHVH or you aren't.

Nice shot at irrelevancy. Acts 2:36, 16:30 does not have OT parallels. Nor does Matt. 27:63 or Rev. 7:14. 1 Cor. 8:6 does. Sorry!

The arguement that "Kurios" has to mean "YHVH" doesn't hold any water. Hehe.

Whoo hooo, ha ha ha! No excuses. Kurios IS used for YHWH in NT quotes of the OT. ! Cor. 8:6 clearly alludes to Deut. 6:4, as shown. You LOSE. :rofl: No more contriving excuses.

To Cal_minian, he of the lotion for pox:

BDAG on 1Co 8:5 has a great deal to do with the context of 8:6. You are maintaining that QEOS and KURIOS are parallell and equivalent terms

No, silly boy, that is not what I am saying at all. Go back and read it again: It is because of the parallel to Deut. 6:4 that I make my case.

In addition you have not answered WHY you consider this to be a restatement of Deut 6:4 when Deut 6:4 does not contain the word Adonay which is Hebrew for Lord but 1Co 8:6 has the word KURIOS which is Greek for Lord.

Yes, I have, pay attention. The NT uses kurios for YHWH. So 1 Cor. 8:6 subs in the right way to parallel Deut. 6:4. Adonay is not even needed to be in the picture.

Class dismissed! :rofl:

[Uriah-]

Okay...I'll let you just stay in your fantasy world. Don't expect me to respond to your silly posts anymore, I will just ignore them, for they are full of silly things that no one who would actually know what the Scriptures teach would try to say. I will check this thread here and there to make sure if anyone responds with something worth responding to. Shalom alaychem.

[jpholding]

06-28-2003 @ 08:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135058#post135058)
Uriah-:

Okay...I'll let you just stay in your fantasy world. Don't expect me to respond to your silly posts anymore, I will just ignore them, for they are full of silly things that no one who would actually know what the Scriptures teach would try to say. I will check this thread here and there to make sure if anyone responds with something worth responding to. Shalom alaychem.

I.e., you have no answer. But here's one more Chicken McNugget to chaw on from 1 Cor. 8:6:

8:6 But 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.

Rom. 11:34-6 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Hmm! What Paul ascribes just to God in Rom. 11, he splits between God and Jesus in 1 Cor. 8:6. Now isn't that curious. :rofl:

Silly things? Yes, we know who is silly. The people who read the text in English and isolated from larger contexts. Auf widdersehen!

[Uriah-]

By the why, I have made a thread on the "Addition of the virgin birth", but because I do not want to make whole bunch of new threads on the same topic, I would like to just give you the link to the original thread located on this link: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=285.topic